Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Patrick O’Rourke at the Financial Post reports that music steaming service Rdio has announced a new $3.99 pricing plan, one that undercuts competitors such as Spotify but offers a much more limited service.
Previously, Rdio offered just two plans, both of which are still available. The first was a free plan that allowed access to ad-suppoerted radio stations built around listener’s interests similar to Pandora. The second is a $9.99 that is similar to Spotify in both price and features, allowing users to listen to any track at any time without ads. The new plan is a hybrid of the two allows users to listen to automatically-generated radio stations, but it provides unlimited skips, access to higher-quality music and the ability to download 25 songs for offline play.
The Rdio “Select” plan also has a focus on mobile as users will only be able to use Rdio either on the mobile app or on devices such as Roku and Chromecast. The web-based service will not work with the Select tier.
Next up today, Josh Taylor at ZDNet repot that, in Australia, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has issued a a report stating its concern over proposed legislation in the country that would require ISPs to block access to sites expected of widespread copyright infringement
According to the committee, blocking access to such sites could potentially limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression as well as the right to receive information. Though Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, those rights are guaranteed under the nation’s law.
The committee went on to say that the government had not demonstrated that site blocking was a proportional response. A Senate committee is also examining the legislation and, after being granted an extension, its report is due on May 29th.
Finally today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that YouTuber Benjamin Ligeri has filed a lawsuit against Google, which owns YouTube, over the site’s Content ID program saying that it, combined with its terms of service, amounts to non-compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
According to the lawsuit, Ligeri posted several videos to his channel that either parodied or critiqued major motion pictures. However, in at least some of the cases, YouTube’s Content ID system detected the original material and issued copyright strikes against him. According to Ligeri, at times incorrect copyright holders were cited.
Ligeti claims that the process violates his rights under the DMCA, which is designed to protect hosts, like YouTube, from liability over copyright infringement committed by users. Normally hosts are required to remove allegedly infringing material after notification but can restore it after 10-14 days if the uploader files a counterclaim. ContentID, according to Ligeri, doesn’t allow for that.
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.