Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

Note: Due to the time away, today’s 3 Count will include stories from the past week, regular daily posting will resume tomorrow.

1: GoDaddy Bows to Boycott, Now ‘Opposes’ SOPA Copyright Bill

First off today, domain registrar and Web host GoDaddy was the subject of controversy after it was learned the company was a supporter of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The act, which would enable rightsholders to obtain court orders to block ISPs, payment processors and advertisers from providing access to or services for “rogue” websites primarily engaged in piracy, has been the subject of massive online protests. Those protests turned their focus on GoDaddy in the form of a boycott. GoDaddy eventually did bow to the pressure, removing its name from the list of official supporters and has now come out in opposition of the act.

2: Indie: Atari Claiming Copyright Infringement on ‘Hundreds’ of iOS games, Atari Responds

Next up today, video game maker Atari has filed potentially hundreds of takedown notices on games in the Apple App Store against games that it claims too closely resemble classic Atari games. The move has created controversy among many indie developers, including Black Powder games, who had their games, Vector Tanks and Vector Tanks Extreme, removed from the App Store. Atari has responded saying that it has “great respect for the indie developer community” but that it will “vigorously protect” its intellectual property.

3: Medical Diagnostic Test Taken Down By Copyright Claim

Finally today, for 30 years doctors have used the Mini–Mental State Examination (MMSE), a short and simple but effective survey to diagnose patients. However, recently, a license was granted to the Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) to sublicense the work, leading to widespread enforcement of its copyright. That, in turn, led other researchers to create the “Sweet 16″ test, which functioned similarly but with different questions. However, now, due to a claim from PAR, that test too has been removed from the Web since it, according to PAR, uses portions from the original test. There is no word if there will be any action against the PAR over the test.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: RIAA Wants ReDigi Out of the Business of Selling “Used” iTunes Tracks

First off today, music retailer ReDigi has received a cease and desist notice from the RIAA claiming that the company is infringing on the rights of musicians by reselling “used” iTunes tracks. ReDigi’s process verifies that the tracks are legally bought and then removes all copies of it from the original computer and then puts it up for resale on their site at a drastically reduced price. According to the RIAA, this remains an infringement as copyright law does not allow an owner to make a copy of a file, resell the copy and then destroy the original. ReDigi, however, had an analysis of their own done and found that their service is legit. The RIAA also takes issue with ReDigi’s music sampling service, which allows potential buyers to listen to 30-second clips of the songs.

2: Copyright Group Tries to Collect Cash From Open Source Event

Next up today, in German, a rights group named GEMA has demanded that the organizers of two dance parties, held simultaneously in Weimar and Leipzig, pay 200 Euros ($270) for using music GEMA holds licensing rights to. However, the two parties were open source-themed and DJs were instructed to only play Creative Commons-Licensed music. Even stranger, a quirk in German law makes it so that GEMA doesn’t have to prove that any artists they represent were played and, instead, the organizers must prove that they weren’t. The German Pirate Party, however, wishes to challenge the case.

3: Apple launches iTunes Match in the U.S.

Finally today, those who have been waiting for iTunes Music Match will now have their chance to sign up. The service works by enabling iTunes users to sync their music with the cloud. This includes both tracks bought through iTunes and those acquired elsewhere. Those tracks, if they are part of iTunes’ database, are replaced with high-quality version from iTunes and synced that way. If the tracks are unavailable, the originals are synced.The service costs $25 per year and covers 25,000 songs.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Austin Photographer Sues Apple, Saying Apps Stole Her Images

First off today, photographer Shanti Deva Korpi is suing Apple claiming that two apps sold in their App Store, the Unofficial Guide to Hipstamatic and Photoinspire, copied images she took and republished them without attribution. According to the complaint, Korpi uses another iPhone app, Hipstamatic to take photos but claims that the two apps above automatically copied and republished her images. Further, according to Kropi, Apple ignored at least six takedown notices regarding the apps, though Photoinspire was eventually removed. The suit seeks unspecified damages.

2: Shah Rukh Khan Film Ra.One Faces Copyright Challenge

Next up today, in India a court has ordered Bollywood star Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan to put down a deposit of $200,000 to secure the rights to release his new movie, Ra.One. The move comes after a writer, Yash Patnaik, claims he came up with the concept for the movie and is now owed 10% of the royalties. According to Patnaik’s attorney, he worked with the films screenwriter, Mushtaq Sheikh, only to be cut out at the end. However, Khan and his studio deny these charges, claiming that the story described by Patnaik is very different.

3: Lack of Copyright Allows Vendors to Cash in on Rally Squirrel

Finally today, as the St. Louis Cardinals are playing in the World Series against the Texas Rangers, St. Louis vendors are getting an unlikely boost from a rodent. During the division playoffs against the Philadelphia Phillies, a squirrel ran across the field in both games 2 and 3, the squirrel(s) became known as “The Rally Squirrel” and has been featured on everything from t-shirts to caps. For vendors this has been a boon as the lack of copyright and/or trademark on the squirrel means that they can sell products without a license, so long as they don’t include footage from the games or logos for the team. The squirrel itself remains at larger.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show

First off today, a Freedom of Information Act request by researcher Christopher Soghoian has unveiled that administration representatives, including the current Copyright Czar, Victoria Espinel, worked in tandem with both the entertainment industries and ISPs to broker the recent “six strikes” deal. That deal has ISPs volunteering to forward notices and possibly cut access of those accused repeatedly of copyright infringement. The involvement was widely speculated on, but the emails reveal both exactly how close the ties were and how little involvement was seen from public interest groups, such as Public Knowledge, who seem to have been brought into the discussion as an afterthought. The deal, which was struck in July, was an agreement between the nation’s largest IPSs and largest copyright holders and is not binding under law.

2: Govt Considers ‘Streamlined’ Piracy Policy

Next up today, in Australia Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland is calling for a streamlined process for copyright holders to obtain information about potential infringers from their ISPs. McClelland wants to amend the Copyright Act to alter the safe harbor protections so that ISPs have legal motivation to provide the information under a copyright-holder pays system. The system would according to McClelland, would come with judicial oversight and legal safeguards against misuse of information. Submissions for discussion on the proposal are being accepted until November 22nd.

3: Artists Battle Over Credit for Jobs Tribute Logo

Finally today, the dispute over the Apple logo with Steve Jobs silhouette, which became very popular shortly after his death, is starting to get more interesting. At least three designers are reporting to have created the logo and, as reported earlier, one has already filed a registration with the U.S. Copyright Office over it. Though it was originally credited to Jonathan Mak, two others, Chris Thornley and Farzin Adell have also claimed to have created it (the latter being the one who registered it). However, all three seem to acknowledge that it was a likely coincidence the others came up with the same idea and there seems to be no actual animosity.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: U.S. Top Court Rejects Internet Music Download Case

First off today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case regarding Internet downloads, letting a lower court ruling that said Internet downloads were not public performances stand. The suit stemmed from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which sued to have digital downloads declared as public performances so they could collect royalties, potentially in the tens of millions, on digital sales for songwriters and composers. The Appeals Court, however, ruled that downloads don’t meet the criteria for a public performance and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment, letting the ruling stand.

2: Supreme Court to Consider Whether Congress Can Restore Copyright

Next up today, the Supreme Court will hear a case that pits teachers, conductors and other content users against the U.S. government. At issue is whether Congress can take works out of the public domain once they have been placed there. The suit stems from treaties and copyright extensions that removed works from the public domain and placed them under copyright protection again, works including “Peter and the Wolf” and Alfred Hitchcock’s movie “Number 17″. If they win their case, these works could be placed back into the public domain and be eligible for use by all without paying a fee.

3: Mac clone maker may take fight with Apple to Supreme Court

Finally today, Mac clone maker Psystar has announced that they are prepared to take their case to the Supreme Court. Psystar has been involved with litigation over Apple, which sued them claiming that Psystar’s making of Mac clones, computers running Apple’s OSX operating system though not made by Apple, was a violation of Apple’s OSX license. Apple won both in the lower court and on appeal, the courts agreeing that it was a license violation and shooting down Psystar’s claim of copyright abuse, but Psystar’s lawyers say they are prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court if needed.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Government Reintroduces Copyright Legislation

First off today, Canada’s Industry Minister, Christian Paradis, has re-introduced controversial copyright legislation that will, if passed, add DMCA-like protections against the circumvention of digital locks. The law also legalizes certain forms of format-shifting, such as recording a TV show, that are currently outlawed. The legislation is widely expected to pass now that conservatives hold a majority in the House of Commons.

2: Is Amazon’s Silk browser a copyright pirate?

Next up today, Amazon yesterday introduced its new “Kindle Fire” tablet, which comes with a new mobile browser named “Silk”. The browser uses backend caching by Amazon’s cloud network in order to speed up mobile browsing though many are wondering if Amazon’s caching of copyrighted content in this manner could violate copyright law. Most caching is deemed to be legal but some fear Amazon’s system goes a bit too far beyond the norm, especially with its predictive page loading technology, which anticipates your next page click an pre-loads the content.

3: Mac Software Limits Don’t Violate Copyright

Finally today, Psystar, the apple clone maker that was sued by Apple back in 2009, lost its appeal to the 9th Circuit. Psystar had claimed that Apple was misusing copyright by limiting its license of OSX for use only on Apple products. However, the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously that no such misuse took place and that Apple had not attempted to stifle creativity or competition. The ruling affirms a permanent injunction barring Psystar from selling computers with OSX installed.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Senate Committee Agrees Illegal Streaming is a Felony

First off today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, which would make the unlicensed streaming of copyrighted content for commercial use a felony. The act closes what is widely seen as a loophole in the law, one where uploading and downloading such content is a crime but streaming is not expressly mentioned. The bill will now move to the Senate floor where it is expected to receive wide support from legislators and the President alike.

2: Rebecca Black Pulls Infamous ‘Friday’ Video From YouTube

Next up today, the copyright battle between Rebecca Black, the singer behind the infamous “Friday” music video, and ARK Music Factory, the vanity publisher who helped create the video and song, is heating up. Earlier in the week ARK had made the song available for rent for $2.99 prompting Black’s attorneys to file a DMCA takedown notice on the song and get the video, which had received well over 150 million views, removed from the Web.

3: Why iTunes Match has Indie Soul Label Singing the Blues

Finally today, even though all the four major record labels are on board with iTunes Match, Apple’s new service to help move tracks, no matter where they were acquired, into the cloud, some smaller labels are not so sure. This includes Chicago-based Numero Group, which has lashed out at iTunes Match publicly. According to them, there is “great risk” in what Apple and the other labels are doing and called Apple’s offer both a “pittance” and an “insult” while saying that it was not in line with their responsibility to their artists to take the offer. However, the label’s representative did say that, for consumers, iTunes Match is great and that he would continue to buy tracks from iTunes and use the free syncing feature for purchased tracks.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It’s a tech theme this week as Patrick and I not only go over some video game news, both personal and copyright-related, but we also go in-depth with Apple’s iCloud offerings and compare them to Amazon and Google’s offerings. Outside of the tech world, we have political news as a report filed with the U.N. calls Internet access a human right and we even have some rap news as Eminem prepares to go to battle with Audi in Germany over a very similar ad to his famous Chrysler commercial here in the states.

This week’s stories include:

• Apple Announces iCloud and iTunes Match
• U.N. Report Calls Web Access a Human Right
• Music Industry Backtracks on Disconnecting Pirates
• Lawsuit against CBS/CNET Shrinks Dramatically
• Eminem Sues Audi
• Duke Nukem Forever Leaked on Bittorrent

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Of particular interest to those interested in copyright is how iCloud works, or will work, with iTunes and music and music. On that front, Apple made two announcements, the first was that iCloud would make it easy to sync and download purchased music on all devices with the same iTunes account, a feature widely expected and non-controversial.

The second, however, was regarding its paid iTunes Match service which, for $25 per year, will allow users to match non-iTunes music they have in their library, including tracks ripped from CD, purchased from other vendors or downloaded illegally, and have that music replaced with high-quality official versions from the iTunes store that are also synced via iCloud.

As a result of this, iTunes Match has been called everything from amnesty for pirates, a laundering service for pirated music and even a surrender by the record labels on the issue of piracy.

However, a recent article by FastCompany (sent to me by Patrick O’Keefe) paints a very different picture of iCloud’s replationship to piracy. According to it, music executives, most of whom have already inked deals to make the service happen, are on board with the idea for many reasons including to recoup at least some money from pirated tracks, which were previously a total loss, and gain some analytics about what users are listening to and downloading.

More importantly though, labels view this as a way of getting pirates used to paying something, anything, for music again as they prepare to move to the next phase of music distribution, subscription services, which many hope will eventually replace individual sales as the primary way consumers pay for music.

But regardless of the future plans, iTunes Match has implications on the larger piracy fight, though they probably aren’t as great as some people think.

Not a White Flag, But a Different Attack

Historically, the record industry has not been the best tacticians when it comes to piracy. Not only did they famously sue thousands of individuals for file sharing, but they also let nearly four years pass between when they first filed suit against Napster and the launch of their first serious legitimate alternative.

However, in more recent years they have gotten a great deal more savvy about how to deal with piracy and far more creative. For example, the record labels’ close relationship with YouTube has not only opened up a new, often very lucrative, revenue stream but it also has had an impact on music piracy by giving would-be casual pirates a legitimate, free and convenient option for listening to music and watching music videos.

This is similar in many ways to services such as Spotify in Europe have also provided a quick music-listening fix for those who want to listen to a track as a trial or get a song out of their head.

The impact of this strategy is debatable because of so many variables at play, but a recent study found that music files were extremely rare on P2P networks, replaced instead by movies, software, pornography, etc.

The record labels have, in recent years, put a focus on developing services and relationships that beat piracy at its own game while still earning them revenue. Though they haven’t been able to turn around their sagging profits yet, there has definitely been a noticeable impact, at least among pirates.

All of this being said, piracy is not going away as an issue for the record labels, instead, it may even be growing in importance, especially during this period of transition.

Still Focused on Piracy

As recently as February Universal Music Group’s head of digital said that piracy was his company’s “biggest global issue.”

Piracy and traditional piracy enforcement isn’t going away for the record labels. Instead, they are finally integrating their piracy enforcement as part of a larger strategy, one that is designed to woo casual pirates back to the fold while trying to decrease the damage piracy does to their bottom line.

This continued focus on piracy has shown in the policy and lobbying efforts. The RIAA recently came out strongly in favor of the controversial PROTECT IP bill in the U.S., which will enable the blocking of suspected pirate website along with other piracy countermeasures. Though the record labels softened their stance in Australia, backing away from encouraging the disconnection of suspected pirates, they are still favoring other, unspecified, actions be taken against pirates.

If there was an actual “white flag” moment for the record labels on the issue of piracy, it came when the industry announced they were no longer suing individuals for file sharing. But what it really turned out to be was a change in tactics in the fight against piracy, one that steps away from a legal fight with individuals and one that targets distributors of unlawful content.

This focus is likely to continue because the success or failure of iTunes Match and iCloud will largely depend on how many former pirates it brings into the fold. If illegal options are too easy, too freely available and too widespread iTunes Match could, very easily, become nothing more than a piracy laundering service, one where pirates do little more than legitimize ill-gotten tracks.

In fact, theoretically, things could actually get worse with iTunes Match if legitimate customers decide it is cheaper and easier to pirate tracks and “launder” them through iTunes, actually costing them potential revenue with many customers.

To prevent this, as well as to set the stage for subscription services, record labels have to make sure that legitimate options are easier and better than illegal alternatives and part of that means engaging in at least some piracy enforcement.

However, that enforcement doesn’t have to come in the form of a war against individuals, something the record labels have already shown. It will instead be waged against sites and companies that make music available illegally. Targeting the distribution network of pirated music, not people obtaining and sharing it.

Bottom Line

So what does iTunes Cloud and iTunes Match mean for piracy enforcement. Something I’ve been saying on this site for a long time, that piracy enforcement can only be a part of a larger strategy. The record labels are seeing that and iTunes Match is as much a part of their anti-piracy strategy as their lawsuit against LimeWire.

There’s no silver bullet answer for the challenges the Web has created for copyright holders of all sizes. Surviving, let alone thriving, is going to involve a multi-pronged approach coupled with some significant risks.

The record labels are seeing that and are responding to piracy with a cohesive strategy that seems to be generating at least some positive results.

The movie studios, however, are still using record label tactics from the mid 2000s (at least in some cases), suing file sharers by the thousand in a campaign fraught with legal woes.

That being said, many of the movie studios are also growing wise too, working closely with Netflix to provide a cheap, on-demand and reliable service that can easily compete with pirate offerings in terms features, convenience and even price.

However, the movie industry, from a business standpoint, has different challenges it has to face online which may mean the models that may work for the record industry will need to be rewritten to work for them.

In many ways, they are in a similar position to the music industry, only the music industry has a long head start on tackling their issues.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Why Copyright Holders Love iTunes Match And Pirates Hate It

First off today, more feedback and discussion about Apple’s new iCloud service, in particular its Music Match feature, has been coming in. iCloud, which wirelessly syncs your music across all devices connected to your iTunes account, works with Music Match, which scans your library of songs, including those taken from other sources (legal and illegal) and replaces them with high-resolution legal copies from iTunes that can be synced using iCloud. Copyright holders, who signed deals with Apple to make the service happen, are happy about the new offering as they will be receiving a portion of the $25 per year subscription. However, some pirates, including Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay fame, are concerned about locking in one’s music to a single platform and the possibility of Apple removing infringing songs without warning.

2: Feds Seize New Domain, Add To “Batshit” Conspiracy Theories

Next up today, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized the domain of a longtime anti-vaccine activist claiming copyright infringement, a move that has stirred conspiracy theories. According to the owner of the domain, the reason for the seizure was because his domain was hacked and filled with some 70 GB of pirated material as well as links to other illegal content. According to the domain owner, this is a ploy to destroy him, his message and his site, which he has already reopened at a different domain. ICE has not commented on the seizure.

3: Kino.to Raided In Massive Police Operation, Admins Arrested

Finally today, the popular movie streaming site Kino.to has been shut down following the arrest of some 13 people in four different countries. The site hosted no illegal content directly but streamed content uploaded elsewhere, including many popular movies. Though the site was primarily popular with German-speaking countries, it earned a place on the MPAA “notorious markets” list and had been the subject of an injunction in Austria. Police are still hunting for a 14th person suspected of operating the site.

Suggestions

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.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.