Copyright 2.0 Show – Episode 298 – Copyrighted Playlist


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

One would think that with the short week and the holiday in the U.S. that this might be a slow episode, a chance to kick our heels up and relax. Well, it didn’t quite work out that way as there is still a lot of copyright news to get through including one of the most bizarre lawsuits we’ve had the pleasure of covering as well as a particularly brutal reply to a legal threat.

We start off this week in the UK and its ISPs but quickly bring it back to the states with an update on the “Happy Birthday” lawsuit, a controversy over a Motown classic and news that a record label is suing Spotify, but not over its music.

We then peer into the world of cosplaying, get a glimpse of what’s next for Victoria Espinel, the former “Copyright Czar” and what may be one of the most epic responses to a legal threat ever.

This week’s stories include:

  • Record Labels Ask UK ISPs to Voluntarily Implement “Three Strikes”
  • Warner Responds to “Happy Birthday” Lawsuit
  • Motown Songwriter Claims He Was Wrongly Denied Credit
  • Ministry of Sound Sues Spotify Over Playlists
  • SyFy’s “Heroes of Cosplay” Draws Threats from Photographer
  • Victoria Espinel Named CEO and President of the BSA
  • American Bankers’ Association Threatens Webmaster Over Routing Numbers

You can download the MP3 file here (1:21:03, direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

When you’re done with all of that feel free to check out our SXSW presentation proposals.

  1. My panel presentation entitled “The Grim Reality of Revenge Porn and Defamation”
  2. Patrick’s solo presentation entitled “Write a Book, Give it Away and Get Paid”

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 and a personal blog at



Want to Republish this Article? Request Free Permission Here. It's Free.


  1. Man, you guys are on a roll this week. First Patrick with the vBulletin NYYRC claim that it’s Nazi software, and then this letter. I love the multiple “that wasn’t nice” references in the footnotes. Those lawyers are awesome!

    But just as an FYI, the check digit they’re talking about isn’t the one that identifies the check itself within the bank book, as Patrick thought (and most people do). Unfortunately, I had to work in the banking industry for just over three years, so I know otherwise even though I’d really rather not. A check digit (usually the last digit) is used by banks to identify whether or not a credit card or a check is legitimate before even passing it on to the bank. The last digit is used as a checksum test to avoid misrouting of a check to an incorrect issuing bank, since there’s only a 1 in 10 chance that the last digit will match if picked randomly.

    Wikipedia explains better than I can, though:

    The idea is that whatever formula is used (for CCs, there’s the Luhn algorithm an for checks it’s the one I posted above) the remainder when divided by 10 (or “modulo” for math nerds) is 0.

    If anything, I’d think the stronger argument isn’t copyright, but security…by publishing all the bank routing numbers, he potentially exposes customers on the sheer basis of brute force since the routing numbers for the banks were exposed in turn. It’s not a strong argument, but it’s better than a spurious copyright argument.

    On the Victoria Espinel thing, here’s how I look at that…she’s going from a public sector job geared to help protect the interests of copyright holders to a private sector job geared to help protect the interests of copyright holders. There’s no conflict of interest. She’s not switching political affiliations like a lot of MPs and MPPs up here do. She’s basically moving between non-competitive entities in similar positions. That’s okay.

    On the other hand, I know someone that I’ll call “Bob” (since there’s a civil case pending indirectly involving Bob and myself). Bob worked for a former client of mine and quit to go work for one of the client’s suppliers…a supplier arrangement that Bob himself made (i.e. Bob was the ex-client’s buyer that contracted the supplier, and now Bob was employed by said supplier). Bob recently found employment again with one of the supplier’s other customers. So we have a case where Bob went from customer to supplier back to customer. Ontario right-to-work law says he can do that, but that’s pretty sketchy. Compared to Bob, Victoria Espinel doesn’t even register on an ethical crisis radar.

    Anyway, awesome show this week, guys.

  2. One other thing…your Saints and Patrick’s Dolphins play each other in Week 4 in the Monday nighter in New Orleans. A few weeks later, your Saints play my Cowboys in the Week 10 Sunday nighter, also in New Orleans.

    So for a few hours, we probably have to hate each other. I’ll like you again after my Cowboys shred the Rob Ryan defense, though…you’ll probably hate me for a day or two after. 😉 Not sure how you and Patrick will work out this conflict, though. The tension and animosity on the next few PT podcasts should be very interesting! Let the pseudo-sports hatred commence!