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

This week Patrick is reporting to us from the road and, due to a slow Internet connection, we couldn’t do the chat in front our live chat audience. However, it’s a good thing Patrick made time out of his busy travel schedule to talk because with this much copyright news, there’s no way we could have done two week’s worth next time!

This week we talk about the closure of Megaupload and the shakeup its caused in the cyberlocker scene. SOPA and PIPA are formally shelved following a wave of online protests and a similar group of protests fail to stop Poland and other EU countries from signing ACTA.

In short, it’s an action-packed week of copyright news that you don’t want to miss!

This week’s stories include:

• FBI Closes Megaupload, 7 Arrested including Founder/CEO Kim Dotcom
• Cyberlockers Scramble to Avoid Being Next
• Anonymous Launches Attacks Against Government and Copyright Holder Sites
• SOPA and PIPA Shelved Following Protests
• Poland, Others Sign ACTA Despite Protests and DDOS Attacks
• Mein Kampf Publication Put on Hold

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.

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

1: Spanish Group Looks to Sue FBI Over Megaupload File Loss

First off today, the Pirate Party in Spain is attempting to rally former Megaupload users to file a lawsuit against the FBI for seizing the site and, in the process, denying them access to their files. The FBI, which shuttered Megaupload last week on allegations of copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering, took offline millions of files that were stored on the service, at least some of which were not copyright infringing. The government has said it is unlikely users will be able to retrieve their files in the future. The Pirate Party is also looking at whether or not the seizure breached other elements of Spanish law, including misappropriation of personal data.

2: Wi-Fi Case Could Make Users Liable

Next up today, Liberty Media Holdings is suing some 13 Boston-area Internet subscribers because their Internet connection was used to illegally download the pornographic movie “Down on the Farm”. However, what separates this case from other Bittorrent lawsuits is that the plaintiffs are claiming negligence on the part of customers who have an open wifi, saying that they are at least partially responsible for any infringement that takes place over their connection due to their lack of protection on their wireless router. If the theory succeeds, it could have a drastic impact on businesses that offer public wifi as well as customers with unprotected connections.

3: B.o.B's 'Airplanes' Producers Slapped With Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Finally today, musician B.o.B’s latest hit “Airplane” has found itself at the center of a copyright controversy. Christine Dominguez has sued the producers behind the song claiming that they unlawfully cut her out of the writing credits. According to Dominguez she worked on and was credited for a previous version of the song that was released in 2009 but, when B.o.B’s version was released, they removed her from the credits, denying her both attribution and her share of the royalties. Dominguez is suing for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and failure to account for revenues derived from the song.

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.

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

This was a busy week for copyright news and, even without the burden of catching up on three weeks worth of new Patrick and I found ourselves struggling to get caught up on all the happenings. We started off with an unplanned update on the Cooks Source case, possibly the last, and then circled the world looking for the latest, greatest and strangest copyright news we could find.

This week’s stories include:

• Cooks Source Apologizes Again, Closes Doors
• Final Draft of ACTA Released
• FBI Probing “Anonymous” DDOS Attacks
• University to Report File Sharers to Police?
• Did George W. Bush Plagiarize His Book?
• We Have a New Copyright Litigation King

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.

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

1: FBI Probes 4chan’s ‘Anonymous’ DDoS Attacks

First off today, even as Anonymous has announced it is winding down its campaign of DDOS attacks against various pro-copyright organizations and sites, the FBI appears to be getting involved and is working with many of the targets of the attacks to perform a more thorough investigation. The last site attacked was the U.S. Copyright Office, an official U.S. government site that was briefly taken offline and slowed severely by the attack. The FBI investigation, however, appears to have started before that attack. There is no word on the progress of the investigation but participating in a DDOS attack can come with fines and imprisonment if found guilty.

2: High Court to probe Digital Economy Act

Next up today, the High Court in the UK has agreed to a request by British ISPs BT and TalkTalk to review the Digital Economy Act following their complaint that the legislation was rushed through Parliament and has several key flaws. Though the act remains in effect pending the full hearing, it could mean the end of the act if the court rules in favor of the ISPs, possibly restarting the entire process of negotiation between ISPs, copyright holders and the UK government.

3: Porn Industry Lawyer Is New Copyright King With 16,700 Lawsuits Filed

Finally today, we have a new leader in the race to see who can file the most copyright lawsuits. West Virginia attorney Kennth Ford has sued over 16,000 suspected file sharers over the past two weeks, leapfrogging the U.S. Copyright Group in the number of lawsuits. Operating under the name Adult Copyright Company, Ford represents various porn producers in targeting suspected file sharers. Ford uses the method adopted by the U.S. Copyright Group and others of suing suspected infringers in large numbers, obtaining their information and then seeking settlements that it shares with clients.

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.

1: Songwriters: Piracy “Dwarfs Bank Robbery,” FBI Must Act

First off today, the Songwriter’s Guild of America made its wishes known to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the White House, Victoria Espinel, as part of her public feedback request. According to the SGA online piracy should be a higher priority for the FBI and other enforcement agencies as the economic impact is greater than bank robbery and other crimes that the guild feels gets more attention. They are encouraging the FBI to go after heavy file sharers both criminally and civilly.

2: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch… All Pirates

Flickr user Orvatli is upset with Fox News after the news channel began using his photos taken of the volcanic eruption in Iceland on their site without permission or payment. Orvatli has sent Fox News an invoice for the use of his images, but has received no response. The follows a similar case involving misuse of Orvatli’s work by the blog Gizmodo, which paid him some for the use of his images, and as Fox News owner and media mogul Rupert Murdoch is taking an aggressive stance against infringement of his content on the Web.

3: Rapper Sues Lil Wayne For “Lollipop”, Claims Copyright Infringement

Finally today, Rapper Lil Wayne, who is currently incarcerated in New York’s Rikers Prison, has been sued by Philadelphia rapper Dirahn Gilliams, who claims that Wayne’s hit song “Lolipop” used elements from his song “Grinding Like A Goon”. The suit also names producers Jonsin and Deezle in the suit as well as Lil Wayne’s labels.

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.

1: Hollywood: Its Time For Court To Impose Pirate Bay Fines

First off today, the movie studios that successfully sued and pursued criminal charges against the Pirate Bay founders in Sweden are now pushing the court to levy fines against the founders of the site, claiming that they are still running the site despite the guilty verdicts. The verdict, which is under appeal, requires the admins to shut down the site though the men involved claim to have sold the site to a third-party, a claim the movie studios say they have seen no evidence of. The studios are seeking some 500,000 kronor ($69,000) in fines for the continued operation of The Pirate Bay.

2: Justice Appoints New FBI Agents, Attorneys To Focus On IP

Next up today, the FBI, to commemorate the 10th World Intellectual Property Day, has announced the hiring of 15 new assistant U.S. Attorneys and 20 special agents that will be dedicated to intellectual property issues. The 20 new agents will be added to the 31 who already specialize in this area and will be deployed to Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., where such squads already exist.

3: Sixth Copyright Suit Filed Over R-J Stories on Websites

Finally today, Righthaven LLC, a copyright-enforcement startup owned by the same company as the Las Vegas Review-Journal has filed a sixth lawsuit against a site allegedly reusing content from the newspaper. This one targets Mark Chavez, who the company says runs thelobolair.com, a Nevada sports site. It is unclear if other sites may be targeted in the near future.

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.

1: Biden’s “IP roundtable” Brings Together Big Content, FBI

First off today, there’s been a lot going on in Washington DC regarding copyright. Most recently, Vice President Joe Biden hosted a roundtable with content industry executives as well as FBI, Homeland Security and Victoria Espinal, the new copyright czar, to address piracy concerns

The goal of the discussion, according to officials, was to “Discuss ways to combat piracy in this rapidly changing technological age.” However, the event has drawn criticism from many as no media companies nor consumer interest group representatives were there, despite the even being billed as as one that brought together “all stakeholders” on enforcing copyright.

The event comes as Congress approved some $30 million in additional funding to fight piracy, which will be used for grants, additional FBI agents and more prosecution. No doubt, it has been a big week for content industries in Washington DC.

2: Copyright Abusers to Get Three Warnings

Next up today, storm clouds are gathering in New Zealand as the country braces for another copyright faceoff. The new administration there has laid out its proposal for Section 92a and, though the stance is much more relaxed than the previous, it will almost certainly draw controversy.

The previous government proposed a bill that could have disconnected alleged file sharers after just one accusation. However, that bill was defeated after an uproar caused the proposal to be abandoned.

However, the new proposal seems destined for a very similar fight. It incorporates a more traditional “three strikes” approach where alleged file sharers will receive warnings before disconnection is possible. There will also be a copyright tribunal system and a counternotice system so that those accused can have recourse. In severe cases of infringement, copyright holders would be able to seek up to $15,000 in damages from the copyright tribunal.

It seems almost certain that, despite its more tame approach, the new proposal will draw a large amount of controversy, just as similar legislation has in France.

3: Very Positive Statement By the US at WIPO

Finally today, two days ago we looked at a new WIPO treaty what will allow the import and export of books readable by the visually impaired, often created, as in the U.S., through exemptions in copyright law but barred from being taken out of the country.

At the time we reported the wide array of corporations who were against the proposed treaty, including the Chamber of Commerce, but it appears the U.S. itself has softened its stance on the issue and is at least open to the idea. Previously the U.S. had been against any such action, largely based upon the fear that it might increase piracy, but the U.S. delegation recently said that “We recognize that some in the international copyright community believe that any international consensus on substantive limitations and exceptions to copyright law would weaken international copyright law. The United States does not share this point to view.”

The statement was part of a larger statement on the issue where they expressed a desire to work with other nations on this issue and seemed to be open to a variety of option.

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.

Meanwhile, the rest of Americans, as well as the vast majority of copyright holders, were threatened with prison if we used the logo without permission.

Though the commenters to the original piece were worried about the nature of the logo and the preferential treatment that the government was giving big copyright, the FBI logo is relatively harmless abuse. It hasn’t done anything to stop piracy and, aside from being a slap in the face, has very little meaning to your average copyright holder.

However, the FBI logo is just a microcosm of the larger problem. The United States stands alone in the world as a country that has created a copyright class struggle by unfairly stacking the deck against your average rightsholder.

In short, the entire copyright system in the United States is tilted to favor big copyright. It makes possible both the $222,000 Jammie Thomas ruling and the recent misappropriation by Fox Sports of a cherished family photo.

This system ensures that individuals have almost no protection of their works while corporations are free to sue for massive amounts of money. The scariest part of all, the process only requires two simple laws, both of which should have been fixed a long time ago.

Registration Requirements

When the United States joined the Berne convention in 1988, one of the supposed requirements was that the U.S. was supposed to do away with all copyright formalities, making protection automatic upon creation of the work.

However, the United States dodged that requirement. Though they did make protection automatic upon fixation, it was decided to still require registration before either suing in a Federal court or obtaining statutory damages and attorney fees.

So, while you technically have all of the same rights on a registered work as an unregistered one, you can not enforce those rights without first paying the $30 or $45 fee to register your work with the United States Copyright Office. Ideally, this registration needs to be filed before the work is infringed to ensure that you can claim the maximum amount of damages.

The problem with this is very simple. Most individuals can not afford to register every single work and most don’t have time to file for registration before posting it online. Of the photographs, blog entries, stories and even novels posted on the Web, only a tiny fraction of a percent are actually registered.

Big copyright holders, such as the RIAA and MPAA, have no trouble with this requirement at all. When your spending thousands or even millions on a single copyrighted work, the registration fee is barely noticeable. Their distribution model also makes it possible to register before the work is seen outside their studio.

The result is that only a handful of copyright holders in the U.S. have access to our courts. Without registration many cases are thrown out and works registered after the infringement are, generally, only eligible for actual damages. Without statutory damages and attorney fees, such cases are rarely worth pursuing.

But when big copyright holders show up in court, they are able to sue for very big damages. Not only does the law make it possible, but since such cases rarely reach courtrooms, even these days, judges and juries have little reason not to give big judgments.

In short, one Jammie Thomas ruling makes sense, but if every copyright holder who was infringed could make that much or more, the system would fail. Both the law and the judgments would undergo something akin to a market shift and more reasonable rates would have to be reached.

Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of access. Not only does this keep rulings artificially high, but also enables them to take copyrighted works with relative immunity. Since we have no effective legal recourse, they can do, in many cases, exactly what they please.

Moral Rights

Another element of the Berne convention that the U.S. did not implement was the issue of moral rights.

In most countries, including Canada, artists have rights to the work that go beyond traditional copyrights. These include the right to attribution and the right to protect the integrity of the work, even after it has been sold.

In many countries, especially in Europe, these rights are inalienable, meaning they can not be bought, sold or given away. You can agree not to enforce those rights, but you can never outright surrender them.

Moral rights are an important protection for individuals in other countries. It means that, even when sells or gives way some or all of their copyright, the work will still bear their name and continue to work for them as it is distributed and copied.

Many see it as an anti-corporation set of rights as it protects the creator of a work against the publishers and distributors that purchase or acquire copyright interest in the work.

According to the United States, there was no need for specific moral rights legislation since much of it was covered under other statutes, specifically slander and libel.

But despite that claim, the U.S. did implement some moral rights in the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). However, those rights were limited in nature and restricted solely to certain kinds of visual artists. Writers, musicians and other copyright holders still have no concrete moral rights protection.

This means that, once you have sold commercial interest in your work, there is little that you can do to protect it, even if a third party comes along and plagiarizes it. This greatly limits your control over your name and reputation while putting control over the work in corporations with very little motive to defend your work.

However, since moral rights restrict what a copyright buyer can do with a purchased work, even if only slightly, corporations have typically opposed implementing any serious moral rights regime.

This, in turn promotes a “sell and forget” system that encourages copyright holders to sell away their works without questioning how they will be used once they are bought. This kind of complacency serves big copyright holders well and ensures that they are the only ones actively enforcing rights in the courtrooms.

Fixing the System

The solution to the problem is simple, fully implement the Berne convention standards, both in law and in spirit. Other countries have had these items in effect for decades and have not seen the kind of copyright insanity we see here in the United States.

Yes, there are some oddities in foreign laws, but overall they do a better job of protecting artists, the people copyright is supposed to protect, without trampling on users.

Basically, the U.S. copyright system was built from the ground up to be an almost purely commercial system. The rights of copyright holders are expressed almost exclusively in terms of dollars and cents, not creativity and art.

This has lead to the rise of not just big copyright as an entity, but a two-tiered copyright system. Even as more and more individuals are self-publishing and becoming copyright holders with a legitimate stake in their own work, albeit not always a financial one, the system does not treat them as such.

If the United States fulfilled the promises it made decades ago, this issue would be significantly lessened.

Unfortunately, given the grip that big copyright has on our current legal system, it seems unlikely that such a change will happen any time in the near future.

Conclusions

Before we can talk about copyright reform or adjusting the rights that copyright provides, we need to first make sure that all rightsholders are treated equally.

Simply put, any copyright reform that only impacts one kind of rightsholder is no more fair than the current system. Furthermore, as long as big copyright has all of the power and all of the court access, it is very hard for the majority to be heard.

But since the current system prohibits most copyright holders form leveraging their rights in a courtroom, it is easy for the corporations to cull the “us vs. them” system to obtain newer and stronger laws that benefit them alone.

Rather than looking at us as content creators and copyright holders, the system treats us primarily as consumers, even if we are producing over 99% of the copyrighted works available.

Once we have equal access and an equal voice, then we can talk about fixing the system. Without balance between the classes of copyright holders, there can be no balance between creator and consumer.

This class warfare greatly behooves big copyright. It is time to stop it and the way to start is to demand your own rights equal to those that the RIAA and MPAA gets.

It seems a strange way to reform the law, I admit. But is the only way we are going to be heard and taken seriously. Until we have legal power behind us, we are simply too easily ignored.

The logo, first announced in early 2004, is only for members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA).

Unauthorized use of the logo as part of an anti-piracy campaign is punishable by up to one year imprisonment and is considered to be a form of impersonation. In fact, the law is so strict that I can not, comfortably, even display the logo on this this site as Title 18 Section 701 makes it illegal to even be in possession of such a logo, thus why I used a parody logo in its place.

This is, unfortunately, the exact kind of insanity that makes good people distrust and despise copyright law and supports the notion that copyright law is solely for big corporations.

Something has got to change.

The Problem

The problem that this creates is fairly straightforward, it divides copyright holders into two classes: Those who receive the full support and resources of the FBI and those who do not.

Realistically, such a system two-tier system has long since existed on the civil side. Created by the senseless copyright registration system and furthered by the high cost of filing suit, wealthy copyright holders have always had advantages over smaller ones when it came to enforcing their rights.

The logo, however, not only codifies the such a system on the criminal side, but does so in a dangerous and calculated way. Not only does one have to be a wealthier copyright holder to take advantage of this logo, but they have to be a part of one of the select trade groups that the FBI has inked deals with.

Though the amount of money spent creating the logo is likely very small and the effectiveness of it is minimal, the fact is that the FBI has spent time and resources creating an anti-copyright infringement tool and then only offers the fruits of that labor to an extreme elite of copyright holders is absurd.

This is not only unfair and counter to the ideals upon which copyright was created but also perpetuates the image of a “us vs. them” struggle on matters of copyright that has helped to make piracy so accepted in the first place.

In short, the FBI logo not only names “the enemy” but throws the government’s full support behind it. A pair of mistakes that hurts copyright holders of all stripes.

Fixing the Issue

Though a two-tier justice system is a cold reality in most regards, it is rare for the government to so openly codify and nurture it, much less for government to willingly create it.

However, fixing the problem is no small task. There are only two solutions: Open up the logo so anyone can use it or do away with it altogether.

The first solution is a non-starter. Though fair, it would greatly worsen copyright confusion that is already so prevalent as to be almost inescapable. With so many copyright myths already in circulation, letting everyone use the FBI logo would just create more misunderstandings.

Since no actual new rights come with use of the logo, your average copyright holder would have nothing to gain from using it with their work. Letting the general public use it would only create more confusion and further complicate an already difficult copyright situation.

The second solution, doing away with the logo altogether, is by far the best option.

Anti-piracy trade groups have always had the ability to create their own logos and place them on their own works. Though an FBI logo looks more official, it doesn’t carry any additional weight, at least not in theory.

In fact, Webmasters have been doing something similar for years, creating copyright badges that alert visitors that the content is protected. Though the effectiveness of these badges is more than debatable, it is a right of copyright holders to create and post such warnings as they see fit as long as they are within the bounds of the law. There is no need for the FBI to create an “official” logo, much less for them to only allow certain rights holders to access it.

Though the FBI clearly has a role in dealing with criminal cases of copyright infringement, the vast majority of copyright disputes are civil in nature and the responsibility of expressing rights and convincing users not to infringe them has generally been the responsibility of the copyright holder. The FBI’s involvement in that area is odd enough without restricting it to the major players.

Consolation Prizes

To the FBI’s credit, they do try to offer a few gifts to the rest of the copyright holders in the world.

First, they claim that they are “evaluating the licensing arrangements… with a view towards permitting the broadest possible public use of the seal by all individuals and businesses with a copyright interest.”

However, the evaluation seems to be going very slowly as the wording on the page has not changed in over three years.

Second, in lieu of using the actual anti-piracy logo, the FBI does offer an alternative. According to their page, any one is free to use the following text “without FBI approval”.

“Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.�?

Sadly, that block of text is all we get from the FBI. Worst of all, the facts contained in the text, at least in terms of practicality, are dubious at best. Criminal copyright infringement requires either commercial financial gain, an infringement worth more than $1,000 in retail or the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial sale.

Though the text is accurate to the law as it is written, it is nowhere near the reality of the situation. Simply put, the FBI will not be investigating your content theft problems and no block of text, or even the original logo, will change that.

Conclusions

Giving certain copyright holders a special set of rights, no matter how limited or useless those rights may be, is unfair. Copyright is supposed to protect all rights holders equally, regardless of how much money they have, what organizations they are a part of and how much profit they hope to gain.

For the government to set aside rights and tools for big-name copyright holders is unacceptable.

Though the FBI may have had good intentions when it started this program in 2004, all it is doing is harming any remaining goodwill copyright holders have with users by giving official credence to the typically overbearing copyright warnings of commercial products.

Worst of all though, it is creating two classes of copyright holders, those who have access to the FBI logo and those who do not. The distinction in rights may be minimal, but it shows a clear government preference for one set of copyright holders.

That, in turn, only creates more discord and fails to serve any rights holders, including those who get to use the logo.

It was a bad idea then and it is much worse now. It is time to cut our losses and end the logo for good.

The Anti-Anti-Piracy Logo was created by Nick Schaffner and has been dedicated into the public domain.