![]() |
(Image: Mark Bourdillon/Love Productions/BBC) |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f401/0f401f37a200630373e6c2c311c32e50936d3b27" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f222d/f222da3dbd2807e24881ed984942e5494824a8e1" alt=""
Techdirt reports that it now appears that a judge has begun to get a little more curious about "copyright troll" Malibu Media and how it goes about finding "infringers" to "shakedown with settlement agreements". Techdirt says that in the past, evidence showed that other similar copyright trolls like Prenda, were engaged in seeding their own content, which would make the file authorized, and thus the shakedown letters a form of "copyright misuse." There have long been rumours that Malibu Media, perhaps in association with the infamous "international men of mystery" running the behind-the-scenes operation out of Germany, may be seeding their own files as well. Food for thought!
And finally more on Malibu .... the company behind the X-Art adult movies that has filed more than 3,500 lawsuits against alleged illegal online sharers of its adult content in the USA has been back to court to seek an order to say that labels such as "porn" and “copyright troll” (which the Kat just used!) can't be used against it in court. Whilst a self admitted maker of 'beautiful erotica', Malibu recently filed a motion asking a federal court to block the defendant from using terms that it believes “would be unfairly prejudicial” saying that as a Plaintiff, Malibu has been referred to in many different negatively connoted ways, including: ‘copyright troll,’ ‘pornographer,’ ‘porn purveyor,’ and ‘extortionist,’” and the motion reads: “Referring to Plaintiff at trial by any title except ‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Malibu Media’ would be unfairly prejudicial and would only serve to impede the impartial administration of justice.” One commentator added that Malibu may also be protecting it's copyright claims against arguments that pornography cannot be protected by copyright laws in the U.S, not least as some argue that pornography does not promote the progression of useful arts, More on tne protection of copyright by copyright here and Eleonora posted an article on this very matter back in 2012 - 'How Porn Friendly is Copyright?' so have a look at this and the coments - which are very relevant here.
Has anyone noticed how much cake has featured on this Blog recently?
1 comment:
Interesting update on the BBC's Bake Off 'Sound of Music' use, and the potential of a parody exception to infringement by rebecca Gulbul on the IPKat here http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/crumbs-bake-off-parody-goes-off-air.html
Post a Comment