Plagiarism Today is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA license. This means that you are free to copy and reuse content on Plagiarism Today as long as you attribute the article (with link if possible and appropriate) and that any derivative works you make based upon the article are licensed under the same terms.

This license is for both commercial and non-commercial use.

Please bear in mind that you can do this without asking for permission. Though I appreciate all of you who have written to ask my permission and I understand wanting to be doubly careful when dealing with a site dedicated to plagiarism issues (I know I would be), one of the goals I had with this site was to educate as many people and give out as much information as possible. That is something I believe this license helps me achieve and I wish to encourage the content to be distributed as freely as I can within reason.

The only caveat is that the images that are displayed with the articles are licensed under different terms. Though most are either screen grabs from relevant sites, logos or images from free stock photo sites such as Morguefile and sxc.hu, some are licensed just to Plagiarism Today. So, while the text is available for copying, please use caution with the images. The same is true for comments, which are copyrighted by the people who submitted them.

Bear in mind that I made this choice years ago because I believed it was right for myself and for this content. I don’t believe it is right for all content nor will I use the same license for every work I create. Part of being smart about copyright means looking at your work, your situation and your goals to find the right license for you.

Still, with Plagiarism Today I believe strongly, as I did when I first made the choice years ago, that this is the right move for this site and the goals I have with it.

Plagiarism Today Elsewhere on the Web

Finally, there’s also been some confusion as to where you can get access to Plagiarism Today content elsewhere on the Web, in particular what accounts are used for what purposes.

When it comes to social media, I keep two kinds of accounts, hybrid site/personal ones and strictly site-related ones. The hyrbid ones will include most site news but will also have personal updates from me. Site ones are strictly site-related and will contain no personal tweets or updates.

Here’s where you can find the various accounts:

Hybrid (Personal/Site):

Twitter
Facebook (Subscribe available)
Google+

Site Only

Facebook
Google+

There is no site-only Twitter feed at this time as I’ve had issues in the past with RSS posting. If there’s interest in such an account, I will create it.

All in all, if you want just the site updates, you can add the site-only social media feeds. If you don’t mind my bad jokes and personal postings, you can add any of the hybrid ones.

Hopefully that clears up those two issues and I return you to your regularly scheduled posting on Monday! Have a great weekend!

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

1: Copyright Troll’s Assets Targeted for Seizure

First off today, news appears to be getting worse for Righthaven, the company that formerly filed lawsuits over content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, the latter of which has since dropped the service. A former Righthaven defendant, which won on the grounds of fair use, is petitioning the court to have U.S. Marshalls seize the company’s assets in order to pay a $34,000 judgment that he won against Righthaven. Righthaven has ceased filing lawsuits pending the resolution of many of the ongoing cases, this one included, but has said that paying $34,000 judgment could result in a bankruptcy filing and has asked the court to stay the order.

2: BMI’s 2011 Revenues at All-Time High

Next up today, even as CD and other music sales decline overall, royalty collection is continuing to increase. Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI), which collects royalties for music publishers and songwriters, reported a 1.5% increase in overall collections this year, $931 million this years versus $917 million last. Payouts to their clients also increased, up to $796 million this year from $789 million last. BMI services over 650,000 licensed businesses and more than 500,000 music publishing members.

3: Girls Are Not Into The Pirate Bay, Or BitTorrent

Finally today, as the first numbers are released from the largest file-sharing survey in history, which was held on The Pirate Bay back in April, it appears that, while file sharing sites may be a great place to get the latest movies (albeit illegally), they aren’t such a great place to meet women. According to the survey’s findings, women accounted for only 5% of the 75,000+ respondents. That number is still low compared to others statistics, which show women making up some 20% of other file sharing sites, but no site boasted more than 26% female representation. The statistics also show that the respondents were primarily young, between 18 and 24, that downloading habits were unchanged over different cultures (as well as across genders) and that users are very worried about remaining anonymous during their activities.

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: Netflix Customers See Red After Price Hike

First off today, Netflix customers are upset after a rate hike on the company’s plans may see some users having an increase as much as 60% on their bill. Netflix announced they were separating out their DVD rental and streaming accounts, charging $8 for each instead of $10 for both 1 DVD rental and unlimited streaming in one account. The rate hike is being blamed in at least part on anticipated struggles with negotiating new licensing deals with movie studios as old contracts expire for Netflix. Studios are expected to demand much more money due to Netflix’s growth and the fact many are establishing competitors of their own. The rate hike takes effect immediately for new customers and September 1st for existing ones.

2: ISPs to Charge for Online Infringement Notice

Next up today, ISPs in New Zealand have one a decision from their government that will enable them to charge $25 for every infringement notice filed under that country’s new three strikes law. The price is actually compromise between disparate positions between copyright holders, who wanted to only pay $2 per notice, and ISPs, which wanted them to pay $40. The system requires ISPs to send on notices of copyright infringement on behalf of ISPs and, after three notices, copyright holders will be able to take matters before a copyright tribunal, which can impose penalties as high as $15,000 and have infringer’s Web access cut.

3: If a Monkey Steals Your Camera, Who Owns the Photos?

Finally today, an unusual copyright question has been raised after a photographer traveling in Indonesia had his camera snatched by a group of monkeys who took a series of accidental self portraits with it. The photographer, David J Slater, was able to recover the camera with the images intact but created a good deal of discussion by licensing the photos out to the Caters News agency for distribution. Techdirt, in turn, raised the question of who owns the copyright in such photos (copyright usually transfers to the person taking the photo). However, that question is no longer hypothetical after Casters filed a takedown notice on the images, ordering their removal. Techdirt is claiming fair use in its use of the photos.

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.

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

1: Innocents Chased to Pay for Illegal Porn Downloads

First off today, a whistleblower has come forward saying that she quit her job at MediaCAT, the copyright protection service that formerly partnered with the UK law firm ACS:Law to send thousands of threatening letters to suspected file sharers, after the company continued to target people that they knew were innocent. The release comes as ACS:Law is facing disciplinary hearings and an ongoing legal case, despite having ceased operations last month.

2: Pandora’s IPO Filing: Copyright Fees Eat Up Half Its Revenues

Next up today, Pandora has filed documents for its upcoming IPO and, along the way, has given an inside look at how the streaming radio service has dealt with copyright and licensing issues. According to their filing, Pandora spends a full 50% of its revenues on licensing, including $45 million in the 2010 fiscal year. The company has also had a falling out with one of the licensing agencies, ASCAP, and is poised for a bitter legal fight over its royalty rates. Finally, Pandora says it wants to expand internationally but can’t because their presence in the U.S. depends on statutory licensing, which prevents them from having to negotiate with labels individually, something not available in other countries.

3: Students Scan Textbooks to Skirt Cost

Finally today, Oklahoma University is facing a copyright challenge as students are using the school’s library scanners to copy entire textbooks and save them to flash drives. The library has a long-standing copyright and fair use policy for the scanners, including having students agree to it before using them, but it seems many students are ignoring the warnings and raising questions about the school’s responsibility in enforcing copyright law when students use its equipment.

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.

Reese lays out many factors for this success, including that WordPress was built using PHP and Movable Type using PERL, which proved much more difficult for users to set up, better sales efforts by WordPress’ team and mistakes by Six Apart, the company that developed Movable Type, that accidentally poisoned the community.

However, Reese also points to another issue that, he feels, played a major role in WordPress, along with Automattic, gaining an upper hand: Licensing.

Specifically, Reese singles out the open source nature of WordPress and a licensing debacle in 2004 that confused many Movable Type users and turned them into WordPress users, most never to come back.

Indeed, the Movable Type/WordPress competition is a textbook example of why licensing matters and how good, clear licensing can strengthen your case where poor licensing can sink it.

For evidence of this, one just has to look at my history with the two applications.

My Story

Prior to 2005. I was a Movable Type user, having converted from Graymatter as it began to be abandoned. I loved Movable Type and, though I found the install to be tricky, once it was up and running it was great. A powerful tool that I expanded my use of, starting out with just one category of my site and then using it for every section.

Then, in 2004, the licensing debacle hit. Six Apart tried to create two versions or two licenses of Movable Type, a free one for amateur bloggers with limited needs and paid version that allowed for more blogs and more authors.

However, a lot of questions were raised by this. How did Six Apart define a blog? What is commercial use by their standards? And so forth. Though I was already very active in copyright (this was over a year before the launch of Plagiarism Today), I didn’t have a lot of the answers I needed.

It became clear that Movable Type was not a solid foundation for me moving forward. I didn’t abandon it immediately, but started dabbling with other systems, most notably WordPress, which were truly open source.

And WordPress was what I fell in love with. I loved the ease of installation, the reliability of use and how it seemed to naturally fit my particular needs. So, when I did decide to launch Plagiarism Today in 2005, I chose WordPress as the platform and it’s been the platform of choice for every site I’ve developed since – save one shopping cart site.

I tried WordPress for the licensing but stayed for all the other reasons Reese listed and, even though Melody is open source completely, I don’t think I’m likely to look back.

Why Licensing Matters

When you set up a copyright license you are essentially creating the rules for use. Whether it’s the content on your blog, an application you’re distributing or a song you’ve written, the license tells people what they can and can’t do with it.

The problem is that, if the terms of the license are confusing or if they are constantly changing, the people that try to follow the terms are going to be frustrated, worried and unsure. That makes people not want to use your work, even in the manners you intended.

The Movable Type vs. WordPress “war” wasn’t about “free” triumphing over “paid”. As Reese points out, Movable Type was just as “free” for nearly all users as WordPress is. Instead, it was a triumph of clear, easily understood licensing over ambiguous, changing terms.

This is why services like Creative Commons are so important. They lay out licensing terms in clear, easily understood language that gives people a sense of security and comfort in using the license.

More importantly though, this is why every content creator needs to think about the licensing terms and, most critically, how to avoid confusion and uncertainty.

The most important things with a license is that it be clear, consistent and fair. In 2004, Six Apart messed up the first two components (and some would argue all three) and it cost them dearly.

Bottom Line

Was licensing the only thing that helped put WordPress over the top? Definitely not. WordPress still had and has many advantages over Movable Type. But without that stampede of users in 2004, it most likely would have taken WordPress a lot longer to be come the top CMS and we would have a much more competitive ecosystem today.

Automattic’s dedication to the GPL is legendary, even going to bat against theme developers over it, this gives a lot of comfort to those who use it on their sites, comfort that it will be free, maintained and remain modifiable if needed.

Most people simply don’t have that level of confidence in Movable Type and Six Apart, especially after their recent buyout and that makes a lot of difference when trying to convince people to build their entire online presence with your product at its core.

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

1: Big Content to ICANN: Make it Easier for us to Challenge Domain Suffixes

Next up today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the group which is responsible for domain extensions (IE: “.com” and “.net”) is in the process of revising its rules for the creation and objection to new extensions. One of the proposed rule changes would make it more difficult for someone to object to a new extension on the grounds that it might be a detriment to the rights of a community, something the RIAA and other big content parties have now strongly opposed to. They’ve said the new standard creates an “ultra high bar” for such matters and is seeking to have the policy changed back to its original language, which was much easier. ICANN has not responded to the letter that made the request.

2: File-Sharing Operators Hit With Big Fines, Jail Sentences

Next up today, in Finland, two operators of a 50 TB file sharing hub have been ordered to pay over $1 million damages and sentenced to a 7 month suspended jail term for their actions. The two claimed that the hub was set up for “discussion” but the judge ruled they knew what was going on and were liable. The hub, known as Sarah’s Secret Chamber, reportedly had some 1,600 members, most of whom had shared copyright infringing content as a prerequisite of membership.

3: Music Industry Working on Global Copyright Database

Finally today, the music industry is reportedly working on a global music licensing registry for written music to streamline the licensing process across the world and, hopefully, enable new legitimate services to enter into this field. Referred to as a global repertoire database (GRD), the industry hopes that having such a global database will save some 100 million per year in administration fees, savings that can then be passed directly on to songwriters and the industry. Currently, such licensing is handled on a country-by-country basis, creating a mess of different companies and schemes that handle licensing. The music industry is also working on a similar system for recorded music.

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.

The Konomark was developed by Eric E. Johnson, an Associate Professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law as a way of encouraging open sharing of work without the need of entering into a license.

The reason is that Konomark is not a license at all. Rather, it’s an indication that rights to the work may be freely available and it’s an invitation for visitors to ask for permission. This means you don’t actually surrender any rights to your work, you can simply say “no” to everyone who asks and the decision to use a Konomark is not permanent.

According to the site, the three rules for using Konomark as are follow:

1. You use the konomark only to mark your own copyrighted works.
2. By konomarking a copyrighted work, you intend to invite people to ask you for permission to use that work.
3. You are generally amenable to letting people use, without compensating you, the copyrighted content you’ve konomarked – even though the konomark does not legally obligate you.

All one has to do is either download the image and put it up on their site or use the simple HTML code provided. Since there is no license created, there are no terms to select.

Though I haven’t seen any other sites with the Konomark, it’s been available since 2008. The question remains though, who will be interested in using it and in taking advantage of works bearing the mark?

General Thoughts

The potential benefit of Konomark is pretty clear. Many people are open to the idea of allowing content reuse but either don’t wish to commit to a license or don’t wish to add a licensing layer to it. The Konomark is a simple, attractive way to add an encouragement to ask for permission.

That being said, it doesn’t really do anything that can’t be achieved by saying “Some Rights Reserved, Ask For Permission” prominently on your site. In that regard, it is very similar to Lorelle VanFossen’s “Ask First” buttons, icons that ask others to seek permission.

Another potential issue is that the mark might be misunderstood by site visitors to be just another open licensing scheme, encouraging others (unwittingly) to take works without permission. Since the mark looks somewhat similar to Creative Commons and other copyright markers to the like and is not well-known, it might create problems.

However, the potentially biggest issue is that the idea of asking for permission and waiting for a reply is, usually, an avoidable obstacle. If I need an image for a blog post, I can use any number of stock photo sites and be up and running in seconds, legally. For most casual use, this is just a more efficient system and it’s one that works better for both the creator trying to encourage use and the person seeking to use the work.

Still, I can definitely still see situations where this mark might be a valid alternative. The real question is whether or not the mark will gain enough visibility to add benefit that goes beyond what a creator can do themselves.

Bottom Line

According to the site, Kono means to “invite, prompt, or ask in” and that the pineapple is a symbol of friendship. This is definitely the heart of Konomark, which definitely has the best of intentions and, all in all, not a terrible idea.

However, as much as I want to find a place for it, and many creators may be able to do so, it seems to have largely been passed by and like it would just be a less convenient solution to a problem that many feel is already solved adequately.

As much as I would like Konomark to succeed, it certainly has its heart in the right place, I’m not optimistic at this time and it seems others share that viewpoint. I’m hoping that, maybe, some of you can convince me otherwise.

The mark expands their ongoing efforts in dealing with works without copyright. Previously, they introduced CC0, a public domain dedication system that let users waive rights to their own work (as far as possible under the law).

Users who are interested in taking advantage of the work can fill out the form to create the mark. Unlike regular Creative Commons licenses, the work is not licensed under the terms but rather is identified as being in the public domain. This means that the Mark contains information about both the person who created the work and the person who identified it as being in the public domain.

Here’s an example of the mark (Note: Obviously, this work is not in the public domain, but rather, is under the usual CC license, as such, I stripped the meta information and left in the visual content, slightly reformatted.):

This work (This is a Test, by Some Really Dead Person), identified by Jonathan Bailey, is free of known copyright restrictions.

The mark does have a few limitations. For one it is not for works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions but not others. Also, the mark is not for works where the author placed the work into the public domain by the rightsholder. Rather, this mark is solely for works that have lapsed into the public domain naturally, meaning it is almost exclusively for very old works.

Despite the limitations, the mark does have its first major user, Europeana, Europe’s public digital library/archive, which has adopted it for works in its archive that it has affirmed to be in the public domain, which will include millions of works in its database.

The next phase for the Creative Commons Organization on the public domain front is creating means to mark works as being in the public domain in certain jurisdictions but not others, which would enable users to mark a wider variety of content.

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

1: YouTube Inks Deal With French Copyright Society SACEM

First off today, after three years of negotiations YouTube has inked a deal with the French copyright society SACEM, thus giving the video sharing site access to its catalog of represented content from France, Luxembourg and Andorra. SACEM represents songwriters and composers in France and, along with YouTube’s already-existing deal with French record labels will be able to play SACEM music on their site. The deal is retroactive, going back to 2007 and lasts to 2012.

2: The Pirate Bay Appeal Day 3: The Wasa Connection

Next up today, the Pirate Bay appeal is now in day 3 though it was apparently a mundane day. Rather than discussing issues about piracy and copyright infringement, one of the defendants, Carl Lundström, made his case that he was not a financier of the site and should be dropped. The appeal is for the conviction of the four alleged administrators of the site which saw the four defendants be sentenced to a year in prison for copyright infringement and ordered to pay a total of about $3.6 million in damages.

3: Study: Audio Recordings of US History Fading Fast

Finally today, a new study finds that many of the classic audio recordings of our culture may already be lost and that digital records may be in grave jeopardy already. The reason is that laws targeted at preventing piracy have, often, prevented preservation efforts and many media companies, without financial motivation to preserve their archives, have failed to do so. Furthermore, digital media is in grave risk because CDRs, a common format for storing digital files, only lasts a few years and digital libraries must be actively maintained and not being stuck on a shelf. The study comes ahead of a National Recording Preservation Plan being developed by the Library of Congress for later this year.

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.

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

1: No, You Don’t Own It: Court Upholds EULAs, Threatens Digital Resale

First off today, in the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, which saw Autodesk go after a businessman who was reselling licenses of their AutoCAD design software on eBay, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and found that the license agreement that came with each seat of AutoCAD meant that the works were licensed, not owned, and could not be resold. This has the potential to almost eliminate the right of first sale for digital works. Right of first sale allows the resale of legally-purchased copyrighted works so long as no new copies are made. This could affect virtually all digitally distributed works as even music sold through Amazon and iTunes has similar language in their licensing agreements.

2: How an Anti-Piracy Firm Became Banned In Its Own Country

Next up today, Switzerland-based Logistep has been ordered by the Swiss High Court to stop harvesting IP addresses from suspected file sharers saying that the information is private and should not be collected without user permission. This comes after a very long battle with the Swiss government that first saw the Swiss data protection authority file a recommendation that Logistep stop its collections in 2008, which in turn kicked off the legal battle that reached the High Court and now can not be appealed.

3: Start-Up Rides Copyright Gray Area to Offer Live TV Online

Finally today, the new ivi plans on offering a live streaming service for television and will offer access to 20 different channels including ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and PBS for about $5 per month. Though copyright questions are legion, the company claims to have found a loophole. By calling itself a cable company, it can provide the streaming service but, as a Web-only company, is outside the jurisdiction of the FCC and thus able to avoid retransmission fees. It is unclear how courts will rule on ivi’s practices but it seems certain that a legal challenge will be forthcoming.

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.