Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Sam Machkovech at Ars Technica reports that PUBG Corp, which is a wholly-owned subsidary of the Korean game publisher Bluehole, has filed a lawsuit against NetEase over alleged copyright and trademark infringement of PUBG Corp’s famous game Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG).
At issue is a pair of mobile games released by Netease including Rules of Survival and Knives Out, games in which PUBG Corp claims are copyright infringing clones of PUBG. According to PUBG Corp, they contacted Apple in January about the games and Apple forwarded the complaint to Netease (it’s unclear if PUBG Corp asked for the games to be removed). Netease responded saying that they did not see any copyright violation.
According to PUBG Corp, Netease not only copied the format of the game when releasing their mobile clones, but also copied or imitated many assets including the use of frying pans, energy drinks and more. PUBG Corp has asked for damages and an injunction barring Netease from distributing its games.
Next up today, Paige Minemyer at FireceHealthcare reports that Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against Tennessee-based Community Health Systems Inc. (CHS) for copyright infirngement.
According to Microsoft, CHS committed copyright infringement by allowing hospitals it sold to continue to use Microsoft products hosted on CHS servers. The Microsoft terms of service says users can not share or lend their licenses with others. However, Microsoft alleges that CHS did just that by selling off hospitals and allowing them to continue to use software licensed to CHS even though they should have obtained their own license.
Microsoft further claims that, in 2016, they began trying to verify licenses and compliance but CHS only provided a small fraction of what was necessary to fulfill their obligations. The lawsuit comes amid financial hardships for CHS, which has been selling off hospitals in a bid to reduce its debt and losses.
Finally today, Chris Cooke at Complete Music Update reports that the dispute between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and U.S. ISP Grande Communications will continue as the judge in the case has followed and earlier recommendation to not dismiss the case and, instead, issue a split ruling that lets the case continue.
According to the RIAA, Grande does not take adequate action against repeat infringers and, as such, no longer qualifies for safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). As such, the RIAA argues that Grande and its parent company should be held liable for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement.
Earlier, a magistrate judge recommended that the parent company shouldn’t be a defendant in the case and that only contributory infringement should be considered. The presiding judge has agreed with that and, though the case is narrowed considerably, the main issues are still in play setting the stage for a possible trial.
That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.