Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Chris Puckett at ZDNet reports that a survey released by the Australian Department of Communications shows that some 43 percent of all Australians who consumed digital content had consumed at least some of it illegally, however, those who consumed a mix of illegal and legal content were among the highest spenders.
The study looked at Internet users who were older than 12 over a 3 month period and found that those who viewed a mix of illegal and legal content spent more than those who only viewed content legally. However, most of the difference was in music and movies, where the consumers purchased concert tickets and trips to movie theaters rather than copies of works.
Those who were on a diet of 100% illegal digital content spent by far the least, spending roughly one half to one quarter of what the highest spenders did. The survey also shows that piracy rates are much higher than in the UK, where a survey showed only 20% of all users pirate content. This is attributed to a much stronger marketplace for legitimate content in the UK than Australia.
Next up today, Ernesto at Torrentfreak writes that uTorrent, the most popular BitTorrent client and the one produced by BitTorrent Inc., is being blocked from download by Google Chrome and by several antivirus products over what Google and others consider to be undesired and unexpected changes made to the user’s computer.
The issue appears to be with the OpenCandy bundling software, which installs other applications alongside uTorrent after the software is downloaded. Many antivirus vendors consider this a harmful program and Google has made the decision to start blocking it.
To block it, Google is not only blocking downloads of the software, but also pages on the BitTorrent Inc. site that offer the application for download. According to a statement from Google, the move is the result of improvements in detecting software that makes unexpected changes on user systems.
Finally today, Jasper Jackson at The Guardian reports that, according to a statement form the National Press Photographers Association, Taylor Swift has revised her controversial photography contract for her 1989 tour, giving photographers at her concerts more rights and freedoms over their work.
Swift drew controversy over her previous contract, which only allowed photographers to sell or use the photos once and required them to give her rights to the the images taken of her. The matter was raised during her brief battle with Apple over the lack of payments to musicians during the free trial period of Apple Music, something Apple backed away from. The contract, in that light, struck many photographers as hypocritical.
Also gone from Swift’s contract is a clause that would have made it possible for Swift’s representatives to confiscate equipment or destroy images if the photographer breached the contract. That element has been removed.
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.