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

1: Torrent Search Engine BTJunkie Voluntarily Shuts Down

First off today, popular Bittorrent search engine BTJunkie has voluntarily closed, taking the site offline with just a brief notice to users. The site, which made it easy for users to find and download files via Bittorrent was one of the most popular file sharing sites on the Web and one of the top Bittorrent sites. BTJunkie, despite its size, was never directly targeted by law enforcement or copyright holders. However, according to one of the founders, the recent legal action against Megaupload and The Pirate Bay helped prompt the move.

2: Tycoon to Aid “Pirate” Legal Fight Against Extradition to the U.S. on Copyright Theft Charges

Next up today, UK citizen Richard O’Dwyer, who was the former administrator the site TVShack, a site that specialized in providing links to illegal streams of copyrighted content, may have found an unusual ally in his fight to avoid being extradited to the U.S. Alki David, most famous in copyright circles as the founder of video steaming service Filmon, which was recently ordered to stop streaming content from several major TV networks, has offered to pay his legal expenses both in his extradition fight and in the U.S. if he loses. O’Dwyer lost his first appeal to avoid extradition and faces an 10 year prison sentence in the U.S. for criminal copyright infringement even though his alleged crimes aren’t against the law in the UK.

3: Chrysler Hits Possible Copyright Snag with NFL Over Super Bowl Commercial

Finally today, Chrysler struck a cord with it’s 2-minute Super Bowl commercial “Half Time in America”, which starred Clint Eastwood and spoke about a comeback for both Detroit and America. However, the YouTube version of the commercial was pulled down, according to YouTube due to a copyright request from the NFL. Chyrsler said they had no idea why the commercial was pulled, indicating they had no hand in it, but quickly uploaded another version of it and encouraged others to link to it.

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.

The move’s timing one day after the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) blackout protests have put this takedown in the spotlight, both as alleged evidence that the act, and its sister act Protect IP (PIPA), were unnecessary, but also dangerous.

However, with the 72-page indictment against Megaupload made public, we have a deeper look at the operations of the controversial site and, for many of us, confirmation that Megaupload appeared to be knowingly and deliberately running a operation that supported piracy.

One of the more interesting elements of the indictment, however, looks squarely at Megaupload’s response to DMCA notices and, specifically, the various ways that it would attempt to thwart DMCA takedowns. These methods not only included selective cooperation with DMCA notices, but also a technical workaround that ensured it was almost impossible to completely remove content from the service.

To understand how this worked, you have to look a bit deeper at the internal workings of Megaupload and how the DMCA filing system worked.

Three People, One File

To understand the problem, let’s play out a simplified scenario that happened regularly on the site.

Three people all want to make the same movie available for distribution using Megaupload. Each upload a copy of the movie to the service and receive a separate access link to it. However, Megaupload, not wanting to waste file storage space, takes a hash of each file and realizes that they are identical. So, rather than storing three copies of the file, all three links point to the same file on their servers.

This is a common practice among file storage serves and even Dropbox does something similar to both speed up uploads and avoid storing duplicate files.

The problem, however, is what would happen when a copyright holder would file a DMCA takedown notice. Rather than, as the law says, disabling access to the infringing work, Megaupload would simply disable the link specifically mentioned in the takedown notice.

The result is that, though the infringing work would appear to have been removed, only the specific link mentioned would have been taken down and all other links to the file would remain valid even though Megaupload had been put on notice that the file itself was infringing. Copyright holders, however, would likely be unaware of this and would just assume that the other links were separate uploads of the file.

As such, it was almost impossible for a copyright holder to remove all “instances” of a file on the service and Megaupload worked to keep as much infringing content up on their service as possible.

This, in turn, was likely a big part of why Megaupload was so popular among pirates.

How Other Cyberlockers Handle Takedown Notices

The reason this is a problem for copyright holders is that most don’t file DMCA notices against a link, but against a file. However, Megaupload would not remove the actual file and, instead, just disabled the link. To the filer, it would appear that the takedown notice was successful even though the file still remained, it’s just that the known link was disabled.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much that a copyright holder can do about this, especially a smaller one. Megaupload, before its closure, got to keep files infringing files available to pirates and save on storage costs all the while appearing to be compliant with the DMCA when, in truth, they were not.

This, of course, turns the attention of copyright holders (and the government) to other cyberlocker-style sites that, almost certainly, have a similar hashing system to reduce storage costs and could easily use the same trick to limit the effectiveness of takedown notices.

To find out how they handled DMCA takedown notices, I contacted half a dozen different cyberlocker services to find out if their system was similar to Megaupload’s. However, as of this writing only two responded and neither were very straightforward with their replies.

Rapidshare, in addition to attaching a broader statement about Megaupload, said the following:

RapidShare employs an anti-abuse team which is responsible for obtaining information on illegal files from rights holders or third parties, carries out independent searches for illegal files, deletes from the servers any files which infringe copyright, and if necessary, blocks user accounts. RapidShare has also introduced a registration process which customers have to complete, anonymous uploads are not allowed any more.

Likewise, Depositfiles chimed in and said:

We are highly concerned by the criminalization of otherwise civil offence. We are looking thoroughly into the case as creating a precedent will change the whole nature of internet services including major fields of hosting, billing and advertizing (sic).

At the moment we may state that our technical platform and communication model is completely dissimilar to Megaupload’s. Sadly at the time of unease we cannot disclose any additional details for publication.

I will add other hosts’ response if and when they arrive.

Bottom Line

All in all, what this means is simple. When you file a DMCA takedown notice, even if the notice appears to be complied with, it doesn’t always mean that the content is truly gone. Though Megaupload appears to be the exception in this area, undoubtedly there are others using the same or a similar technique to thwart legitimate notices.

Fixing this problem will not be easy and, in the meantime, the most rightsholders can do is be aware of the problem and be vigilant against it.

Hopefully a more robust solution to this problem can be found soon and both legitimate file hosting sites and rightsholders can rest a bit easier at night.

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

1: Yahoo! Counter-sues SPH in Copyright Lawsuit

First off today, U.S. search engine Yahoo! has filed a counter-suit against Singapore publisher SPH. SPH had previously sued Yahoo over some 23 articles that it claims were reproduced substantially on Yahoo!’s sites. However, Yahoo! has now countered saying that the amount copied only extends as far as facts and information, which are not copyrightable, but also cited two articles and an image that appeared on an SPH citizen journalism site though they originated from Yahoo!. Yahoo! also said that the two sides tried to work out a licensing agreement in 2009 but were unable to come to an agreement.

2: File-Sharing Company Sues Record Label, for a Change

Next up today, Megaupload has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music claiming that the record label filed unlawful takedowns of a music video posted to YouTube by the cyberlocker service. The video, which had several big name artists coming out in support of the controversial service. However, Will.i.am, one of the artists in the video, claims he didn’t give his authorization to appear and Universal claims to have filed the takedown over the unauthorized reproduction of a performance by one of their artists, likely Will.i.am. However, Megaupload claims to have gotten releases from all of the artists involved and is seeking damages from Universal over the takedown.

3: YouTube Pulls Official The Last of Us Trailer Due to ‘Copyright Claim’

Finally today, in another case of a questionable YouTube DMCA takedown, the official trailer for the upcoming game “Last of Us” was taken down due to a copyright complaint, even though it was uploaded by Sony. However, even though the takedown was reportedly from Viacom, it appears that it may have been a mistake from Sony who, after being notified of the issue, apologized for it and had the video restored. No word if it was Sony who filed the takedown and, if so, why Viacom was listed as the filer.

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: Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue Label”

First off today, cyberlocker site Megaupload released a music video featuring many of music’s top stars including Diddy, Will.i.am, Snoop Dog and more. Though the video didn’t talk about copyright issues, it showed the artists talking about how much they love or use Megaupload, even as the RIAA and the MPAA seek to classify Megaupload as a “Rogue” website that enables widespread copyright infringement. However, Universal Music has filed several takedown notices against YouTube version of the video, putting Megaupload’s account at risk of being banned even though, according to Megaupload, the label doesn’t own anything in the video. Site founder Kim Dotcom went on to say that Universal was a “Rogue” label and that they had filed a counternotice relating to the video.

2: Yoga Pose Copyright Bid Too Much of a Stretch, U.S. Says in Bikram Battle

Next up today, the U.S. Copyright Office has announced that it is reversing course and no longer accepting registrations for yoga poses and other exercises. The office, in an email that was submitted as evidence in a dispute between two New York-based yoga studios, the Copyright Office said that yoga poses, “Do not constitute the subject matter that Congress intended to protect as choreography,” and, as such, will not provide registration certificates for them. Previously, the Copyright Office had done so, even if the poses were in the public domain, but reached the new conclusion after reviewing the legislative history of copyright law.

3: YouTube acquires RightsFlow

Finally today, Google’s YouTube service has acquired RightsFlow, a licensing service that specializing in streamlining the licensing process for music. The move is, most likely, an effort to simplify and speed up the process of licensing music on YouTube. YouTube, which is currently being sued by Viacom for its practices in its early years, has been working hard to secure licensing and rights to music and videos uploaded to its service and, by acquiring RightsFlow, seeks to simplify that process.

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: Book, Record Industries Attack Righthaven Fair Use Ruling

First off today, the Association of American Publishers and the Recording Industry Association of America both filed amicus briefs with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in one of Righthaven’s lawsuits. Righthaven, which sued nearly 300 bloggers and webmasters over alleged infringement of content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, has had their campaign on hold in recent weeks due to a string of legal defeats. However, the associations aren’t filing briefs in hope of reviving the lawsuits, rather, they are addressing a narrow fair use issue in one of the cases, a ruling that, according to them, could be disastrous for copyright holders. Neither brief addresses the issue of Righthaven’s position to use, the grounds on which it lost the case.

2: Ad Network Not Guilty of Copyright Infringement For Serving Pirate Site

Next up today, the ad network Chitika has come out victorious in a lawsuit that pitted them against publishers Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons. The publishers had claimed that Chitika, which was running ads on Pharmatext, a site that previously offered pirated ebooks. However, according to several industry experts, including attorney Eric Goldman, the ruling leaves the door open for services like Chitika to lose similar fights if copyright holders notify them of the infringement first. If the publishers could have shown that Chitika was aware of the infringement, the result could have been very different and that, in turn, may pave the way for a “notice and takedown” system for ad networks similar to what is proposed in the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

3: Celeb Photo Agency Sues Gossip Site

Finally today, celebrity photo agency Mavrix has filed a lawsuit against Idontlikeyouinthatway.com as well as related companies CraveOnline Media and AtomicOnline claiming that the site is has unlawfully used photos from the service on “numerous occasions”. The lawsuit is seeking some $3 million in damages as well as an injunction barring the site from using any more of their photos in the future. According to the lawsuit, Mavrix has licensed images for as much as $100,000 a piece, opening the door also to high actual damages as well as statutory ones.

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.

This is a problem that grows quickly depending on the number of sites that you’re attempting to monitor. If you’re only dealing with a couple of sites at a time, you can probably monitor for compliance by hand. However, if you start having more than a handful cases open at once it becomes easy to forget about cases and let them drop.

In my DMCA work, I’ve experimented with a variety of cloud-based tools for monitoring compliance and for keeping on top of non-responsive hosts. However, I’ve never been truly happy with any single tool. Some do great at monitoring webpages but can’t monitor images, others do well with multiple file types but don’t track often enough. Others are just flat-out expensive to use.

However, I finally decided to bite the bullet and seek out a local solution. To that end, I found Changes Meter by Intuiware. Changes Meter is a free application for Mac OSX that tracks changes in websites and can alert you almost immediately when a site has been altered or, in the case of DMCA notices, has been taken down.

After just a few weeks of using it, I’m already wondering how I survived without it and am slowly moving all of my takedown work over to it.

What is Changes Meter?

Changes Meter is a simple app that’s designed to run in the background of your computer (most of the time sitting silently in your menubar) and check websites for updates and changes. Though it’s original intent was to track changes in a website to alert you to new content, similar to what RSS does, it can also work to monitor for compliance with cease and desist letters and DMCA takedown notices.

To monitor a new site you simply paste in the URL, tell Changes Meter how often you want to check it and set the sensitivity (the lower the sensitivity, the bigger the change has to be in order to trigger an alert).

Changes Meter will then run in the background and follow your orders, alerting you to changes via the menu icon, which is a pie chart that changes to represent unchanged, changed and failing URLS. Changes Meter also supports Growl notifications and can be set to alert you after a check is completed.

All in all, it is not a very complex piece of software but that isn’t what makes it great. That’s the fact it simply works without interfering needlessly with you.

Reviewing Changes Meter

To be clear, Changes Meter isn’t very feature rich nor is it very precise. However, it gets the job done and stays out of your way to do it. It runs in the background and neither eats up a lot of system resources nor pesters you needlessly. That’s what works best about it.

I’ve never once in my tests as much as noticed Changes Meter running unless it had an alert for me. If anything, it’s too easy to forget about and, sometimes, before I had it opening on login, I would accidentally leave it off for an extended period of time.

Beyond that, it works well with any file type, including images, executables, etc. and alerts equally well on errors (meaning the page is offline) and changes (meaning the content was altered). This means just about anything you can want to track online can be monitored for just about any type of change.

The one gripe I do have about Changes Meter is that it can be very difficult to get the sensitivity setting right. Though “Normal” is fine for most sites, many sites have dynamic elements that will generate false positives at that setting. Since there’s no way to select what content you are tracking or indicate what section of the page to look at for changes, you have to play around with the sensitivity to find what you’re looking for.

Still, that’s a fairly minor gripe for a system that, overall, works almost perfectly. If you have a Mac and need to monitor a lot of webpages for changes, Changes Meter is quite probably your best solutions.

Bottom Line

All in all, Changes Meter is a great app for monitoring websites for changes. It’s simple, efficient and it gets the job done.

Typically, with my work, I strongly favor cloud-based solutions for the purpose of portability and backup. I’m a big fan of Google Docs, Todoist and other Web-based apps. However, with this problem, a local application was simply a better solution and I’m glad I gave Changes Meter a try.

It’s very rare these days to find good, simple apps that do their job without crashes or problems. I’m glad this was one of them. It’s made my life much easier and will help greatly with the organization and maintenance of the DMCA process moving forward.

However, some infringers just don’t get the hint. The work goes down and but it doesn’t stay there. Sometimes it reappears on the same server, sometimes on a new one. Sometimes it happens almost instantly, sometimes its weeks or even months later. But no matter the circumstance repeat infringers are extremely frustrating to deal with.

Fortunately, they tend to be very rare and some cases of repeat infringement are actually accidents and mistakes. However, if you do run into a repeat infringer that survives one stake through its heart, it’s time to start devising a plan for putting an end to the case quickly and moving on as fast as possible.

Why People Infringe Repeatedly

Generally, repeat infringers are rare because it isn’t worth the time and effort to go back after someone who has already shut you down once. With so much content on the Web, there’s almost no reason for a plagiarist to pick a prolonged fight with an angry copyright holder, unless they are targeting that content specifically.

Yet, a handful do. Sometimes its because spammers automate their operation so heavily it can be difficult to stop, other times it’s a technical issue or a mistake that causes the work to reappear. However, the more common causes of repeat infringers appears to be ignorance (ignorance of the law or simply thinking that the creator is gone), or simple spite.

The exception to this is in cases of outright piracy, such as file locker and Bittorrent sites. Those sites are targeting specific works, not merely trying to fill pages, and its users will work tirelessly to keep the content they want online, even re-uploading it multiple times. Unfortunately, this is a different scenario that we are going to have to talk about in another article down the road.

That being said, if there’s no reason to believe that your work was targeted initially (IE: It was used for spam sites, plagiarized in a blog or used as marketing copy) yet you are still dealing with a repeat infringer, there are specific actions that you need to take to try and bring a quick end to the ordeal.

Stopping a Repeat Infringer

Dealing with a repeat infringer isn’t easy and what you have to do depends heavily on exactly how they put the content back online. Generally, there are three ways they can do it.

1. Reupload to Same Host: This is probably the most common situation. The infringer, once their host removes the work, simply restores the files or posts themselves.
2. Reupload to a New Host: Sometimes plagiarists and other infringers will get so mad at their host they’ll move to another one and reupload the content there.
3. Counter-Notice: The DMCA provides a system by which someone who has had content removed via a takedown notice can file a counter-notice. These are exceptionally rare in cases where the notice was legitimate, but they do happen.

Your response generally depends on what route the infringer took.

If they took the first and re-uploaded to the same host, simply notify their host that the content is back up and you haven’t been given a counter-notice. Email the same contact but do not file a full DMCA notice unless specifically asked.

The reason is that you don’t want to start the process all over again. Hosts, generally, frown on this type of behavior from their users. It’s often the difference between removing a few infringing images and banning a customer and all of their domains. This is, in large part, due to the DMCA itself, which requires hosts to terminate “repeat infringers”.

However, if you restart the process, they might not remember the first infringement and merely remove the work again.

If the infringer moved to a new host, consider filing a new takedown notice with the new host. Many will try moving the content to a new host in hopes of eluding detection but, once they realize you’re still watching will move on to something else. Others may move a few more times but most, generally, will get tired of the cat and mouse game quickly.

That being said, if they don’t but the content remains at the same URL, you may want to consider filing a DMCA notice with Google and the other search engines. Though it won’t remove the content from the Web, it will at least prevent them from gaining any SEO benefit from it and causing confusion with the original works.

That way, if you do have to have to abandon the fight, at least you know the harm from the infringement is minimal.

Finally, if a counter-notice was filed, you, legally, only have the option of filing suit, which is likely very difficult. Specifically, you would need an injunction to prevent the works from being restored (or get them taken down again) and that likely is not worthwhile.

Bottom Line

Repeat infringers are, fortunately, a pretty rare breed. Most are happy to simply get away after getting caught and don’t come back for a second bite. However, those who do can be a major headache and, at times, can lead to a game of Whack-A-Mole that can be very frustrating.

Fortunately, that usually isn’t needed and you can typically shut down a repeat infringer pretty quickly. In cases where you can’t, there are means to minimize the damage they can do so their infringement doesn’t harm you more than necessary.

All in all, it’s not a problem that content creators need to obsess over but one they need to be aware of and aware of how to handle.

The very nature of their business, in many circles, creates disdain for the industry and, as per the unwritten “fifth” fair use factor, they are seen as “evil”, thus harming their chances in court.

But the social stigma and discretion that comes with the industry has yet another potential problem, DMCA compliance. Because, while adult content enjoys all of the same copyright protections as other forms of material, the compliance with DMCA notices that an adult provider sees is, likely, much lower.

As someone who regularly files notices on behalf of adult content creators or against hosts specializing in adult material, I’ve noticed a trend where, while most DMCA notices see a compliance of around 95% or above, the compliance with adult content drops to 75% or below.

Sadly, this isn’t just an issue for people who are producing pornography as a lot of adult-oriented sites also end up hosting non-pornographic content. Think, for example, what happend to Lara Jade has her images were used on the cover of a porn DVD.

The problem, for the most part, isn’t content-neutral hosts (including file lockers) but rather sites aimed directly at hosting adult content. These hosts, in general, tend to be the least cooperative and, even when they do cooperate, often take the longest and do the least amount possible to resolve the issues.

The reasons for this, however, are straightforward, but the solutions are few and far between.

Why the Problem with Adult Hosts?

Adult hosts are an interesting situation. Where most hosts consider copyright compliance to be one of their most critical abuse issues, adult hosts put a lot lower priority on it. The reasons for that are many, including the following:

1. Bigger Concerns: Adult hosts have a myriad of laws they have to obey and, while many of them also apply to more content-neutral hosts, they are certainly less common issues and they are at much less risk than adult-oriented hosts.
2. International Issues: Adult-oriented hosts are much more likely to be out of the US/EU zone that honors takedown requests. Many can safely balk at removal requests as local laws don’t require any action or, at the very least, they know they are out of reach of any potential legal action.
3. Ulterior Motives: Many of such sites actively depend on infringing material for their content base and revenue, thus, the risk in not removing content is less than the damage to their bottom line doing so would cause.

While most adult-oriented sites do still comply with DMCA notices and other copyright complaints promptly, it unfortunately means that a disproportionate number don’t.

Resolving this, however, is not an easy matter though there is at least one tool for gaining leverage over uncooperative hosts.

Dealing with Uncooperative Hosts

Dealing with uncooperative adult hosts really isn’t much different than dealing with other uncooperative hosts. As per my Stopping Internet Plagiarism guide, the best next action is to take the issue up with the search engines and get the content removed there.

Search engine DMCA notices have a series of effects. The first being that it gets the content removed from the various SERPs, reducing the number of people who see it and access it. Also, domains that accumulate a lot of these notices are often reduced or even dropped from the search engines, something that most of these sites fear.

That, in turn, makes these sites much more cooperative in removing the infringing content. In several occasions, I’ve seen content that the host refused to remove infringing material but took action after getting a notice from Google about a filing there.

In short, your best bet is to take the issue to a “higher power” and, over time, it’s likely that these sites will learn to respond better on the first notice.

Bottom Line

In the end, while it’s adult content creators that certainly have the most to worry about, they aren’t the only ones either. Since non-adult material routinely winds up on adult hosts, it’s an issue for almost every type of content creators.

While there isn’t necessarily much that one can do about these issues, at least not from a practical standpoint, being aware of them makes one better able to deal with them and less likely to get bogged down in them.

That, in turn, can help you be more effective and more efficient in protecting your work online.

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

1: Music Execs Want to Know How a (Possibly Imaginary) 13-Year-Old Brought Down Bieber on YouTube

First off today, at least some music executives are asking questions as to how a possibly fictional 13-year-old was able to successfully get music videos by Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga, among others, removed from YouTube for several hours. As reported earlier, the user, named ILCreative, had filed copyright notices against the official YouTube channels of many artists. New details, however, are showing that ILCreative was able to do so because he or she had been authorized as a YouTube partner and that gave them greater access to file copyright reports. Though some music executives are pushing for answers, others are calling it an isolated incident that is not a sign of a larger problem.

2: Survey: College Plagiarism Is at an All-Time High

Next up today, a Pew Research Center survey indicates that more than half of all college students believe that plagiarism has increased over the last ten years and nearly 90 percent put at least some of the blame on the Web and computers. Other results from the study find a wide expectation in the growth of digital textbooks and online eduction.

3: No Internet Rush to Beat Copyright Clampdown

Finally, today is the day that New Zealand’s “three strikes” law takes effect but it doesn’t appear that Internet users in the country rushed to download all of their files beforehand. There was no reported spike in data usage despite the law’s deadline. However, in other articles, there has been a report of users switching to using proxy services in an attempt to avoid detection under the law.

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: Justin Bieber, Gaga Fans Enraged as Videos Disappear from YouTube

First off today, Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga fell victim to a prankster named “ILCreative” that filed a copyright complaint against all of their videos. Other stars, including Rihanna, Miley Cyrus and Beyonce all had some of their videos removed. All of the removed videos have been restored, but fans launched a Twitter campaign against IlCreative, many of whom threatened the unnamed person. The DMCA provides penalties for filing false DMCA notices but it is unclear if IlCreative used the full DMCA process.

2: File-sharing Site Bayfiles ‘To Respect Copyrights’

Next up today, two of the original founders of The Pirate Bay are starting up a new site, Bayfiles, that will function as a one-click hosting site. However, the pair has said that the site will respect copyright law and remove infringing material. The site will work like Rapidshare and other one-click hosting sites in that users will upload files, up to 500 MB in size and be given a link to allows others access to download it. The site has already registered a DMCA agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to receive notices of copyright infringement.

3: New iTunes Match Feature Revealed: Music Streaming From The Cloud Coming Soon

Finally today, as a new developer beta of iOS has been sent out, enabling testers to sign up for Apple’s iCLoud service, a new feature has been discovered, streaming music from the cloud. The feature, which disappointed many when it was not shown during Apple’s unveiling of the iCloud service, enables users to stream their music from Apple’s servers and not having them stored locally on their computer or phone. The move pits Apple more head-to-head with Google Music and Amazon Cloud MP3.

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.