Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Charles Arthur at The Guardian reports that the United Kingdom is updating its copyright law so that, beginning in June, the “ripping” of CDs, copying of CDs to move them to another format, for personal use will be legal.
This will include ripping CDs to put them into iTunes, on MP3 players or formats for personal listening. However, CD ripping has long been common in the UK and the record labels have done little to stop it, instead focusing on file sharing and other forms of piracy.
CD ripping has long been legal in many other countries, including the United States but has remained technically against the law in the UK. However, the Intellectual Property Office notes that it will be illegal to make copies for friends and family or to make copies of something that one does not legally own.
Next up today, Dave Lee at BBC News reports that the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) have created an online database of websites that it considers to be “verified” as illegal.
Dubbed the Infringing Website List (IWL) the database is meant to be an “up-to-date list of copyright infringing sites”. It is meant to be used by third parties, in particular advertisers, to ensure that they are not unwittingly giving money to sites engaged in copyright infringement.
The City of London added that a pilot of the IWL that was held last year resulted in a 2% reduction in advertising from major brands on illegal websites, though others say the impact will be minimal as different advertisers will be happy to step up.
Finally today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that Justin Bieber and Usher have come out on top in a lawsuit over the 2010 song “Somebody to Love”, with a judge ruling that no reasonable jury could see it as a copy of the plaintiff’s song.
The plaintiffs in the case were Devin Copeland and Mareio Overton, who alleged that the 2010 song was a copy of their 2008 song with a similar name. They claimed to have pitched the song for Sangreel records, who they alleged passed it along to Usher, among other artists.
However, the judge ruled that the songs were not similar enough and that any listener who set out to look at the song’s similarities would be inclined to overlook them as the general aesthetics were very different.
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.