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

1: Court May Revive Viacom Copyright Claim Against YouTube

First off today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked tough questions to lawyers representing both Viacom and YouTube in their appeal. Viacom sued YouTube and its parent Google in 2007 claiming that, in the early years of the site, they openly encouraged and built their business on pirated video clips. However, the trial court ruled that YouTube qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA and tossed the case. Viacom appealed the decision, which is what was heard today. The court laid out a series of conditions that would have to be met to reverse the lower court ruling and YouTube hit back saying that, out of the 63,000 clips in dispute, none could be shown to not be removed after a proper DMCA notice.The court did not render an immediate decision and is expected to post its verdict in a few weeks.

2: Porn BitTorrent Litigation Getting Trickier, Lawyer Says

Next up today, attorney James C. White, who represents adult film company K-Beech, has said that filing mass bittorrent lawsuits has gotten trickier in large part due to cut-and-paste filings passed around bittorrent sites that oppose his motions. The lawsuits work by trying to enjoin thousands of defendants into a single suit for the purpose of discovery and then forcing ISPs to turn over customer information. Many of the defendants have used these filings to fight that process in a bid to make litigation more difficult and expensive. White also noted that, in such lawsuits, between 35-55 settle very early in the litigation process.

3: West Yorkshire Police Accused Of Copyright Theft

Finally today, in the UK, the West Yorkshire police department have been sued for allegedly infringing the copyright of a software developer when building their own forensic application. Forensic Telecommunications services (FTS) alleges the department used software it develops to get data off of mobile phones for evidence-gathering in creating their own version of the tool. FTS even said that the department included mistakes that were made in their original, proving that the departments version, originally called CLIVE and then renamed OLIVE, was a copi. The West Yorkshire Police have denied this allegation.

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: Protect IP Act Will Cost Taxpayers $47M

First off today, a report by the Congressional Budget Office found that the proposed PROTECT IP Act, which will require the blocking of certain “pirate” websites, will cost the government some $47 million through 2016 if it is enacted. The act is on hold due to a block placed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). The estimated cost only covers government expenses and does not factor in ISP or other infrastructure costs.

2: Widow Sues Label Over Funk Brothers’ Copyright

Next up today, the widow of Funk Brothers pianist Earl Van Dyke, Millicent Van Dyke, has sued the band’s label, EMI, to have the copyrights restored to the family. According to Van Dyke, the copyrights should have reverted to his estate upon his death but the label illegally appointed themselves as the agent and continued to exploit his works. Earl Van Dyke wrote many of the band’s songs as well as performed them, potentially giving his estate a great deal of control over the works.

3: NSW Police in Row Over Copyright Charges

Finally today, in Australia, the NSW Police is in a copyright battle with software maker Micro Focus, which has filed suit against the police department in a local court. According to the company, the NSW Police force made additional copies of its mainframe software, ViewNow, and distributed them through the force and to related organizations. The complaint alleges that the NSW Police had a license to use 6,500 copies of the application but created some 16,000 installs. The NSW Police, however, has stated they had a site license that enabled them to use the software on as many machines as needed. The court has requested an independent expert look at the machines involved to see how may installations may be involved.

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: Justin Bieber Swears Off YouTube For Facebook, Unwittingly Steps In Copyright Minefield

First off today, pop musician Justin Bieber swore off YouTube after he attempted to upload his new music video for the song “Pray” only to find his upload blocked at the request of his label UMG. This prompted Bieber to then upload the video to his Facebook page, which has different limitations on uploads, and tweet his frustrations, prompting a response from YouTube saying it was between him and his label. The song, which appeared officially on the VEVO channel, remains blocked in Bibers account though the two seem to have patched things up with Bieber saying that “@vevo and @youtube got me right now”, whatever that means.

2: Judge Issues Rulings in Estate’s Superhero Battle

Next up today, the judge in the ongoing dispute between Jack Kirby’s estate and Marvel has issued a ruling and the news is mixed for the company. Kirby’s estate, which filed some 45 copyright terminations for Kirby’s work at Marvel, which could impact the X-Men, Ironman and much more, avoided having its counterclaims thrown out, meaning the judge may still rule the terminations to be valid, but did lose its chance to force Marvel to account for how much money is at stake as the judge felt it was premature. The judge also ruled that Disney, which purchased Marvel shortly after the complaints were filed, will be a party to the lawsuit as they are in a position to exploit Marvel’s intellectual property.

3: China Cracks Down On Software Piracy

Finally today, in an attempt to crack down on software piracy, China has said that it will be auditing all computers in local and central governments to ensure that they are only using genuine software. This comes as the Business Software Alliance has estimated a growth in global piracy and pointed the finger at China, as well as Brazil and India, for much of the jump.

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: Pirate Bay Back in the Courtroom

First off today, the Pirate Bay admins, or at least the ones that were convicted of criminal charges in Sweden earlier this year, are back in court facing a new order to remove copyright infringing material, this time from a Dutch company, and may face fines of up to $9 million if they do not do so.

The admins, however, claim that they no longer have control of the site, having sold it off some time ago to a company based in the Seychelles (a small island group north of Madagascar) and thus have no control over the content. However, the copyright holders claim that the offshore company was created by one of the defendants, who is still the director.

The defendants challenge this and also dispute some of the other evidence provided by copyright holders and their evidence-collecting firm.

2: Decision Could Clear Way for SCO-Novell Trial

Next up today, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to revisit its ruling in the Novell-SCO case, possibly clearing a way for a trial between the two companies.

In August, the court had overturned a lower court ruling saying that the issue of who owns the copyright in Unix was unclear enough and should not have been decided without a trial, which is what Novell had asked the court to revisit. The lower court had said Novell was the rightful copyright holder, thus short circuiting SCO’s attempt to sue IBM, which it accuses of placing Unix code into Linux.

If SCO is able to prove it is the copyright holder of Unix it would then be forced to prove that infringing code from it wound up in Linux, something it has failed to do so to date, despite the case having begun in 2004. Since then, SCO has filed for bankruptcy protection and, more recently, fired its controversial CEO, Darl McBride, who was also the public face of the litigation campaign.

3: Jail Time for Falls Church Man in eBay Fraud

Finally today, in a case that proves just how serious copyright infringement can be, Gregory William Fair was sentenced to 41 months in prison and ordered to pay $743,098 for selling pirated software on the auction site eBay. He has also forfeited $144,000 in cash, a BMW525i, a Hummer H2, a Mercedes CL600 and a 1969 Pontiac GTO, all of which prosecutors claim he purchased with his ill-gotten earnings.

The case was just one of 39 according to the Justice Department involving similar distribution of counterfeit software.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

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

1: High-Court Nominee Mirrors Industry Copyright Stance

First off today, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is having her judicial opinions and history picked apart and one of the elements being analyzed is whether she supports the high potential damages that can be awarded in cases of copyright infringement, up to $150,000 per infringement.

As many debate the constitutionality of such high statutory damages, Sotomayor has, in at least one case during her history, come down on the side of content lobby, finding that a high statutory damages were reasonable in a case where a boxing promoter sued a series of bars and taverns for unauthorized public performance of their event.

Sotomayor has said that she feels the statutory damages, in cases of willful copyright infringement should be high in order to deter copyright infringement and should not be limited to the amount of revenue actually lost.

It is possible, if not likely, that these damages may be tested by the Supreme Court while Sotomayor is a justice should she be seated.

2: AP: tech coming to stop “wholesale theft” on ‘Net

Next up, the Associated Press today is talking more about their upcoming plans to police the Web for their content. They previously had warned about a new upcoming system that would let them track and stop misuse of their work but provided few details. Today, they’ve provided at least a little bit more information.

The AP, in an interview with Ars Technica, explained that their concern is not bloggers that cite a few passages or those who use a paragraph with a link, but rather “wholesale theft” of their work, namely full articles. Their new system, which they will be launching soon, is designed to look for such misuses and then then forward on the instances to a lawyer or paralegal who makes the decisions about what action should be taken. Everything is handled on a case-by-case basis.

The AP also took steps to distance itself from the Drudge Retort controversy and to explain that it is a supporter of fair use, largely because they use it so much themselves. However, I have to wonder how Shephard Fairey views that statement….

3: Endless original, copyright-free music

Finally, for those who are tired of paying licensing fees for background music or are sick of short, mind-numbing loops, the University of Grenada has developed a new application that can, with very little input, generate pleasing and copyright-free music.

The idea is that this application can replace music played in the background of stores, office buildings and other places, saving money and reducing the risk for copyright troubles.

There is no word yet whether ASCAP or other licensing boards are at all worried about this invention.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

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

Copyscape, which finished third in the previous testing, had its premium service rated first this year with its free service taking the third slot. Both version handily beat out popular academic plagiarism checkers such as Turnitin and SafeAssign.

Though the results may come as a shock to many in the academic community, especially those that pay for accounts at services targeted at universities, those that have followed Dr. Weber-Wulff’s work will likely not be surprised at all. Many will remember her work on exposing iPlagiarismCheck following the previous rounds of testing.

Nonetheless, her study offers a great deal for those interested in plagiarism to think about.

Methodology

To conduct the tests, Dr. Weber-Wulff, along with her team, compiled 31 papers with known amounts of plagiarism and ran them through each of the applications and then rated their effectiveness on a scale of 0-3. They then rated their usability against a set of criteria, including Website of the company and cost transparency, the page layout and captions, workflow and navigation, on a similar scale. The points were then totaled up and ranked on the following scale.

• Very good: 72-80
• Good: 60-71
• Satisfactory: 48-59
• Sufficient: 40-47
• Poor: 0-39

Also listed in the results were cancelled tests, meaning tests that could not be completed for some reason, and products that could not be easily compared against other plagiarism checkers, such as those designed to check medical databases.

Results

In the end, none of the tests came away with a “Very Good” rating. However, Copyscape Premium did come very close, earning 70 out of a needed 72 points. Copyscape Premium earned the maximum number of points in a total of 23 out of the 31 tests.

Plagiarism Detector, another relative unknown, came in second, sandwiched between the two versions of Copyscape. Ephorus, last year’s top application, came in seventh this year, at the very bottom of the “Good” systems.

SafeAssign was number 8, coming in at the top of the “Satisfactory” systems and Turnitin was at the top of the “Adequate” list at 13.

However, several systems were not tested this year. Article Checker and CheckforPlagiarism were aborted, the first not fitting the criteria for a plagiarism checker and the latter not allowing free access for testing purposes.

Also, several commercial services were not slated for testing at all, including Attributor and iCopyright.

Caveats

Though the results of the test certainly should give Copyscape’s developers a reason to cheer, there are several caveats, in addition to the services that were tested, that are worth mentioning.

First, since the test papers were in German, it remains to be seen how well the results would translate to English and other languages. Though I wouldn’t anticipate too much difference since the languages are similar, it could have a bearing on the results, especially with some of the more complex tools that may be language-specific.

Second, the usability tests were geared more toward teachers than they were Webmasters. The test is designed for the academic arena so this makes sense, but as Webmaster, it means that the usability results need to looked at in a slightly different light as our workflow needs are different.

Third, once again, it is important for Webmasters to realize that the results are geared for academic plagiarism, where it is important to trace one plagiarized work to its source, not one source to its many plagiarized copies. Though the search techniques are largely the same, many of the apps best geared at finding academic plagiarism don’t always detect all of the potential sources.

Finally, it is important to remember that the study itself is not an endorsement of any one plagiarism checking system nor is it a recommendation, it is only an analysis of how the various systems did on these specific tests, nothing more.

Conclusions

Though the results are interesting, what I glean most from this comparison is that, even though the standards were lowered for this round of tests, none of the services were able to achieve “Very Good”. This means that even the best plagiarism detection tools have flaws and need improvement.

Personally, I’ve never relied on just one means of detecting plagiarism, instead pulling my information from multiple sources. This study seems to reinforce that idea and further encourages me to back up any system I choose with alternates.

The simple fact is that no plagiarism system is going to be 100% effective and, as such, it makes sense to double up your net, especially since so many of the services are both free and easy to use.

In other news, eBay won out over Tiffany in their long-running dispute, Mahalo Daily gets suspended from YouTube (don’t worry, they’re back now) and the “I’m a Jerk” defense finally makes its way into a bittorrent legal dispute.

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.