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

It was a busy week for copyright news with several major updates to ongoing cases including the Harry Potter plagiarism allegations, which will now make it to a full trial and Gene Simmons going to war against Anonymous. There were also new stories including another lawsuit round by Blizzard against suspected cheaters and a trademark dispute between two different anti-piracy law firms.

This week’s stories include:

• Harry Potter Plagiarism Case May Head to Court
• Blizzard Sues World of Warcraft Hackers
• Republican Candidates Accused of Copyright Infringement
• Porn Studios Launch Litigation Campaign
• Gene Simmons Has Round Two With Anonymous
• U.S. Anti-Piracy Firms Now Threatening Each Other

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: Police Arrest Operator of Mulve Downloading App

First off today the music downloading application Mulve, which appeared on the scene last month too much fanfare, has been closed for good. The app, which stopped working twice before, once due to capacity problems and once due to a takedown notice by the RIAA, has shut down forever after Mulve’s creator, or at least the person who made the video for it, was arrested by police in the UK. The creator responded saying that he doesn’t wish to fight this and that the project was intended to be “a little bit of fun”.

2: Copyright Abuse in Ohio Governor Election

Next up today the Ohio Democratic Party and Congressman John Kasich are locked in a copyright dispute over a pair of commercials. Kasich released a commercial with a steelworker talking about his opponent, Governor Ted Strickland, and his policies. However, when it turned out the steelworker was really an actor hired for the commercial, the Democratic Party released a commercial highlighting that fact, playing a few seconds of the original work. Kasich’s campaign has filed a takedown notice with YouTube, getting the second video removed for at least 10 days in the run up to the November election. The video currently remains on Vimeo and there is no word if a counter-notice has been filed.

3: MPAA Talks to Copygrounds About P2P File Sharing and Copyright

Finally today, Fritz Attaway and Craig Hoffman, two of the MPAA’s top men, sat down for an interview with Copygrounds where they said that they understand piracy will always be a problem but that the goals of their anti-piracy efforts are not to completely stamp out piracy, but rather, to “keep it under a reasonable level of control where we can make enough revenue in a legitimate market to recoup expenses and continue to make new movies.” They are optimistic about their ability to do this and said that they are exploring new business models to push consumers into more legitimate channels.

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: ACTA Copyright Piracy Enforcement Treaty Partners Reach Basic Agreement

First off today, Japan’s Minister of Economy has announced that the most recent round of negotiations on the controversial ACTA treaty were a success and that all 40 of the nations involved have reached agreements on the remaining differences. Though previous leaks of the treaty either removed or greatly softened language that would have had ISPs monitoring user’s activities for infringement and possibly disconnecting suspected file sharers, much of the treaty is still controversial, in particular talk of border searched for copyright infringing works among other anti-infringement steps. A final draft of the bill is expected to be released sometime shortly.

2: ACS:Law Boss: I Feel Defeated And Could Go Bankrupt

Next up today, ACS:Law owner, Andrew Crossley, has said that he may be forced to close up his anti-piracy firm, which could potentially bankrupt him personally. ACS:Law was recently the subject of a denial of service attack, which somehow exposed thousands of emails he had sent and received, including private information of alleged file sharers. That, in turn, has caused hundreds of complaints against him to the SRA for breach of privacy. ACS:Law had primarily worked with the porn industry in sending demand letters to alleged file sharers, a controversial tactic that earned the ire of many. The firm is still waiting for the decisions of regulators on the various accusations.

3: NV Democratic Party Settles Copyright Lawsuit

Finally today, the Nevada Democratic Party has settled its lawsuit with Righthaven, which sued it for using content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission. Righthaven has bought up rights in Review-Journal content and filing lawsuits against various bloggers and publishers who have repurposed it. The practice has been very controversial and has led to a recent lawsuit by the EFF, which accuses Righthaven of being a copyright “troll”.

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: Fox News Sues Democratic Senate Candidate

First off today, Fox News has sued Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan for her use of Fox News footage in a commercial that, according to the network, made it seem they were endorsing her. Specifically at issue is an interview with Carnahan’s Republican opponent, Roy Blunt, where Fox News asked difficult questions of Blunt. Carnahan used a clip from the interview in her ad, prompting Fox News to file the lawsuilt. The YouTube version of the commercial has also been removed after a DMCA notice by Fox News.

2: Movie Rental Outfit Calls For Nationwide Pirate Bay Block

Next up today, ACAPOR, a Portuguese organization that represents movie rental companies within the country, is asking Ministry of Culture to require ISPs in Portugal to block access to The Pirate Bay. The group has also announced it is launching a separate case against Piratatuga.net, a site it claims is as popular as The Pirate Bay in the country. However, convincing the government to block either site appears to be a long shot at best.

3: The Significance of the Huge European Warez Scene Raids

Finally today, Torrentfreak has done some reporting on the results of the recent “Scene” raids in the EU and, along the way, offers some insight about how the Scene works. Scene sites are sites atop the piracy pyramid, where movies and albums are leaked well before they appear on other file sharing sites, and several of them were raided across a dozen countries in the EU last week. According to tips TorrentFreak has received, at least some of the sites sat atop the Scene pyramid as well, which scores sites on a scale of 0-3, including one of the two “3″ sites. Exactly how disruptive this will be to the Scene community remains to be, well, seen.

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: Angle Sends Cease-And-Desist To Reid — For Reposting Her Own Website

First off today, Nevada Senate hopeful Sharron Angle has filed a cease and desist against her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after the campaign republished archived copies of her old website to illustrate how Angle had changed views on several issues. The Reid campaign has posted the letter but has taken down the site where the copies were posted, leading others republish them on their own domains.

2: Verdict Awaits In SAS Copyright Lawsuit

Next up today, the small British software development company World Programming Ltd. (WP) is awaiting its verdict in its case against the larger SAS, which sued WP claiming that their product, World Programming System (WPS) was developed by breaching the terms of use SAS Learning Edition, a data analysis tool meant for personal and educational use. Hanging into balance is potentially millions of dollars in royalties.

3: Woot Asks AP to Follow Their Own Rules, Pay $17.50

Finally today, the popular online deal site Woot, which was recently acquired by Amazon, poked fun at the AP, requesting that the wire service pay the company $17.50 for a quote used from their site in a recent article. This is a shot at AP’s use copyright clearance tools that offer readers the ability to license quotes as short as just a few words, despite such short quotes being a likely fair use.The AP has responded calling the issue a “non-story”.

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.

This election cycle has been an especially tough one for copyright issues and the word plagiarist has been used as an insult by both sides. This has put people who write about plagiarism, such as myself, in a no-win situation.

I tried, to the best of my abilities, to look objectively at the three scandals. I didn’t find that much of concern with either Obama or McCain though I did express greater concern over Biden’s history.

I have no political axe to grind and no real interest in mud slinging, but as some of the comments to the pieces, both on the site and in my inbox, have shown, others do.

However, I didn’t tackle the issue of plagiarism to become a political pundit. I took it on for my benefit as a writer, the benefit of other content creators and for the benefit of the public so often deprived of the truth.

But I’ve watched in horror as those issues have been pushed aside and the word “plagiarism” has become just another blade in a political knife fight.

Politically Motivated

My greatest problem with these attacks is that they are, generally, not motivated out of outrage at the offense or because anyone is genuinely upset at the infringement. Rather, they are motivated out of political means.

In my experience, how you feel about the Obama/McCain plagiarism cases says less about one’s views of plagiarism and more about one’s views on the politicians themselves. People that were outraged by Obama’s alleged plagiarism, generally, didn’t like him before the scandal. The same is true for McCain.

To me, the use of plagiarism accusations in these cases is just as worrisome as cases where organizations, including the Church of Scientology, use questionable copyright claims to silence critics. Both are examples of one side of a debate using plagiarism and copyright issues to address other grievances and hurt those that are against them. These situations hurt legitimate copyright holders, make it harder for legitimate claims to be heard and, in many cases, stifle free speech.

If there is a copyright infringement, it should be dealt with. Similarly, if there is a plagiarism from a politician and it appears to be wholly intentional, it should be looked at and discussed. However, the word “plagiarist” should only be thrown about with severe caution and only when the evidence wholly supports the accusation and the alleged copying goes beyond what is typically acceptable in the field.

These politically motivated attacks do nothing to help the cause of fighting plagiarism and, in truth, greatly hurt the efforts of legitimate artists to protect their works.

After all, no matter who wins, it is almost certain an accused plagiarist will be President after the election.

Reshaping the Debate

Even though my presence and this blog mean nothing in the larger political debate, I would like to ask both sides to please give the chant of “plagiarist” a rest. These political fights play a major role in shaping both America’s and the world’s opinions of terms and ideas. Throwing around insults so carelessly can have horrible unintended consequences.

For the sake of artists, musicians and writers who deal with plagiarists every day, I urge the pundits to be more careful with their words and their accusations.

Like most Americans, I would rather see this debate be about issues that are important, not largely unfounded accusations designed to slander one’s character.

As I’ve repeated many times, I have no political axe to grind here. I created this site for Webmasters to help them protect their content. I have helped all comers including sex bloggers, churches, gay and lesbian groups, right-wing blogs, left-wing blogs, mommy blogs, sports blogs, crochet sites and much more. I have extended my hand to all who have needed it, regardless of their politics, so long as their content was legal.

This site is not about a certain political or philosophical affiliation, but about protecting hard work. That is why I write this piece, to help the creative people I care about.

Conclusions

I realize that my post here will not stop the accusations of plagiarism or even put a dent in them. But if it helps one person think twice before speaking, then it will be worthwhile.

However, I know well how the rush of politics can make people forget what is important and how the words that they say can damage those that they claim to be trying to represent and help. I know how easy it is, when your heart is dedicated something, to fool your head into believing an idea the evidence does not wholly support.

This is not a debate that can be resolved with insults. It must be one about ideas and information. I hope that, maybe, some of that can be salvaged in this debate.

Of course, this isn’t really the beginning of Biden’s plagiarism controversy, but rather, a continuation of a scandal that began over twenty years ago.

The Biden case is different from both the Obama and the McCain one in several ways, the first of which is that the evidence both for and against is over two decades old, before the era of YouTube, and, in Biden’s case, the accusations already helped to sink one of his earlier presidential campaign.

So what actually happened and what can we learn from it? Here’s what I’ve been able to learn about Mr. Biden and his plagiarism controversies.

Background

Biden’s trouble with the plagiarism began a stump speech in Iowa. At the end of the speech, Biden used a series of phrases that closely mirrored a previous speech by that of British politician Neal Kinnock. Though there are several reports that he had previously used and cited the source of those words, there seems to be a clear understanding that, in this one case, he did not.

The result of this was that his Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis created an attack video splicing together Biden’s speech with that of Kinnocks.

The attack was remarkably effective and can be described as a classic example of “YouTube politics” before the Web even existed. Not only was Biden’s reputation hurt by the initial scandal, reporters from Newsweek also turned up allegations of plagiarism dating back to when he was a student at Syracuse Law School, where he failed and was forced to retake a course due to an allegation of plagiarism.

The end result was that Biden, who was already lagging in the polls, was forced to drop out of the race. Though Biden continued to serve in the Senate, these allegations have stuck with him for pretty much his entire career since then.

In fact, when I first started Plagiarism Today, the most popular blog about plagiarism on the Web wasn’t about content theft or academic dishonesty, but about Joe Biden.

This is why, when I heard that Biden was Obama’s VP pick, I knew immediately that this issue would come up in a very big way.

Biden’s Side of the Story

Back in 1987, Biden called these scandals a “Tempest in a Teapot” saying that he had routinely credited Kinnock for the speech and simply had forgotten to do so during the stump speech from which the tape was made.

Regarding the law school controversy, Biden and his supporters have pointed out that the incident was stricken from his record.

Furthermore, as Biden’s supporters are quick to note, all of the allegations are either 20 or 40 years old. To some, this makes those allegations irrelevant in the current election and, accordingly, should be dropped.

However, I am not so quick to dismiss these allegations. Simply because they are old does not mean that they are not worth a closer look. Unfortunately, a closer look is very tough to get.

My Analysis

Biden’s case is different from both the Obama and McCain scandals for two reasons:

1. He has admitted to using Kinnock’s words without permission, it is a question of whether he had previously attributed them and intended to do so in the speech in question.
2. We have at least one allegation of plagiarism that withstood some scrutiny in an academic environment.

Unfortunately, the age of the allegations have made it very difficult to find actual copy from the speeches. After multiple searches, I was only able to find one pair of comparison quotes.

First is Kinnock:

Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Was it because they were weak, those people who worked eight hours underground and then come up and play football, weak? It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.

Now Biden:

Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family to ever go to a university? Was it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because they didn’t work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.

As you can see in the highlighted passages, there are some very strong similarities between the two speeches. Though the theme of coming up from humble hard-working roots is a common one among politicians the world over, the details about working for hours in a coal mine and then playing football are, indeed, suspicious.

However, Biden has never denied that he paraphrased Kinnock’s speech. Rather, according to him, it was a simple mistake, one where he had repeatedly attributed the speech time and time again but failed to do so one time.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to confirm that, though a recent article in the Chicago Tribune seems to vouch for that perspective.

Indeed, it is true that candidates routinely give the same or similar speeches over and over again and it is possible to omit or add things to them over time. Still, there is little doubt that forgetting attribution is a potentially very serious blunder but, as the Obama case showed, it is not always a campaign-ender, especially when the “victimized” party gave permission.

The law school allegations are, unfortunately, older, tricker to analyze and potentially much more severe, without the actual samples in front of me I can only trust the verdict that the school came down with (though I know from recent experience such rulings are often misguided).

However, according to a New York Times article from the era, the controversy involved over five pages of copy in a 15-page paper. Biden, however, plead ignorance saying he did not know how he was supposed to properly cite his sources.

Pleading his case to stay in the school, Biden said that “My intent was not to deceive anyone. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant,” and that, “If I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?”

The end result of both cases is that Biden has effectively admitted to the copying but has claimed that both cases were accidental.

The Accidental Argument

In my experience with plagiarism the vast majority of claims to have accidentally plagiarized are either outright lies or a sign of someone with very little understanding or respect for other people’s work.

However, in the case of his speech, Biden actually seems to have a strong case here. If it is true that he had historically attributed his quotes, the fact he failed to do so in one speech should not be alarming. If it had become a pattern over multiple speeches, I would be much more concerned.

In the end, the plagiarized speech seems to be a likely accident and, by itself, probably is not worth discrediting Biden.

The law school case, on the other hand, is a bit more dubious. Copying approximately five pages of material with only one foot note and pleading ignorance seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most academic plagiarism cases involve significantly less copied material and, generally, carries far more severe consequences.

Please note that this is not a personal opinion on what should have happened to Senator Biden, just an observation about what I have seen in recent years.

Personally though, as offended as I am about plagiarism, it would be fairly easy for me to dismiss either case of alleged plagiarism by itself. However, it is a bit harder to swallow both at the same time.

This difficulty is made worse by the fact that he has also been accused of lifting speeches from other sources, including Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. Though I have not been able to find examples of those alleged infringements, the article linked above claims that the Kennedy case involves over “four sentences” of materials.

The bottom line with Biden is that he has admitted to using other people’s words without attribution many different times and, in each case, has attempted to explain it away. Whether you believe those explainations or not, I’m willing to wager, most likely stem as much from your political viewpoint as it does your intellectual one.

A Second Opinion

A close friend of and colleague of mine Dr. John Lesko of Saginaw Valley State University not only runs Plagiary, the only scholarly journal on the topic of plagiarism, but also Famous Plagiarists, a site dedicated to chronicling the plagiarisms of the well-known.

Dr. Lesko has a very thorough write-up on Senator Biden. At the head of it, he give Biden a “Threat Level” of “Red: Severe Risk”, which is the highest level of risk that the site can award.

This is higher in standing than other well-known plagiarists including Kaavya Viswanathan and on par with Jayson Blair.

Though these “threat levels” were never intended to be taken as true fact and are intended to be a bit humorous, it is interesting to see that one of the world’s foremost experts of plagiarism feels that Biden is such a serious threat.

Unfortunately for Biden, I find it very hard to disagree with Dr. Lesko. Though I may not take it to the extreme he did, I have to agree with Dr. Lesko that this is very different from the Obama and McCain cases.

In fact, at this time, Famous Plagiarists doesn’t even have a section on either of the two presidental front-runners, just one of their VP candidates.

Conclusions

As I’ve said before, I am very wary of politics-based plagiarism scandals. They are, almost always, brought to light not in the best interest of the author or artist, but of the opposing political side.

With Biden, this is no different. Republicans are moving to take this issue front and center while Biden’s supporters are moving to write it off as a fabrication. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

However, it is much more difficult for me to dismiss Biden’s case than it is Obama’s or McCain’s. The repetition, the severity and the excuses do not sit well with me.

The one thing Biden does have going for him is that the allegations are old. The law school incident took place in the sixties and the latest one in the late eighties. Nothing has come up in the time since then that I have been able to find.

I don’t think the allegations of plagiarism should prevent Biden from being taken seriously as a VP candidate nor should it distract from the other issues and debates that are much more important in this election. As with Dr. Martin Luther King, plagiarism allegations, on their own, should not distract from other parts of his legacy.

Still, it is clear that these allegations are different than the ones that were thrown at either Obama or McCain. These are definitely more serious and have already stuck enough once to help end a campaign of his.

Once again, I find myself pleading that plagiarism will not be a distraction issue in this campaign, however, once I heard that Biden was Obama’s choice for VP, I knew instantly that it would not the case.

Plagiarism is now front and center in presidential politics. Unfortunately, I don’t see that helping victims of plagiarism nor do I see it helping advance any of the other issues that are on the table this election.

Related Links

• The Slate (Feels that the matter should not be forgotten)
• Newsbusters (A thorough overview of Biden’s history with a comparison to his Wikipedia entry)
• The Huffington Post (A Supporting View of the Matter)
• Media Matters (A look back at the media coverage of Biden’s downfall)
• The Hoosier Pundit (An accusation of plagiarism over Obama’s logo, not convincing to me)
• Lame Cherry (Accusations of plagiarism on the Senate floor)

Further Discussion

• What are your thoughts on the accusations against Biden?
• Do accusations of plagiarism cause you to think less of a political candidate?
• Would you change your vote based upon a plagiarism allegation?

There are so many great stories this week including major progress on controversial copyright legislation, McCain’s copyright scrape, the “Bratz trial” getting halted, a new DVR blocking directive, Redlasso stopping its service and much more.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.

That, of course, is just part of it. We have more news from Europe, a lawsuit that the RIAA itself may be facing and even a few zombies (pictured left) to keep things lively.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.

As usual, I sat down with Chris Matthieu from Numly to discuss the past week in copyright news, views and abuse.

All totaled, the show had sixteen stories, including the following:

• Pirate Bill Enters Congress
• The Pirate Bay Has Some Drama
• Demonoid Goes Black Everywhere
• Radiohead Calls Bull on Comscore
• Baseball DRM Change Throws Fans a Screwball
• And Many more…

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

Show Notes