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

1: US High Court Won’t Decide Costco-Swatch Case

First off today, the Costco/Omega case decision has been handed down from the Supreme Court and the verdict was a tie. In a 4-4 split, the judges of the court were unable to rule on the case, thus allowing the Appeals Court ruling to stand. Omega had sued Costco claiming that the company had unlawfully imported copyrighted works, namely the logo on the face of their watches, for the purpose of reselling them at a lower price. Costco argued that the right of first sale authorized them to do so, however, Omega argued that first sale only applied to goods made within the U.S. and they still had the right to block the importing of the watches. The case ended in a tie because Justice Elena Kagan recused herself as she filed an amicus brief on the case before becoming a justice.

2: Japanese Publishers Accuse Apple of Selling Pirated E-Books

Next up today, Apple’s iPad and iBooks store may be an early success but four Japanese publishers have accused Apple of profiting from copyright infringing material, including Chinese translations of works by local authors Haruki Murakami and Keigo Higashino. The publishers are not accepting Apple’s policy of removing infringing material after notification, saying that since they profit from the sales, they have a higher responsibility. However, no lawsuit has been filed as of yet.

3: George Clinton Sues Black Eyed Peas for Copyright Infringement

Finally today, Funk icon George Clinton has sued the popular hiphop group the Black Eyed Peas for copyright infringement saying that two remixes of the group’s 2003 hit “Shut Up” uses elements from Parliament-Funkadelic 1979 song, “(Not Just) Knee Deep”. Clinton, who is the leader of Parliament-Funkadelic, joins Texas songwriter Bryan Pringle and Chicago singer Phoenix Phenom in suing the group as those two claim the group gained access to their demos and based their songs “I Gotta Feeling” and “Boom Boom Pow” on them.

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.

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

1: UK Government Lays Out Digital Plans

First off today, in her annual Queen’s Speech, Queen Elizabeth II outlined her governments plans for the new year as it relates tot he digital world.

In those plans is included a controversial proposal that will attempt to blunt illegal file sharing in two phases. The first will see a large-scale education campaign and file sharers receiving notices if they are suspected of infringement. If that fails to bring about adequate change, then in 2011 the government would have reserve powers to take additional actions such as use technical measures and, in some cases, disconnect file sharers.

There is a great deal of controversy over this element of the bill, especially as it may run counter to EU law, which is moving to place Web access as a right that can only be removed by the courts.

Obviously, we will know more about this law when the actual bill begins to circulate.

2: Elisabeth Hasselbeck Plagiarism Lawsuit Tossed

Next up, the judge in the Elisabeth Hasselbeck lawsuit has tossed the case. The VIew co-host had been accused of plagiarizing portions of her book “The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide” from self-published author Susan Hassett, who published a similar gluten-free cookbook and had, according to her testimony, sent Hasselbeck a copy after learning she suffered from a digestive disorder called celiac disease, which requires Hasselbeck to go on a gluten-free diet.

The lawsuit was dismissed because Hassett’s attorney, Richard Cunha, decided that, while, in his mind, there were incidents of plagiarism in the book, they were not worth pursuing, prompting the judge to dismiss the suit.

3: Adam Freeland Settles with Black Eyed Peas

Finally today, in a Facebook posting musician Adam Freeland announced that he has settled with the Black Eyed Peas. He had accused the band of using his song “Mancry” in their hit single “Party All the Time”. Black Eyed Peas admitted that there were elements of Mancry in the song, but said that it was an innocent mistake, not a plagiarism, as, according to them, their manager gave them the track to use.

Though the terms of the settlement have not been disclosed at this time, it appears that the results were favorable to Freeland as his posting also said, “If you see me in the next wk say ‘Party all the time’ I’ll buy you a beer. Woo hoop!”

The case had not reached a lawsuit but lawyers for the two sides began negotiating shortly after the allegations were first filed.

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: File-Sharing Heroine Lilly Allen is a Copyright Hypocrite

First of today, musician Lilly Allen has found herself in a bit of controversy. After starting up an anti-piracy blog entitled “It’s Not Alright”, the singer was then accused of plagiarizing an article from the site TechDirt regarding recent comments by rapper 50 Cents on the issue of piracy.

The irony and the hypocrisy was smacking to many, myself included, but the singer countered with an apology stating the following (caps and errors hers): “I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT I WASNT TRYING TO PASS OF THOSE WORDS AS MY OWN , HERE IS A LINK TO THE WEBSIITE I ACQUIRED THE PIECE FROM . Apologies to Michael Masnick.”

Masnick, who wrote the article, takes a very strong copyright reform and pro-file sharing stance and has said that he is not bothered by thd use of his content, but highlights how “When it’s natural and easy for people to copy like that, it’s time to learn to accept it and use it to your advantage.”

2: Fergie Accused of Copyright Infringement

Next up today, just after we close the books on the Coldplay/Satriani plagiarism case, we open up a new one. This time it is Fergie, best known from the group Black Eyed Peas, is being sued by the reggae group Groundation for copyright infringement.

According to the suit, Fergie’s song “Voodoo Doll” is “substantially and strikingly similar” to their song “”Each One Teach One”. Fergie’s song, which was off her solo record “The Dutchess” was released in 2006, Groundnation released their song in 2000.

Will.i.am, Fergie’s Black Eyed Peas bandmate is also named in the suit as the writer and producer of the song.

3: Scientology: The Web’s First Copyright-Wielding Nemesis

Finally today, Wired Magazine has a very interesting look back at some of the Church of Scientology’s early history with copyright on the Web, reminding us that even before the RIAA was a household name or Napster the bane of the recording industry, the Church of Scientology was using copyright as a weapon on the Web (technically Usenet) and even reached out to Finland to get an anonymizing service shut down to prevent users from posting content anonymously without the fear of litigation.

The Church of Scientology certainly has one of the more interesting relationships with copyright among various religions. Having famously used it, rightly or wrongly, to silence critics and litigate many into silence. However, the most popular weapon today is the DMCA takedown notice, which many of its notices have fallen under close scrutiny for possibly being false and/or misleading.

All in all, it puts a slightly new spin on the “wild west” internet years before Napster when it comes to copyright.

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Judge Curbs YouTube Suit On Copyrights

First off today, a Federal judge in one of YouTube’s ongoing copyright disputes has thrown out some of the damages that the plaintiffs has asked for. The case, which involves music publishers and Britain’s top soccer league among others, has seen punitive damages be thrown out and that the plaintiffs could not seek damages on foreign works that were not registered in the U.S.

The judge, however, did allow for damages on live broadcast footage uploaded to the service.

The case is moving forward and the plaintiffs are saying that they now have “clarity” on their case and are moving forward with what is left.

2: Judge Rules P2P Legal, Sites To Be Presumed Innocent

Next up, a judge in Spain, while refusing to grant an injunction against a file sharing site in the country, has become the first judge to say that P2P file sharing is completely legal. Saying that, “As a mere transmission of data between Internet users, do not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law.”

According to the judge, adding a work to a file sharing network does not make a copy of the file and the distribution portion of the Spanish copyright act mentions specifically the need for something tangible.

With that in mind, the judge refused to grant an injunction and set the case for a full trail to be held at a later date. What this may show though is that Spanish copyright law could be in serious need of updating if it isn’t available to address digital content, one way or another.

3: Did Black Eyed Peas Steal Freeland’s ‘Mancry’?

Finally today, a bit of a plagiarism brouhaha is forming between The Black Eyed Peas and Adam Freeland. Freeland accuses the band of using a portion of his 2007 song “Mancry” in their recently-released song “Party All The Time”. A YouTube video, which has been embedded in the article above, puts the two tracks side by side.

Personally, I have a very difficult time making a decision on this one. Though I hear the similarity between the two, not only is the alleged plagiarism just a few notes, but since The Black Eyed Peas used it in the background of other elements, its hard to get to hear it very clearly.

I’m going to turn this one over to the music theorists that know much more about this than I.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll 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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.