Skip to content

Mar 5 , 2015

0
Subscribe:

Error message

  • Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in theme_table() (line 1891 of /home4/opbmedia/public_html/penntipp.org/includes/theme.inc).
  • Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in theme_table() (line 1954 of /home4/opbmedia/public_html/penntipp.org/includes/theme.inc).
  • Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /home4/opbmedia/public_html/penntipp.org/includes/common.inc).
  • Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in menu_set_active_trail() (line 2386 of /home4/opbmedia/public_html/penntipp.org/includes/menu.inc).

A New Kind of Troll Rears its Head

by Rui Li

Freeplay is a website that boasts "15,000 songs, free music for YouTube and more." On February 9, 2015, two YouTube producers, Machinima and Collective Digital Studio, filed suit against FreePlay for (1) violation of unfair competition laws and (2) declaratory judgment stating that Plaintiffs are not infringing copyright despite Freeplay’s actions.

 

The YouTube producers accused Freeplay for its "bait and switch with extortion." Their complaints allege that Freeplay lured in the producers by promising "free" music for YouTube. However, after they used the music on YouTube multi-channel networks (MCNs), the website unilaterally altered its terms and conditions of use and proclaimed that the free use of its music on YouTube is inapplicable on YouTube multi-channel networks (MCNs). Following the change, Freeplay started issuing outrageous monetary demands to consumers who had used its music on MCNs by alleging that the music is subject to Freeplay's copyright.


The producers demonstrate Freeplay’s illegitimate interest by also noting two facts. First, Freeplay, unlike most content owners, does not simply issue a takedown notice to request the removal of the content, but rather sends a shakedown demand, threatening litigation if the consumer does not pay for the license fee. Second, the third party that monitors the website for potential infringement and makes monetary demands is the same person. These facts, the producers claimed, indicate that Freeplay is not running a content license business, but a copyright troll.


Freeplay disagrees. Its attorney, Oren Warshavsky, said the allegations were "baseless." Warshavsky affirmatively said in an e-mail: "Freeplay intends to zealously protect its rights and reputation and is committed to doing the same for the artists it represents."


While the case is still in its preliminary stages, it will be heard before Judge Ralph Zarefsky and stands to influence both current and forthcoming copyright trolls. If the court comes down strongly on Freeplay, it can deter a troll-like proliferation seen with patents and can prevent the negative repercussions from such trolls.


Source: Ars Technica