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

1: Writers Sue US University Libraries for Copyright Infringement

First off today, the Authors Guild, the Australian Society of Authors, the Union Des Écrivaines et des Écrivains Québécois and eight individual authors have filed suit against Michigan, California, Wisconsin, Indiana and Cornell universities as well as HathiTrust for copyright infringement. According to the suit, the universities received unauthorized digital scans of their library’s books and pooled their digital libraries together into the HathiTrust collection. The lawsuit also objects to the unversities’ plans to make orphan works, meaning works where the copyright holder can not be identified, available to students and faculty. HathiTrust is a partnership with some 50 libraries, which currently has over 9.5 million digitized books.

2: Google Pressed to Block Rogue Websites

Next up today, Jeremy Hunt, the UK’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is expected to give a speech tomorrow that calls on search engines, including Google, to do more to block pirate websites from their rankings. Hunt is also expected to say that his government is prepared to legislate on the issue if search engines fail to take reasonable steps on their own. This comes after Google sent a press release touting advancements in copyright responsibility and efforts in the UK to block sites as the ISP level were deemed to be unworkable.

3: Sanctioned: P2P Lawyer Fined $10,000 for “Staggering Chutzpah”

Finally today, Evan Stone, a P2P attorney specializing in amine, has been sanctioned by the court to the tune of $10,000. The reason is because Stone, who filed a lawsuit against hundreds of “Doe” defendants he accused of sharing movies online, sent subpoenas without court approval. The judge in the case had ordered Stone not to send subpoenas but, instead asked the ISPs involved to hold on to the information while the court rules on whether or not he should be allowed to get the information. Stone sent the subpoenas anyway and apparently reached a settlement with at least some of the defendants, despite the fact he wasn’t supposed to have access to the information. The case involved had been dropped with prejudice by Stone, who said that the subpoena process was taking too long.

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: Oracle’s $1.3 Billion Verdict Against SAP Thrown Out by Judge

First off today, the judge in the Oracle/SAP case as set aside the record-breaking $1.3 Billion verdict against SAP and has reduced it to $272 Million. The case stems from SAP’s allaged downloading and use of Oracle software through its now-defunct TomorrowNow software-maintenance unit. The two companies are competitors in the business management software sector, with SAP being the largest. SAP has admitted that was liable but disputed the damage amount, prompting the judge to reduce the award. The judge has ordered a new trial on damages be held if Oracle does not agree to the reduction.

2: No Infringement Notices So Far – ISPs

Next up today, in New Zealand, one day after the country’s new “three strikes” law has taken effect ISPs are reporting that no infringement notices have arrived for them to process. Rightsholders claim that they are still working on means to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and that the notices will trickle in over time, rather than hit like a wave. The law requires ISPs to pass along notices of infringements and offers the Copyright Tribunal the ability to punish repeat offenders with up to $15,000 fine and possible disconnection.

3: Cop is Suspended for Downloading a Pirated Movie in his Squad Car

Finally today, a bored police officer in Madison, Wisconsin has been suspended after he downloaded the movie Hall Pass illegally using his in-car laptop. The illegal download was discovered after the laptop became infected with a virus due to the download, forcing action from the department’s IT personnel to clean it off. The officer’s name has not been released.

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: Copyright Vigilante Righthaven Will Fight On After Ruling

First off today, following their legal setback yesterday, Righthaven has vowed to fight on and has said it has already addressed many of the concerns raised. Yesterday a judge ruled that Righthaven did not have standing to sue in their case against Democratic Underground ans Stephens Media, the owners of the Las Vegas Review-Journal had only assigned them the right to sue and not an exclusive right under the law. However, according to Righthaven, they amended their agreement in May so that Righthaven has exclusive rights and gives Stephens Media a non-exclusive license to use the content. The judge also threatened sanctions against Righthaven for not disclosing that Stephens Media has a financial interest in the case, something Righthaven has said they will address.

2: Torrent Site Throws In The Towel Fearing Arrests

Next up today, Sweden’s largest private Bittorrent tracker, Piratetorrents.nu, closed abruptly after its owners feared that police may be moving in to arrest them. The move comes after a police raid shuttered another popular tracker in the country, XNT.nu. The abrupt closures are a further sign that Sweden, despite being the home of The Pirate Bay, is cracking down on Bittorrent sites within its borders.

3: Hero Orang-utan Sparks Copyright Row

Finally today, a video of an orangutan saving the life of a drowning chick has started something of a copyright battle. Michael McGrane filmed the footage at the Dublin Zoo in 2007 only to recently have a news agency News Team International license the video without his permission to several sites, including The Daily Mail. The agency has said that they are willing to share the revenue earned with McGrane but are under no obligation to do so as “the clip was available online”. Most of the uses of the video failed to credit McGrane for the video and, in fact, said it was a recent clip taken by a zookeeper.

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: German Rights Holders Go After 300,000 P2P Users Per Month

First off today, as controversial as mass file sharing lawsuits are in the U.S., commonly called “speculative invoicing” due to the nature of such lawsuits to send quick settlement offers to plaintiffs, it seems Germany has gone well above and beyond what has been happening here. According to the country’s Internet industry association, ECO, ISPs in the country have turned over subscriber information some 300,000 times per month. This is more than the total of all such lawsuits filed in the U.S. combined. The increase in speed is due in part to a change in German law that no longer requires copyright holders to file a lawsuit to obtain information, instead just receive a court order to get the information. Most who have their identity turned over to copyright holders are asked to pay between €300 to €1200 ($430 to $1720 USD) for each unlawfully shared file.

2: Judge Approves Settlement in Music Royalties Class Action

Next up today, in Canada a judge has approved a $50 million settlement between the four major record labels and artists over the “pending list” claims. According to the lawsuit, the labels would often, especially when building compilation CDs, place artist songs on a “pending list” meaning that no payment was made yet but would be later. Those claims were often never paid, thus prompting the class action lawsuit. The settlement, where the labels admitted no liability, was held up due to a dispute over the estate over the lead plaintiff. However, that was resolved by simply substituting the lead plaintiff, allowing the case to go forward.

3: That Famous Space Shuttle Photo: When is Sharing Stealing?

Finally today, when Stefanie Gordon took that now-famous photo of the shuttle Endeavour piercing the clouds after liftoff, she didn’t realize the impact it would have. But while she’s collected license fees from five different news outlets and others asked permission, most that have shared the image have not licensed it in any way. But while Gordon herself says she’s happy to have the image copied and doesn’t mind the use, it’s raised questions about the role of media outlets when using images and other copyrighted content from social media. Though the laws are straightforward, they are muddled by TOSes applied by third parties and the fact amateur photographers don’t know how to distribute and control images they take.

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: US offered NZ help on copyright: Wikileaks

First off today, a recently leaked diplomatic cable by Wikileaks revealed that the United States offered to help New Zealand write its recent copyright legislation, which has brought a “3 Strikes” system to the country. According to the cable, the U.S. offered help based on its 10-year history with implementing and enforcing the DMCA. This isn’t the first time the U.S. took interest in New Zealand copyright, in 2005 the U.S. government proposed to work with New Zealand on a joint task force to combat piracy.

2: Behind The Scenes: Record Label Demands From Amazon

Next up today, Michael Robertson, the founder of MP3.com a cyberlocker site being sued by the record labels, has given a behind-the-scenes look at the demands the record labels are trying to place on such lockers. Those demands include verifying purchase of uploaded MP3s via a receipt, limiting uploading to one computer and more. This look gives us a glimpse at what Amazon may well be dealing with as it faces a likely lawsuit from the record labels over its recently-launched Cloud Player service.

3: Is Netflix Reducing Illicit File Sharing? Depends on Which Stats You Believe

Finally today, a recent article in TorrentFreak kicked off a debate as to whether Bittorrent and other file sharing was being hurt by the rapid growth of Netflix. Ars Technica looked into the question, asking two different companies that track Internet traffic what their numbers were showing and got two very different answers. Arbor Network showed a steep drop-off in P2P activities over the past year, some of it likely also displaced by piracy on cyberlocker sites, but Sandvine showed a small increase in P2P over the last year along with an explosive increase in “Real Time Entertainment”, the category of traffic that includes Netflix. This shows how difficult it is to determine how much piracy is growing or shrinking, especially when other forms of piracy are thrown into the mix.

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.

A few weeks ago I talked about common mistakes I see from the first camp, including ignoring licensing, not looking at other factors, misguided lawsuits, etc. Now it’s time to bring some balance to the discussion and talk about mistakes that the other side seems to be constantly making when presenting their arguments and taking their various legal actions.

To be clear, this isn’t about me passing judgment on which side is “right” or “wrong” in this debate, I view myself primarily as a copyright centrist (even once referred to as an “extremist centrist”) who sees copyright as valuable also the need for reasonable reform. Also, this isn’t about casting blame or discrediting anyone.

Instead, this is about clearing up the misconceptions and wrong ideas that have been muddling the copyright debate for a long time in hopes that we can move past them and have a real dialogue on the issues that are important.

1. Blaming the Law for Morons

Copyright is the only area of law where the law itself is blamed for when others use it unjustly. If a company misuses some element of employment law to fire an employee unjustly, the company is a jerk that behaved badly and we rejoice when the employee gets justice in the courts. Do something similar with copyright law and there’s an immediate call for copyright reform.

The truth is that anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time. The law itself isn’t very important. Copyright law is controversial so cases of stupid copyright lawsuits get a lot of media attention, but dumb lawsuits happen all the time and people abuse nearly every area of law almost every day.

Just because a person or company files a stupid copyright lawsuit or doesn’t understand the law doesn’t mean the law needs reform, instead, it’s a sign that someone did a dumb thing, nothing more.

2. Seeing One Success as a New Business Model

In 2007, when Radiohead conducted their “Pay what you want” experiment with their “In Rainbows” album, it was at least a moderate success and many heralded it as the (potential) future of the music industry. This ignored many facts, including that Radiohead was already popular, partially because of the investment from their record labels, and that the novelty of the experiment had attracted a great deal of media attention to the album (all of which were elements discussed in the video linked above).

The problem is that one success, or even a handful, does not mean that the business model is viable or that copyright isn’t important. Every artist is in a different position and while it’s exciting to see new models work, they might not work again. In fact, Radiohead went back to a more traditional pricing system with its latest album “The King of Limbs” (though I admittedly do not see why).

What works for one artist may not work for another. There is no great new single business model for everyone and, even if there is, one success does not prove it to be as such.

3. Confusing Trademark and Copyright

This is a common one in many places, including with traditional journalists, but many times those who are eager to show the ridiculousness of copyright point to trademark cases and call them copyright ones.

When someone is suing over titles, names, logos, etc. they are usually talking about trademark, not copyright. Copyright sounds very silly when you say that a person is trying to enforce the copyright of their business name, but that usually isn’t the case and, if it is, it’s a lawsuit that fits under the first point.

Trademark and copyright are not interchangeable and each come with a very unique set of goals and questions as to how they apply in the digital world. The discussion of what rights one should have over a trademark is a very different one than the discussion over the rights they should have over their copyrightable works.

4. Not Understanding How the Court Process Works

This was a big one when the RIAA hinted that damages in the Limewire case could reach the trillions of dollars. Yes, the RIAA did say that in a filing but it’s safe to assume that the company never actually expected to get anywhere near that.

Smart attorneys do everything they can to keep their clients out of court. Trials are expensive and risky. As such, most litigation effort is spent on trying to secure a settlement. Settlements are basically negotiations. It’s common in all areas of law for the plaintiff in a case to request the highest amount of damages possible under any possible theory they can come up with in order to try and drive the settlement price higher. Likewise, the defendants try to position their damages as low as they can so the sides can meet in the middle.

Anyone who has been involved in litigation has seen this happen and it takes place in all areas of law. Was the RIAA a bit overreaching trying to ask for more damages than the GDP of the entire earth? Yes. But it’s unlikely they actually felt that was a reasonable amount and the judge agreed, quickly and severely limiting the damages ceiling, just as the judge is supposed to.

Likewise, lawyers often times make arguments in court that they know have little chance of success. Mostly this is to procure better settlements but also because sometimes you get a judge who actually agrees to them. This can help explain many of the insane theories spread by both sides in various copyright cases.

These elements, by themselves, do not indicate a problem with the law. Nearly all litigation involves these kinds of tactics. It’s up to the judge or the negotiation process to separate the ridiculous from the sensible.

5. Painting Copyright with a Broad Brush

Copyright is about a lot more than just suing alleged pirates or even piracy at large. Copyright is a whole set of rights, protections and exceptions that serve a variety of functions. Yes, people sue pirates but copyright also ensures record labels have to pay royalties to artists, such as with the recent Eminem lawsuit and it also stops people from selling other’s work without permission.

Granted, this is an issue both sides have when talking about the law as broad statements get a lot more attention than nuanced ones, but I find many times that people who say they are “anti-copyright” actually are only upset about some elements of the law.

This makes it a lot more difficult to talk about the law and have a real discussion on copyright when two people, who might agree more than they disagree, often position themselves as extremists on the opposite sides of the argument by trying to find one or two-word labels to describe their viewpoint and taking a very limited view as to what copyright does and is meant to do.

Bottom Line

I’ve had a lot of conversations about copyright over the years and what I’ve learned is simple. There are very few people at either extreme and most lie somewhere in the middle.

There is a lot of legitimate room for disagreement on matters of copyright and we will never reach a point where everyone completely agrees. However, if both sides stop making some of the more obvious mistakes, we might be able to tone down the rhetoric, find that there is more agreement than we thought and start finding common ground we can build from.

In fact, we might stop seeing it as “two sides” at all and, instead, see that there is a whole spectrum of perspectives and ideas.

In the end, everyone shares the goal of making sure that there is a rich culture online and off and that artists receive fair compensation for their work. The argument is over how copyright law can best help achieve those goals.

If everyone can stop making the stupid copyright blunders that pollute the legal and political environment, cease seeing those who disagree with us as “evil” and start dealing with the actual issues rather than the rhetoric, we might start to get somewhere and bring civility to the copyright debates.

This is no April Fool’s joke, it is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

If you’re in the mood for a completely joke-free conversation about copyright law then this is the podcast for you (Well, a few jokes but none on you). We have a lot of news to go over including a major victory for those who want to mass-litigate against pirates, Amazon launches a new cloud streaming service and Righthaven manages to file a lawsuit over an article about one of their lawsuits, nearly causing the universe to implode.

All in all there were eight stories this week including:

• Washington Judge OKs Mass P2P Lawsuits
• Amazon Launches Cloud Music Streaming, Sans Label Permission
• Zediva Gets Creative with DVD Streaming
• Righthaven Embarrasses Itself
• EMI and Bluebeat Settle
• Much, Much More!

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: China’s Baidu to Compensate Songwriters for Music Downloads

First off today the Chinese search engine Baidu has announced that it will now start working with Music Copyright Society of China to pay royalties to songwriters for every file downloaded via its MP3 search service. Baidu had been repeatedly slammed for making it easy to find links to pirated music files, including being labeled a “notorious market” in a recent U.S. government report. But while Baidu is now offering payments to songwriters, record labels will not receive any compensation as that, according to Baidu, would require a separate agreement.

2: Film Company Suing Thousands of Pirates Might Have A Big Problem

Next up today, Camelot Entertainment Group, which had been suing over 5,000 alleged files sharers over the largely unknown B movie “Nude Nuns with Big Guns” may have a problem with their litigation. The company, which took a loan out to purchase the rights to the movie along with over 800 other titles, has had that loan foreclosed upon after they failed to make payments. That means Incentive Capital. the firm that loaned Camelot the money, is now the rightful film owner, putting Camelot in the position of suing for a movie they hold no rights in.

3: Northwestern ‘Cage Match’ Canceled Due to Copyright Issue

Finally today, a charity marathon at Northwestern University has been postponed indefinitely due to unspecific copyright issues. Students had been planning to hold a “Cage Match” where they would watch some 16 Nicholas Cage movies back-to-back without breaks to raise money for the charity. The event was to be livestreamed over the Web, with only the students being shown and not the movies. Proceeds from the event were to go to Amnesty International. It is unclear what copyright issues prompted the move.

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: Mass-Suing of Pirates Gets Shot In Arm Thanks to DC Judge

First off today, a DC judge handed a significant victory to the U.S. Copyright Group, ruling that its mass litigation campaign against suspected file sharers can continue, setting aside objects of procedure, jurisdiction and free speech made by varius ISPs, who are having their records subpoenaed, and groups such as the EFF and Public Citizen. According to the judge, the U.S. Copyright Group, which represents various independent movie studios, can move ahead with its massive lawsuit against suspected file sharers in DC, even though many, if not most, of the potential plaintiffs don’t reside in the jurisdiction. The judge also ruled that file sharing does have elements of speech that may be protectable under the first amendment but that those elements will not likely play a major role in these cases as little original expression was involved.

2: Is Zediva’s New-Release Movie Streaming Service Legal?

Next up today, legal questions are swirling around the new movie streaming service Zediva, which claims to have found a way to legally stream DVDs via the Web. According to the company, it legally purchases DVDs from suppliers and then plays them in physical players, turning the user’s computer into a remote. Each DVD is only streamed to one person at a time, at a cost of $2. However, many are sketpical of Zediva’s claims of legitimacy, citing an earlier case that involved a video rental store renting out booths to watch movies. In that case, the renting was found to be an unlawful public performance.

3: Baidu VS Copyright Fighters Talks Go Fruitless

Finally today, talks between the Chinese search engine Baidu and the Copyright Protestant Alliance, which represents authors in the country upset over Baidu’s book and document service, have ground to a halt. The alliance had proposed a four-point plan for Baidu to make things right in their eyes namely a public apology, a compensation of loss, a stop of copyright violation and a legal operating model it and its partners. Baidu did announce yesterday that it would be using anti-piracy software to filter out infringing works on these services, but did not say if that move was a direct result of these negotiations.

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: Only 9% (and Falling) of US Internet Users are P2P Pirates

First off today, a study released by the research firm NPD Group found that only 9% of Internet users pirate music over P2P networks, down from 16% just three years ago. The study is not a complete picture of the piracy situation as it only covers P2P downloads, not illegal streaming and one-click hosting sites, which have been on the rise, but it does hint that at least certain elements of the piracy problem are on the wane.

2: To The Bitter End: AFACT Takes BitTorrent Piracy Case To The High Court

Next up today, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) announced that it will be appealing its case against local ISP iiNet to the country’s High Court. AFACT previously had sued iiNet claiming that the ISP authorized copyright infringement on its service by failing to take action when notified of misuse. Two lower courts found that iiNet had not violated the law but the Appeals Court ruled that, if the notices had been more clear and other changes had been made, the verdict could have been different. In light of this, AFACT has decided to appeal the verdict to the High Court where, if it does make it, a verdict may be rendered by the end of this year or early next year.

3: Baidu to Introduce Anti-Piracy Technology for Books Product

Finally today, Baidu, China’s largest search engine, is combating criticism from authors that it enables and tolerates piracy on its book and document search product by introducing anti-piracy technology that will filter out infringing works. Baidu has also often been criticized for enabling illegal downloads of MP3 files via its music search, but Baidu said it is not taking the same approach with that search feature.

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.