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

1: New Lawsuit Means All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

First off today, EMI, the fourth and smallest of the “big four” record labels, has filed suit against music streaming service Grooveshark for breach of contract. Grooveshark, which was already being sued by the other three labels (Universal, Warner and Sony) had struck a deal to license EMI’s music through their service. However, according to EMI, Grooveshark has not paid any royalties nor have they issued any accounting statements. Grooveshark has said that this is a “contract dispute” that they hope to have resolved soon.

2: For Americans, Digital Piracy is a Family Thing

Next up today, a study by the American Assembly, which is affiliated with Columbia University, found that three quarters of Americans surveyed believed that sharing music with family members was acceptable and that more than half felt the same about sharing with friends. However, only 16 percent thought it was acceptable to share in a widespread manner for commercial gain. Respondents were split almost evenly on punishments for file downloading with a little under half saying there should be none. Those who did favor punishments favored lighter ones such as warnings and small fines.

3: Is Copyright Against Your Religion?

Finally today, in Sweden the government has officially recognized Kopimism as an official religion. Kopimism, which was founded by 19-year-old philosophy student Isaac Gerson, believes that “the sharing of information is the most beautiful thing in the world”, including file sharing. However, the move is unlikely to have any practical impact as it does nothing to make file sharing legal. However, the movement has drawn a lot of attention to the Church of Kopimism’s site, which is currently accepting new follower registrations via a form.

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: Canadian Copyright Group Pushes for Levy on Memory Cards

First off today, hot on the heels of a failed attempt to pass an “iPod tax” there is now pressure on the Canadian government to pass a similar tax on memory cards. The new levy, if passed, would add fifty cents to all memory cards below 1 GB in size, $1 to any card between 1 and 8 GB and $3 or more to the price of any card bigger than 8 GB. The group the Canadian Private Copying Collective is spurring the initiative, which is bound to draw criticism, especially due to the broad uses of memory cards.

2: Verdict for Insurer Graham in Copyright Case Upheld

Next up today, an ongoing lawsuit between Insurer The Graham Co. against rival USI Midatlantic Inc. has come to a head as an Appeals Court has upheld a $18.9 million award for the company. According to Graham, a former employee, Thomas Haughey, left the company and took critical manuals with him. When he got to his new position at a predecessor company of USI, he then distributed the manuals to the employees there. The court upheld a previous jury award, which included a $2.29 million judgment against Haughey himself, saying that since Graham was unaware of the infringement, the statute of limitations had not expired on the case and the original verdicts were not excessive. USI said that it plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

3: Climate Study Gets Pulled After Charges of Plagiarism

Finally today, a controversial climate change study by Edward Wegman of George Mason University is being retracted by the journal that printed it on the grounds of plagiarism. The journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, which published the study in 2008, has retracted the study after discovering that parts of it were lifted from Wikipedia and various textbooks. Attorneys for Wegman and study co-author Yasmin Said claimed the two never committed plagiarism but, instead, blamed the matter on a student who copied and pasted work. The study, which denied the existence of man-made climate change, has been controversial since its release.

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.

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

1: Quarter of World Internet Traffic Involves Copyright Theft, NBC Claims

First off today, an NBC-commissioned study by Envisional found that nearly a quarter of all Internet traffic is copyright infringing. According to the report, 23.8% of all Web traffic is infringing, about half of which is from Bittorrent (11.39%) and another 5.12 percent comes from cyberlocker sites. Unlawful streaming, however, only made up 1.42% of traffic in the study. NBC is using the study to call for greater improvements in copyright enforcement online, saying that such levels of unlawful activity would not be allowed in other businesses.

2: Government to Rethink Digital Economy Act’s Web Blocks

Next up today, a provision of Britain’s Digital Economy Act will be getting a closer look by OFCOM, the organization in charge of oversight of it. Following a flood of complaints about the practicality fo blocking sites that are solely for copyright infringement, OFCOM has promised to evaluate how to best carry out that part of the law and see if they have the “right tools” available. No word on when that evaluation will be complete.

3: U.S. Resume Controversial File-Sharing Domain Seizures

Finally today, the U.S. government has seized the domain for Rojadirecta, a Spanish sports streaming and P2P site that was known for streaming games from popular U.S. sports leagues. The site is a controversial choice because Spanish courts had twice declared it to be legal and, other than the .org domain, there was no connection with the U.S. Still, the domain has been seized and is redirecting to a notice from Immigration and Customs Encorcement. The site is still up and running at other domains.

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 study showed children between the ages of 3 and 11 “videos and puppet vignettes” about that featured art students. In one of the videos, two students came up with their ideas independently and, in the second, one student copied his work off of the other.

The participants were then asked to rate the characters on their likeability. By ages 5 to 6, children began to rate the characters who copied work as being “more bad” than those who came up with original ideas and cited the copying as the reason. However, those aged 3 to 4 showed no such preference.

For psychologists, the question of plagiarism is an interesting one as children have to understand many different concepts to understand that plagiarism is wrong, including, according to the article, “that not everyone has access to all ideas, that people can create their own ideas and that stealing an idea, like stealing physical property, is wrong.”

As an anti-plagiarist, I find the results interesting for several reasons:

1. Plagiarism Education: I’ve seen a trend of plagiarism education reaching younger and younger students, as early as third grade. This shows that the plagiarism education may be well-timed and not too early.
2. Plagiarism Morality: Though some believe, with some valid arguments, that plagiarism is more of a professional issue than a moral one, this study hints that plagiarism is at least a mixture of moral and professional.
3. Generational Gap: It is interesting that students as young as 5 and 6 see the moral issues of plagiarism in this capacity but, according to research of college students, many seem to lose that moral qualm with plagiarism later on. Could this be a shift in thinking over generations or do many students lose that view over time?

I don’t have any easy answers to the questions raised but I do find this study to be valuable in understanding the bigger picture of plagiarism and, possibly, understanding how to better combat it.

Hopefully this study will not only lead to a better understanding of child psychology, but also of plagiarism specifically, enabling academics and other creatives to better address the problem.

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

1: Copyright Lawsuits Filed Against U.S. Marijuana Party, Dating Website

First off today, the controversial company Righthaven is in the news again as the company has filed two more lawsuits over alleged infringement of the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s content. According to two suits filed, The United States Marijuana Party and a dating site, find-a-sweetheart.com both copied content from the Review-Journal. Righthaven is famous for buying the rights to various Review-Journal articles and then filing suit against sites that have copied the content, usually demanding $150,000 and forfeit of the domain. This brings the total Righthaven lawsuits up to an estimated 120.

2: Gannett Not Eager To Join Righthaven’s Campaign Against Bloggers

Next up today, in other Righthaven news, even as the group appears to be picking up steam with its litigation campaign and at least one additional customer, WEHCO Media, Gannett, the owner of USA Today, said that they were not interested in following that approach. The company’s Vice President, Barbara Wall, said on a teleconference that she felt the approach was not an approach they were “Going to pursue right now.” However, she did caution that the newspaper industry needs to find ways benefit from their news and that they can not simply allow the value of their work to be taken away by others.

3: Norton Study Reveals People View Internet Copyright File Sharing as Legal

Finally today, a new study on cybercrime from Norton reveals that, despite the recent litigation campaigns and major news blitz regarding file sharing, many still believe it to be legal to share copyrighted content on the Web. Specifically, respondents 17% felt it legal to download a single music track, 14% felt the same about an album or and 15% felt it legal to download a movie without paying. Though the clear majority recognized the illegal nature of such downloads, clearly there is still a significant minority that has not been reached by the various campaigns.

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: Music Service Grooveshark Settles Copyright Claims With Merlin

First off today, music streaming service Grooveshark has announced it has settled a lawsuit with Merlin, an organization created to represent independent labels. The deal will see Grooveshark pay an undisclosed amount to Merlin for past uses and sets a licensing rate moving forward. Grooveshark has signed similar deals with EMI and INgrooves but has not brought other labels on board.

2: Discovery Forcing Takeover of DeadliestCatchTV.Com

Next up today, The Discovery Channel is taking over a fan site for its “Deadliest Catch” show, DeadliestCatchTV.com. The site, which has been in operation since early 2007, is being shuttered over claims that the site infringes on Discovery Channel copyright. Among the list of complaints is that the site embedded official Discover Channel clips that the company had uploaded to various sites and provided the embed code for. Please note that, if you visit the link above after today, it very likely will be down as the takeover is due to take place August 11.

3: IPSOS: The Rise and Rise of Digital Music

Finally today, the research firm IPSOS has released a study that paints a more bright future for digital music. According to the study, even though CD sales are declining, digital sales and legal streaming are on the rise and will continue to be, largely through a combination of digital efforts including sites like iTunes and Spotify. However, the study did caution that there would be an ongoing issue with piracy and that not offering free, legal alternatives has a predictable impact on piracy issues.

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: Six months later, no ISPs joining RIAA piracy fight

First off today, according to industry insiders, the RIAA’s plans to work with ISPs rather than using mass lawsuits may be dead in the water. Six months after the plan was announced, no ISPs have come forward to admit to working with the RIAA and the organization has not been able to nail down a single agreement.

The controversial plan, which would have had ISPs using a “graduated response” system, including possible service termination has not taken off. Though AT&T has conducted some tests, there has not been a major push on this front and many are seeing this as a smokescreen to let the RIAA back away from the lawsuit strategy.

Others theorize that the RIAA might use its clout, especially with the DOJ, to start legislating the matter, though this article on CNet feels that wouldn’t work as the ISPs have much more support in Washington than the record labels.

It is unclear what, if anything, is next for the RIAA.

2: Ex-Conference Board Author Speaks Out; Confirms “Push Back” From Copyright Lobby Funders

Next up, according to Michael Geist, one of the authors of the now-controversial Conference Board of Canada copyright report has spoken out about how, according to him, industry pressures caused the report to be modified against what his own evidence suggested.

The author, Curtis Cook, says he quit the Conference Board in July of 2008 and did not see the changes until September of 2008, well after Cook had stopped working on the report, that he received reports of “pushback” against the findings. He said he and the researchers he worked with had nothing to do with the controversial findings and wording found in the report and has requested to have his name removed form it.

It is an interesting behind-the-scenes look at how the report was produced and where it seems to have gone astray.

3: China, Japan to launch talks on copyright piracy

Finally today, China and Japan, two countries usually thought of on exact opposites of the copyright spectrum, have agreed to hold annual talks about cracking down on copyright and trademark infringement in their countries.

The talks are part of a broader dialogue between the two countries but it is easy to see how any progress in China on dealing with copyright issues could benefit copyright holders all over the world.

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.

A recent study by content licensing and tracking company iCopyright claims to have found a link between article tools, the links that let users email, Digg, save or otherwise interact with a story, and content misuse.

The premise is that article tools, by encouraging users to copy the content on a site for limited purposes, may actually be creating confusion on the reader’s part and encouraging them to make use of the content beyond the intention of the tool.

While this makes sense to some degree and the study’s research does seem to indicate that there is reason to believe article tools may incite some level of content misuse, there are also nagging issues and other problems with the study that make its findings, and its proposed solutions, seem less certain.

Basic Findings

The iCopyright study consisted of two parts, a survey of 787 mailing list users as to their habits with reusing content and article tools. The second part was a usability study conducted by an independent lab that compared iCopyright’s article tools to competing services.

The study found that, 99% of visitors use articles on various sites in ways other than simple viewing. This includes printing, saving, emailing and sharing links. Of those who interact with content, nearly 65% said that they did so “Frequently” and another 31% said they did so occasionally.

However, nearly half of those who used articles used it for what the study considered a commercial use. This is because, according to iCopyright, the tools provide no clear system to explain the intended use of the tools nor any clear means to enforce the wishes of the publisher. These tools became de facto copy machines that, according to the study, were repeatedly abused out of ignorance.

According to the study, copyright notices and other self-fixes failed to work. Usability testing showed that such notices were overlooked or missed and users simply printed as they wished, even if it was in violation of the license.

To make matters worse, removing the tools did not help as 96% of respondents said that, if an article were not available for print via an article tool, they would do so anyway, most commonly via the browser’s “print” feature. Also, 95% said they would email an article even if it were unavailable via an article tool, including 37% who said they would copy and paste the entire text of the work into the email, as opposed to 40% who would simply email the link.

(Note: I it worth observing that linking to an article in an email nor printing out portions (perhaps even the entire work) is illegal. Deep linking is legal, fair use allows usage of small portions of the original and implied license may cover certain other behaviors. Simply because the study reports on a behavior does not mean that it is illegal or immoral.)

Also interesting is that 64% of respondents said they would rather use supplied article tools as opposed to other solutions and that the most important tools were email, print, save, share and comment, in that order.

The study then went on to present iCopyright’s article tools, which have strict controls on how the content is used, as a solution to the problem and as an opportunity to turn such uses of the content into a revenue stream.

The statistics in this study are very interesting and very enlightening for anyone who is curious how end users interact with their content. However, the study isn’t without its flaws and potential issues that need at least some attention.

Minor Problems

Though the data in the study is interesting and useful, it does come with a few caveats that are important to remember.

First, the sampling on the survey makes it more likely to attract those who routinely share articles. Not only were participants already subscribers to iCopyright’s Clip&Copy, a news service targeted at those who are interested in finding articles to reuse, but they had identified themselves as “information workers” more likely to have a job that requires them to share news.

Also, this sampling is not likely to be a good representative of visitors to an average blog or site. As every site has a different audience with unique skills and tendencies, so will change the types and means of interactions.

Second, the definition of “commercial use” is used a bit loosely. The answer options on the related question are whether users copy the article for “Personal Use”, “To Share with Friends and Family”, To Share with Coworkers”, “To Share With Clients” and “All of the Above”.

However, the study only considered the first two options non-commercial even though not all times an article is sent to coworkers or even clients is it commercial. Though many of them may be, it isn’t all of them for certain.

Another issue I see is that, in one section making the case for using iCopyright’s tools, the article said the following:

One thousand visitors to a site might generate $90 in advertising, assuming a $30 CPM and three page views per visitor. However, those same 1,000 visitors can produce $1,000 or more in commercial use licenses, assuming a 1% conversion rate at $100 per license. When built in to article tools, content licensing can provide a return ten times that of advertising.

These numbers seem incredibly optimistic on both sides. a $30 CPM is very high and many times the norm, but may be obtainable by some sites (very few). However, a 1% conversation rate on a $100 is almost impossible to imagine, especially since responses on far less expensive products is often much lower.

Though this is seems to be a simple example with off-the-cuff numbers to make a point, it doesn’t seem to mesh with current realities, especially with the economic downturn.

However, the biggest problem is the study’s proposed solution, to use iCopyright’s article tools with their protection, is not well supported. There is no research about how many people would be willing to pay for an interaction or what they would do if confronted with a fee for an action and they don’t wish to pay for it.

The study had already showed that, without any article tools, users will revert to other means to interact with content. If they are confronted with a fee, even a reasonable one, and don’t wish to pay it, those tools are still there.

Say, for example, a site charges for a print out of a work, if the user doesn’t wish to pay, they can still use their browser’s print button, copy/paste, etc. The only difference is that this time the user will know the wishes of the publisher and may be discourages. However, exactly how big of a deterrent that is, is not fully answered.

Still, none of these issues stop the study from providing some interesting insight into the way article tools are used and how the affect copyright. It will be interesting to see if these results change any major publisher’s approach to article tools as a result.

The Big Picture

Though the study has its flaws and is, understandably, a promotion for iCopyright’s own article tools services, which include its iCopyright for Creators service (previous coverage), a service targeted at bloggers, it does have some interesting statistics and some great insights.

For me, the takeaways are simple. Article tools see a wide variety of use and, if your goal is to limit what users do with your content, they are not the way to go. If you have less restrictive licensing, such as with this site, they probably make sense as the study shows that users strongly prefer such tools over the alternatives.

However, standard article tools as a means of protecting content or limiting use is a poor choice. But given that users who want to share your content will do so, it makes sense, in my opinion, it makes sense to apply them and channel that energy through a system you have some control over. Yes, there will be abuse of the tools, but at least it is your system and not something completely outside your ability to enforce, monitor and track.

Whether you use iCopyright or another set of article tools, it is important to understand the advantages and the drawbacks. As smaller publishers, most people reading this don’t have to worry too much about the bottom line and whether each infringement is a dollar lost, something the target group for this study does, but we still have to develop effective content strategies to make our content work for us, not against us.

Disclosure: iCopyright has donated to this site in the past and I have consulted for Attributor, a company that competes with the Creators service (though not the licensing service).

The results were stunning. According their report, on average the sites that they studied had 140% more views of their content on other sites than the original. This meant that well over half of all views of the content took place on sites other than the creator’s and were unavailable for either monetization or, in many cases, attribution.

Though the results are interesting, they likely are not at all surprising to many who deal with copyright and plagiarism issues on the Web. With human copying, RSS aggregation (both good and bad) and other republication as common as it is, many had already suspected that the audience of a content was much larger off the site than on it. Attributor is simply one of the first to conduct a study that shows it.

However, there are several elements of the study that are interesting beyond the initial findings and may offer clues as to what Webmasters are most at risk of having their content misused.

How it Was Done

According to the report (PDF), they analyzed 100 publishers from the Compete Top 1000, first discarding their existing customers and sites with partial feeds, and added some publishers into the list on top of that to ensure a good mix of different topics.

They then ran the sites through the content matching service and analyzed all of the copies that had higher than a 50% match and more than 125 words the same. After removing known licensees, they looked at the sites that had information on and used traffic estimates from Compete to get an approximate idea of how large the viewership was on these match sites.

After that, they then broke down the results by broad category to see which kinds of publishers had the largest “Audience Multiplier”, meaning viewership of their content on other sites.

The results were that, on average, the publishers tested had nearly 60% of their content viewership on other sites. This leads to missed opportunities both for linkbuilding and for monetization as well as possible causes for removal requests.

This obviously will be of great interest to many Web publishers, who are looking for ways to maximize their audience in the face of an economic slow down, but may not come as a surprise to those that have studied these issues.

However, other findings of the study are potentially even more useful to Webmasters, especially those in high-risk fields.

High-Risk Topics

The study, in addition to looking at publishers in general, broke down their results by content category and the results there were staggering.

Of the sites listed, automotive sites fared the worst. For them, they had nearly seven times the audience on other sites than they did on their own. Travel sites also had a high multiplier, over five times the amount and movie reviews had just under five.

In each of the cases above, the sites have audiences on other parts of the Web that easily dwarf their own traffic, meaning they are experiencing the highest level of unlicensed copying and the sites that are copying them have the highest amount traffic levels.

The topics that fared best were politics and health, both of which had barely over one. However, in both cases, the audience is still larger on the rest of the Web, only in these cases it is by a very small margin.

Why there is such a wide divide between the different topics is very difficult to say. Without the full statistics, which were not available in the report, it could be due to a variety of reasons. Though it seems unlikely that one site would be scraped and republished significantly less than another, especially since nearly all of the topics have a strong spammer following, it could be a sign that copying and pasting has had a higher degree of success in certain categories.

For example, with political sites, most people visit the one or two sites that they trust rather than performing blind searches. However, when automotive problems arise, people tend to put queries into Google and trust the search results. Even though both sites likely have many copies of their content, one is able to rely on their brand loyalty to keep much of their audience close by.

However, this is only a guess, but it is clear that it is time to think about the sites in danger slightly differently. Technology and health were two categories with very low multipliers, though they both have a very high tendency to attract spammers.

Some Caveats

It is worth noting that the study, while useful, should not be considered scientifically valid. The sampling size is too small and the traffic statistics, though likely about as good as possible, leaves room for error.

It is very difficult to imagine a more thorough study being performed without the backing of a major university, but any study in this area is likely to face similar challenges and limitations.

The other element is that this study focuses on large publishers and not regular bloggers. Whether this means that bloggers would have a much higher audience multiplier due to their smaller initial audience or a smaller one due to less copying and scraping remains to be seen.

Though, likely, the results on the different categories of content and their relative risk may transfer well to smaller publishers, a separate study would likely be needed for smaller bloggers to see how their audience compares.

Still, the purpose of the study is not to necessarily achieve these goals, but to illustrate the possibility of a much larger audience outside of the original site. This is something many have suspected but, to my knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to discuss the issue.

Conclusions

The bottom line is simple, most likely the audience for your content is much larger off your site than it is on it. What you do about that is completely up to you. Whether you attempt to monetize it, turn it into promotion or request removal of it (or a combination of all three) is up to the individual author and the course they want to take.

No matter what though, it is clear that this audience and its potential (both for harm and for good) is too big to ignore and it is important to start tracking and understanding what is going on. Whether it is through a professional service such as Attributor, one targeted at individuals such as Copyscape or even simple Google searches, the time to understand these uses is now.

What the Attributor study illustrates, more than anything, is the need for an even deeper understanding of how this copying takes place, what it means for publishers and what strategies could they use to maximize their benefit from it.

This is an area ripe for exploration moving forward and one that will require a great deal of creativity and work.

Disclosure: I work as a consultant for Attributor.