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

1: Chinese Authors Sue Apple for Copyright Infringement

First off today, a group of nine Chinese authors have reportedly filed suit against Apple for some 11.9 million yuan ($1.9 million) over allegedly infringing books in the iTunes App Store. According to the authors, they have tried to work with Apple to get the infringing books removed with no luck. The same group of authors has also taken on the Chinese search engine Baidu and Google over similar issues.

2: Leader of NinjaVideo.Net Website Sentenced to 22 Months in Prison for Criminal Copyright Conspiracy

Next up today, Hana Amal Beshara, one of the co-founders of the site NinjaVideo, has been sentenced to 22 months in prison, two years supervised release and 500 hours of community service as part of her plea deal in the case. Beshara was one of the founders and leaders of the site, which serviced as a haven for a variety of pirated video content and was open from 2008 until it was closed in 2010 by the government. Three other defendants have also been arrested and have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Another, located in Greece, still has not been arrested.

3: Is It About to Get Much Easier for Artists to Bring Copyright-Infringement Lawsuits?

Finally today, The U.S. Copyright Office is accepting public comment on the idea of setting up a small claims court for smaller copyright matters. Currently, all copyright issues in the U.S. have to go through Federal court, regardless of size and money involved, and this leads to a great deal of expense that often isn’t able to be recouped. The idea of a small claims court would be to remove attorneys from the matter and make the litigation process cheaper, lowering the cost of both filing and defending such lawsuits. The public comment period ends January 16.

Suggestions

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

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

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

1: Copyright Office Report Urges Congress To Federalize Rights in Pre-1972 Recordings

First off today, the U.S. Copyright Office is urging Congress to place sound recordings from before 1972 under Federal copyright law protection. Sound records from before that year were copyrighted under a myriad of state regimes, some without expiration. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 did away with this, but left works before the effective date of the act under state protection. Librarians, eager for consistent and predictable copyright systems when dealing with sound recordings favor the change through rightsholders, comfortable with the protections state law provides, are skeptical. In September Rep. Jared S. Polis introduced an act to do exactly that, with a two-year plan for implementation.

2: Receiver Says Righthaven ‘Uncooperative’ in Surrendering Copyrights

Next up today, Righthaven, which made a controversial name for itself with no-warning lawsuits over alleged abuse of content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and The Denver Post, has been rebuked by a receiver placed in charge of selling off the company’s assets to pay attorneys fees it owes a former defendant. The defendant, Wayne Hoehn, defeated Righthaven in the courts and was awarded attorney’s fees but Righthaven, unable to come up with the $63,720 in fees it owes. This has resulted in the courts ordering the auction of various Righthaven assets, including their domain and the copyrights they obtained to file their suits. However, Righthaven has been less than forthcoming with surrendering these items, claiming that it could open them up to legal action from business partners if they do. The receiver is now seeking guidance from the court.

3: Wiz Khalifa Accused in Lawsuit of Lifting From ‘Pink N Yellow’

Finally today, Wiz Khalifa has found himself the subject of a lawsuit, this one filed by a Pennsylvania songwriter who goes by the name “Maxamillion” and claims that Khalifa’s hit song “Black and Yellow” is based on his 2007 song, “Pink N Yellow”. The suit claims that the two songs are substantially similar and is seeking a portion of the profits from “Black and Yellow”. Neither side had any further comment.

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 new system creates a two-fold registration for each work that’s uploaded through the system:

1. A triple fingerprint of the work designed to ensure its integrity. This is done using MD5, SHA1 and SHA512 hashes.
2. A certificate generated by an outside authority, one that is approved by the Spanish Ministry of Industry for the purpose of providing such evidence. The certificate is time stamped twice to ensure there are no errors and that the information is accurate.

Users will then be able to download both the registration evidence and the work from their Safe Creative account and it should provide much better support should a dispute over a work arise, especially if it does so in Spain or in the EU. Also, since the certificate is performed by a third party, it provides a guarantee that it will remain useful should Safe Creative close or that you decide to close your account.

However, the drawback of this is that, due to the increased cost of performing registrations, Safe Creative is now starting to limit free accounts to 10 registrations per month. Also, free users will not be able to download the full certificate and instead will have to sign up for either a premium or a pro account to have access to that information.

While the move is likely to upset many free users, it does put Safe Creative in a much stronger position to help its users and provide strong evidence that could be used in a legal dispute.

My Thoughts on the Move

Back in October, I talked about the service EasyTimeStamping.com, which provides a very similar form of registration, one passed through a government-approved certificate authority.

The goal of these registrations is to make sure that the information collected by these non-repudiation services (file information, date, time, author, etc.) is of use in a court of law. In the United States, the only way to obtain this kind of evidence is through a U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) registration, which provides what is known as prima facie evidence of ownership. This, as with approved certificates, makes it so that someone trying to challenge your claim has to provide evidence capable of refuting the existing registration, giving you a great advantage in such a dispute.

That being said, Safe Creative’s prices, 36 Euros ($46) per year for a premium account for unlimited registrations, fares a lot better for rightsholders who register a large number of works. A 50 Euro ($64) package from EasyTimeStamping.com only provides 200 registrations, an amount most active writers, photographers, etc. will go through well before a year is out.

However, since the U.S. Copyright Office is the only provider accepted in the U.S. for such evidence, this new service probably isn’t of much benefit to U.S.-based copyright holders. Those wanting or needing to go beyond the 10 registrations available in the free account may want to look at Myows as a good alternative. However those outside the U.S., in particular those in the EU, may well find Safe Creative’s service very compelling as it’s both cheaper and easier than four USCO registrations ($140 if filed electronically), which is what it would take to ensure nothing was registered past the three month window for ensuring complete protection of published works.

In short, bloggers and others just looking for a stop gap to help with the delay between USCO registrations or provide less-secure proof of ownership will, most likely, be frustrated by this move. But those who are looking for more serious protection of their work, in particular outside of the U.S., will likely gain a great deal from it.

Bottom Line

All in all, what’s happening with Safe Creative and other official registration services overseas is that they are democratizing the registration process. I had talked about something like this in 2009 as a way of fixing the woes of the U.S. Copyright Office. The idea was to “deputize” third parties to process copyright registrations to enable cheaper registrations, better service and quicker processing of claims.

These other countries are doing exactly that by giving official approval to certificate providers, which in turn use registration services to handle the processing of works. It’s interesting though because these solutions, which work very well overall, are coming from countries that had no registration system in place prior to the Web but saw the need to verify ownership of works online

It makes one wonder how different the U.S. Copyright Office would be if it were being constructed today…

Disclosure: I have done paid consulting for Safe Creative.

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.

It’s Friday again and that means it’s time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show!

It may be the holidays but that doesn’t mean things are slowing down in copyright news. Not only is SOPA and it’s new alternative still making headlines, but new DRM rules are on the horizon and we even have a major court ruling in a case against an advertiser.

We also have a case of a fair use ruling making strange bedfellows and a conclusion to the Vostu/Zynga case just in time for Zynga’s upcoming IPO.

Those stories and many more are in this week’s edition of the Copyright 2.0 Show!

This week’s stories include:

• SOPA Opponents Introduce Alternative Legislation, now Called OPEN Act
• EFF to Ask Copyright Office to Legalize Jailbreaking on Tablets, Consoles and More
• Chitika Not Liable for Serving Ads on Pirate Site, May Have Been if Informed
• Publishers, Record Labels Join Righthaven Fair Use Fight
• Vostu Settles w/ Zynga, Will Change Games
• Much, Much More!

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

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

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

1: Register of Copyrights: Without SOPA, Copyright “Will Ultimately Fail”

First off today, the Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante, testified before Congress yesterday regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and gave unabashed support for the bill, even saying that without it copyright would “ultimately fail”. The act, which enables U.S. rightsholders to get court orders to block “rogue” websites as well as order payment providers, advertisers and others to stop supplying funds to them, has been the subject of great controversy in recent weeks. Pallante herself had, previously, indicated she was opposed to efforts that might “unnecessarily jeopardize the efficient operation of the Internet” but gave her full support for this bill. More hearings are scheduled today.

2: Streaming Service Reproduces Copyrighted Films in Memory Buffers, High Court Rules

Next up today, in the UK, a high court has ruled that a streaming service does not violate copyright for the portions of the copyrighted work it stores in its servers. The case deals with the site TVCatchup.com, which rebroadcasts transmissions from various TV stations in the country via the Web. Broadcasters sued the site claiming copyright infringement but the judge, on advice from a European Court, has ruled that the amounts stored in the server for transmission are not, in and of themselves, an infringement as they are temporary and incidental. However, if the European Court finds that the broadcast equals transmission to the public, the site will still be in violation of copyright. The UK court has asked the European Court to rule on that matter.

3: 20th Century Fox Abandons $12 million Pre-Release Movie Script Lawsuit

Finally today, 20th Century Fox has dropped its lawsuit against P.J. McIlvaine, a woman they alleged posted scripts from some 80 movies and TV shows on her site. Fox sued McIlvaine for some $12 million even though she was not the original uploader of the script and, instead, compiled scripts she found elsewhere online. Fox did not provide any insight as to why it dropped the year-old lawsuit.

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.

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

Since I was off most of the week on hiatus for my haunted house, I had a lot of catching up to do and it was not a slow week to do it in. We had a new piece of legislation introduced in Congress, the MPAA getting its final win over Zediva and the U.S. Copyright Office giving us a special look at what we’ll likely be talking about over the next two years of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

All of this as well as two additional updates on Righthaven and an update on New Zealand’s “Three Strikes” law.

This week’s stories include:

• Stop Online Piracy Act introduced in the House
• Movie Studios Kill Off Zediva
• U.S. Copyright Office States Its Priorities Through 2013
• U.S. Marshalls Ordered to Seize Righthaven Assets
• Righthaven Faces Another Judgment Against It
• Much, Much More!

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

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

If you’ve done that, then you know well just how much of a mess it is.

However, recently, the USCO put out a request for public comment on proposed changes to the directory.

The proposed changes, which include a modernization of the database, a requirement that online service providers (OSPs) confirm their information every two years and enabling electronic filing of DMCA agent information, are clearly both long overdue and crucial for the DMCA process to work well.

However, to understand why these changes are so important, we first have to look at how things are handled now and how they can improve.

How Things Are Handled Today

When the DMCA took effect in 1998, it required OSPs, if they didn’t want to risk liability for actions infringing content uploaded by users, to provide contact information for a designated agent to receive notices of copyright infringement, or DMCA agent.

However, though lawmakers put the burden of maintaining this director on the Copyright Office, they didn’t provide any funds or means to do it. As such, The USCO simply whipped up a temporary form (which, 13 years later, is still referred to as the “Interim” form) and had OSPs fill it out.

The form, which has remained unchanged saved minor modifications, has to be mailed in along with payment of at least $105. When it arrives, it is scanned and placed on the site in an image-only PDF format under the names listed on the form.

Those interested in filing a DMCA notice then have to then go to the directory, find the correct letter (which can be tough as some hosts have many names), find the correct notice (which can also be tough as some hosts have the same or similar name) and then copy the information by hand out of the PDF.

Needless to say, the process is a mess and no one is happy about it. Not OSPs, not DMCA filers and not even the USCO. The system is full of problems including that it takes a long time to get information into the directory, the information is often out of date, it is expensive to update and it is difficult to access, especially for the visually impaired.

On this site alone, I’ve been talking about these issues since at least 2006 and even wrote a similar piece to this one in 2007.

However, where that piece was theoretical, we now have a real proposal from the USCO as it aims to finally get around to improving the way the directory is handled.

The Proposed Improvements

The crux of the proposal is for the system to move away from the current paper-based system and to an electronic one. This system would accept online registrations/updates, be searchable by anyone who wanted to access it and present the required information in cleartext format, meaning it can be easily copied.

The new system would also require that OSPs confirm and update their information every two years, helping to keep the database current, and also give an easier means to alter or delete information as it became outdated and/or unneeded.

Finally, the proposed changes would also allow OSPs to designate a third party to be responsible for maintaining the information. This could help further streamline the updating process for OSPs and help ensure updated information in the database.

The one thing the system won’t be, at least not initially, is cheaper. Though the uSCO has said it’s looking at how to price it, it indicated that it would not be looking meddle with prices at first.

Still, the recommendations, over all, appear to be solid. But with the request for comment phase just beginning, there’s the possibility that it could become even better.

My Thoughts on the Proposal

Most of the changes seem to be no-brainers. The system the USCO is describing is very much like the one that should have existed back in 1998 and the fact that it has taken 13 years to reach this point is awe-inspiring.

That being said, there are a few issues that either aren’t mentioned or are potentially thorny.

First, the USCO addresses it the issue of email, saying that it believes every DMCA contact should be required to post an email to the database and that it should be displayed in cleartext format in the system. While that makes sense from a usability standpoint, it makes less sense from a spam standpoint. Though there are good spam filters out there, one of the benefits of the current system is that OSPs can set up an account and largely remove all spam filters from it, ensuring ALL mail gets through.

This could likely be mitigated by limiting robot access to the database. That, in turn, can be done with a CAPTCHA system. Such systems can be made accessible to all (or nearly all) Web users and that, in turn, can help keep the database clean of spammers and prevent DMCA notices from being lost to spam filters while maintaining an overall high level of usability.

However, the more important issue is one of costs. One of the key reasons so few OSPs take advantage of this protection is the high cost, $105 for the initial registration plus $30 for each batch of ten additional names. With the new system, other than the initial cost of setting it up, there would be almost no maintenance costs associated with it (if it’s done well). Such a high fee is unjustifiable and unattainable to a smaller admins such as many forum admins and bloggers.

The USCO needs to step in here and make the system as inexpensive as possible. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how great the electronic system is, it still won’t do any good as most OSPs will not be listed in it.

Bottom Line

All in all, most of the proposed changes seem to be good ideas and as if the USCO is heading in the right direction. The biggest complaint I have is not with the proposal, but with how long it took for this issue to come to the forefront.

While I can understand the challenges in a government agency trying to bootstrap such a large project with no budget, it has been 13 years since the law took effect and 15 years since it was first proposed. Clearly there must have been a chance to resolve this problem sooner.

That being said, I’m still trying not to look a gift horse in the mouth and simply be grateful change is in the wind now. However, I am working on a public comment to submit between now and the end of November and I may be working with Terry Hart from CopyHype on it. If you have any thoughts or think you might want to participate, please let me know by either leaving a comment below or sending me an email.

However, no two artists are in the same position. A strategy that works for Metallica is not going to work for an upstart blogger. So, nearly every tool out there, no matter how insane it might seem, probably does at least some good for someone.

But then there are the copyright ideas that just don’t do anything or, in extreme cases, actually do much more harm than good.

These are ideas that need to be shot down and put away so better ideas can take their place. However, even though some of these have been around (and debunked) for decades, they continue to linger.

So what are those ideas? There are many out there but here are the ones I’m seeing the most and would like to see finally done away with.

1. Badges and Buttons Everywhere

It seems that nearly every copyright-related service out there is offering badges, banners and buttons for others to use. Though many of these companies do great work and provide a valuable service, the badges and buttons are a complete, or at least near-complete, waste of time.

The problem is simple: Few, if any, would-be plagiarists are going to be deterred by such buttons (if they even notice them) and with so much of the copying taking place via automated means, especially RSS scraping, your infringer likely never even saw the site.

These buttons are just a means to generate links back to the companies. Nothing more.

Better Approach: Instead of using badges and buttons, make sure your copyright notice is in check and that it has all of the required elements.

2. No Right-Click/No Select Text Scripts

There are hundreds of scripts that block right clicks and text selection on a site and they, for the most part, do their job. However, the issue with these scripts isn’t that they don’t stop at least some infringement, but that they do much more harm than good.

My own experiments with Tynt have shown that the vast majority of copying is for use that’s clearly non-infringing. Far more people copy content to share legitimately than to infringe.

Couple that with how easily these systems are defeated and there is literally no reason to use them.

Better Approach: Tynt, if used correctly, can track your copied content and help you understand what’s being used. Be careful though not to use it to mess with the copy/paste function, only to track it.

3. Self-Written Licenses

I covered this in greater detail previously but it bears repeating: Never write your own copyright license.

Not only is it legally risky unless you are an attorney, but such licenses rarely get read and almost never change behavior.

Besides, you don’t need a license to require others to ask permission to use your work. Also, if you want to give permission, there are a slew of professionally-written and free licenses that you can apply at your leisure.

Better Approach: Either stick to “all rights reserved” and handle permission requests one at a time or, if you want, choose any one of the other, professionally-written licenses out there.

4. Fake “Copyright Registration” Services

Though there are some great non-repudation services out there such as Myows and Safe Creative, there are a slew of other services with insane pricing schemes and scare-tactic marketing strategies.

Some of these services will cost up to $20 or more to register one file. Worst of all, these services don’t even register the file with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO), which is a requirement in the U.S. in order to have full legal protection.

Instead, these services just accept a copy of your file, print you a certificate as to when they got it and take your money.

Better Approach: Non-repudiation services can be helpful but Safe Creative and Myows are both free and provide a slew of additional features. Even advanced certification services, such as EastTimestamping charge well less than a dollar per registration. Never pay more.

5. EXIF Data

Theoretically, this should be a great idea. EXIF, or EXchangeable Image File format, lets you embed text-based information in a jpg file. This includes information about the camera, the date it was taken and even the GPS coordinates. It can also include copyright holder and author information.

The problem isn’t the format itself, which works very well, but that the data is stripped almost everywhere it’s uploaded. In short, nearly every time that you or a plagiarist posts the photo online, including Facebook and Flickr, that information is ripped out as part of the compression process.

Basically, most sites remove the information in a bid to make file size smaller and reduce bandwidth. An unfortunate decision, to say the least.

Better Approach: Image watermarking, either visisble or invisible, is your best approach to protect and track your content. EXIF data just doesn’t get passed along reliably enough to be useful.

Bottom Line

Though I would love to live in a world where I could give the same, simple copyright advice to everyone, that’s not the reality we face. However, there are a few things that I can definitely tell creators to avoid using or, at the very least, avoid relying on.

Whether it’s snake oil salesmen trying to separate you from your money or people with good intentions dealing with unfair realities, some ideas just don’t work.

It’s best to move away from those as quickly as possible so we can find the ideas that do work and focus our energies or productive ways to protect ones work.

Disclosure: I have done paid consulting for both Safe Creative and Myows.

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

1: Copyright Office Advocates Eliminating Compulsory License

First off today, the U.S. Copyright Office, which advises Congress on copyright-related matters, has recommended that the U.S. phase out cable and satellite statutory licenses. Those licenses make content from providers, such as networks, available for a flat fee under the law. The Copyright Office would like to phase out those licenses in favor of having cable and satellite providers work with rightsholders directly. Most feel Congress is unlikely to act on the recommendation, especially since it is the USCO’s fourth attempt at phasing out these licenses.

2: Labour Promises Online Copyright Reform

Next up today, in New Zealand, the day before the country’s “three strikes” law is to take effect, the Labour Party in the country has made copyright reform, including the repealing of the above law, part of its party platform. They’ve promised to repeal the law within 90 days if elected into office. They also promise to look at the entirety of the copyright act and seek out other, broader copyright reforms.

3: US Studios Avoided Telstra Battle and Went After iiNet Instead in Copyright Case

Finally today, cables leaked by Wikileaks reveal that, in Australia, the movie studios deliberately avoided picking a legal fight with the larger ISPs and, instead, sued the third-largest company, iiNet, over allegedly not doing enough to stop copyright infringement over its network. Specifically, the studios wanted to avoid a tussle with “the big guns” Telstra BigPond, which they feared would be in a better position to defend and win the lawsuit. The iiNet case is currently about to be heard a third time, this time before the High Court of Australia.

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.