Yesterday, I decided to take the day off and, instead of writing my own post, to do what many students do: Just buy a paper off of Fiverr.

You can read the result of my whim of a purchase here. Bear in mind that it is unedited and unaltered, save for adjusting the format to fit on this site.

Today, I want to look back on the process of buying the paper, the quality of the end product and what it all means.

So, here’s how to buy a $10 paper on and why it’s probably a very bad idea.

Buying the Paper

I’d used Fiverr only once in the past. It was in 2012, I purchased a new Facebook graphics pack for the site. I paid $5 for it and never used it.

Needless to say, I’m not an expert on Fiverr but the first step was to sign up for a new account (having my account be jonathan@plagiarismtoday.com) might trip some alarms. So I used a personal Gmail account that I have and simply searched for “Essays”.

There, I ran into my first problem. There was a slew of likely-legitimate essay editing services in addition to the essay mill posts.

Still, with a bit of tweaking of the search terms, I was able to get it to just show me those that were going to write an essay for me. From there, I had a problem.

Though most searching would simply be looking for a paper to turn in, I was looking for something for publication. However, I also didn’t want to tip off that this work was going to be read by the public because I wanted this to be an honest example of the kind of writing this person produced.

So, I began searching for someone that was both in my price range but also promised to transfer the copyrights to me. With a few clicks I found the person to the right:

While not exactly the most confidence-building transfer of copyright, it also made his intentions pretty clear. As such, it would be difficult to argue that I didn’t at least have an implied license to use it as I see fit.

To make things even better, the person claimed he was an expert at both essay writing and legal writing, making him perfect for any topic I chose for Plagiarism Today.

Satisfied I’d found the “right” person, I agreed to pay $10 for a 500-600 word essay. After a $2.50 service fee, my total came $12.50, which I paid through PayPal.

It was then that I had to pick a topic. I had decided going in that I wanted an essay on the “History of Copyright” so I indicated as much.

From there, I hit submit. However, here my ignorance of Fiverr took over. Immediately after submission I had a message from the person that I flatly did not see. He simply said, “Hello sir” with the intent to speak with me about the assignment.

However, I didn’t realize there was a messenger in Fiverr and didn’t see the message until I returned after learning that the assignment had been completed.

And with that, the paper was done, downloaded and reformatted into yesterday’s post.

So, was it any good? The answer, to my mind at least, is no. But that doesn’t mean it can be completely dismissed.

Reviewing the Work

From a writing standpoint, the paper is something of a slog to read. It’s nearly 600 words but is only three paragraphs, each with their own subheads.

However, more importantly, it’s riddled with mistakes. Those errors include (bearing in mind I requested a U.S. focus):

• The Statute of Anne is misspelled “The British Statute of Ann”
• Claims that “food or drink of any person” is covered under copyright law.
• That a copyright violation “can result in a fine of $200 to $120,000”
• That the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) was “enacted after the first commercial success of the Mickey Mouse cartoon”
• That copyright covers inventions and inventors (those are covered by patent)

Note: Special thanks to Aaron Moss for pointing some of these out to me.

This is just a partial list. However, because the essay is so confusingly written, there’s almost certainly more.

That said, one area the paper did pass muster was performing a plagiarism check. I ran it through a pair of plagiarism detection systems and neither found anything suspicious. From the point of view of a copy-detecting system, it was original.

One of the checkers did find evidence of rewriting from Wikipedia in the last paragraph, but the total percentage matching remained low and very little text was copied directly.

However, in spite of that, there are still citation issues. The paper is 600 words online and lists dozens of “facts” but only has one citation. It’s also clear, looking at the plagiarism analyses, that the author relied heavily on Wikipedia and not primary sources.

That said, what did one expect from a $10 essay? I knew going into this that I wasn’t going to receive a well-researched and immaculately-written paper. That was more or less the point.

The question instead is: Did I get a paper that’s good enough for the job? That’s a more difficult one to answer.

Would it Work?

When I tweeted out the first post, I got a lot of interesting feedback on it. Most of it was taking pot shots at the questionable grammar and misinformation in the article.

However, Christian Moriarty, the Professor of Ethics and Law and Academic Chair at the Applied Ethics Institute at St. Petersburg College, had a different take:

My analysis assumes that the instructor that read it was both paying close attention and relatively knowledgeable about the subject. While anyone that’s familiar with copyright law will find the information provided comical, an instructor reading this might not have that information or might not have the time/energy to thoroughly examine the essay.

This is especially true if this paper were not submitted in a law-related class. Imagine if it were submitted into a history class about the history of the printing press. It would likely pass through any plagiarism detection the school uses and could fool a teacher, especially if the student is struggling with their writing already.

It’s easy when analyzing something like this to assume that instructors are perfect, superhuman machines that would catch the bad information and writing. However, they have gaps in their knowledge, they get tired, they are human.

So could this paper work? Maybe. It would depend heavily on the class it was in, the assignment it was submitted for, the instructor that read it and why it’s being submitted. While it wouldn’t do well as part of a thesis or dissertation, it might just pass muster for a small assignment that neither the teacher nor the student took too seriously.

Bottom Line

Ultimately, there are reasons to both laugh at and be concerned by this paper. It was easy to buy, incredibly cheap and I was able to do it all through sites and services seen as legitimate (or at worst borderline).

Though it was not well written and filled with misinformation, it may still be useful enough for some nefarious purposes. A student would still take a huge risk submitting a paper like this (including the risk of a low grade even if the plagiarism isn’t spotted), but some may find that risk worthwhile.

This is a challenge for educators and not one that will be solved immediately by technology. Though there’s been a lot of progress made in detecting authorship, there’s still a lot of work to be done in that space.

Right now, the best tools are vigilance by instructors, assignments that discourage or thwart plagiarism and finding ways to spot and proactively help students that might be in trouble.

This is a problem that’s easy to both under- and overestimate. Awareness and vigilance are important, panic, however, helps no one.

With the holiday season here and an extended vacation on the horizon, I’ve been finding myself a bit less motivated and energetic than usual.

But, rather than let PT go silent today I decided to do what some students do, pay someone to write my article for me! After all, I can go on Fiverr and have someone write the paper for me for $10 ($12.50 after Fiverr fees) and agree to “Transfer of Copyrights” in the work.

So, I did exactly that. I’m not going to identify which user did it (though it may not be difficult to figure out) but I am going to copy and paste his work below with the only changes being me resizing the subheads to fit on this site.

Tomorrow, I’ll loop back on this and talk about the process and how smooth/difficult it was. I have a full post on that for later. Today, I wanted to give the floor to my unnamed ghostwriter.

So, without further ado, I present to you my article today entitled “History of Copyright”

History of Copyright

Background

A look at the copyright background reveals that the world’s first formal copyright law was passed in Britain in 1710, known as “The British Statute of Ann”. However, the full title of this law is incredibly long, known as “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned”. If we take a closer look at the history of books in the distant past, we find that the first regular publication of the book is between 618 and 907 AD, which was published in China (McDermott, Joseph P. (2006). A social history of the Chinese book: Books and literati culture in late imperial China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-962-209-782-7). While almost every conscious person knows that the printing press was invented in 1440, after which a revolution of reading, writing and printing books took place in the world. Despite the invention of the printing press and the proliferation of books, the world was deprived of copyright for 270 years.

What is Copyright

Copyright law is not limited to books and writings, but its scope is very wide in United States of America. Architectural, audiovisual, literary and artistic, best edition, compilation, computer program, device, digital transmission, display, establishment, financial gain, food or drink of any person, company, organization and any other such work performed by the person, company, organization or institution itself is protected under the Copyright Act. That is, no one else can take credit or benefit from this work in his/her own name. Violation can result in a fine of $200 to $120,000 or 5 years imprisonment. It should be noted that the fine does not include the plaintiff’s lawyer and other court expenses that the plaintiff may demand.

History of Copyright in US

Copyright law came into force in the United States in 1790, the basic structure of which was influenced by the British Statute of Anne 1710. The founders of copyright law limited the period to 14 years for the protection of authors, during which time copyright law remained in force. That is, the author had the rights to the book for 14 years after the publication of the book, after which the author had to renew the rights for another 14 years. However, 40 years after the law was enacted, the term was extended to 28 years, and the law remained in force in the United States for the next 140 years. Then, in 1976, the United States introduced a new copyright law, according to which the author’s publication would be protected under this law, either for 75 years or for the author’s life and an additional 50 years. Later in 1998, a new change was made in the law called the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the period to 120 years. This law is also called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act because it was enacted after the first commercial success of the Mickey Mouse cartoon. According to the fourth set of copyright clauses in the US Constitution, the purpose of this law is to give authors and inventors exclusive rights to their works and inventions in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

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

1: Netflix Knocks Out Trademark Suit Over ‘Tiger King’

First off today, Ashley Cullins at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that Netflix has scored a major legal win against Hollywood Weekly Magazine in their fight over intellectual property related to the Netflix series The Tiger King.

The magazine filed the lawsuit alleging both trademark and copyright infringement. According to the lawsuit, the magazine coined the name “The Tiger King” meaning that Netflix violated their trademarks. They further objected to the series featuring covers from the magazine in the series, prompting a copyright complaint.

The judge, however, has tossed both of those claims but is giving Hollywood Weekly Magazine an opportunity to amend and refile its copyright claims. That said, the court expressed extreme disbelief that the copyright claims would work, even if amended.

2: German Court: YouTube Not Obliged to Reveal Movie Pirates’ Email or IP Addresses

Next up today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that, in Germany, the Federal Court of Justice has ruled that YouTube is not required to hand over information about a suspected pirate user, this includes both their email address and IP address.

The case was filed by Constantin Film, the rightsholder for many titles in Germany including Scary Movie 5 and Parker. Back in 2013 and 2014, they targeted three users that uploaded those films to the site and, in addition to seeking removal of the films, also wanted contact information for the subscribers.

A lower court rejected that request though a higher court partially restored it. This set the stage for the case to go to the Federal Court of Justice, which ruled in YouTube’s favor. The court further found that YouTube does not have to hand over any phone numbers or birthdays it may have on file.

3: 2021 Will Launch the Platinum Age of Piracy

Finally today, Abigail De Kosnik at Wired writes that, as Disney and Warner Bros. are transitioning their movie releases to include streaming services, it may lead to a “platinum age of piracy” as major Hollywood films quickly become available on pirate networks.

In recent weeks, both Warner and Disney have announced that their new films will be released on streaming services, HBO Max and Disney+ respectively, either alongside or instead of theatrical releases. However, such releases are much easier for pirates to obtain high-quality illegal copies of, possibly setting the stage for a film piracy renaissance.

Kosnik goes on to predict that Disney may not be as negatively impacted as some because their films often serve to promote not just their streaming service, but their theme parks, toys, cruises and other in-person events. However, much of that depends on those spaces reopening and recovering quickly following the pandemic.

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

Update: A reader contacted me to point out that the AP has actually published at least four other essay-mill press releases. Those included ones on October 11, October 30, December 5 and another on December 5.

Yesterday, the Associated Press (AP) published on its website a press release provided by KISSPR with the title, “The 7 Best Essay Writing Services in USA. Websites Reviews and Ranked by Experts“

Though the page makes it clear that AP news staff was not involved in the creation of the content it was hosted on the AP main website and, because of that, is included for searches for legitimate news (including both Bing News and DuckDuckGo).

The article points to and links to seven different services where students can buy papers to submit as their own. The site that sponsored the press release (which I will not be linking to) is simply a list of essay mill services, most of which are included in the press release.

The press release itself is poorly-written and is riddled with grammar errors and confusing language such as, “This writer is majorly located in these countries, and they hire them so that they reduce their operations costs.”

However, much more important than the AP playing host to a poorly written press release is the fact that it is promoting contract cheating services. This raises serious ethical and legal issues for the news wire service and its partners.

The Problem

The problem itself is obvious. The Associated Press is one of the largest and most prestigious journalism institutions in the world. Its wire articles are used in publications all over the globe.

Even though their staff had no role in creating the content, promoting it on their site gives essay mills the appearance of legitimacy.

However, the article also raises legal issues. Essay mills are outright illegal in Australia and, in the UK, where the press release originated from, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled against misleading advertising from at least one essay mill.

Payment providers such as Stripe and PayPal have banned essay mills, though the PayPal ban was largely ineffective. The industry itself is highly exploitative and has even seen cases where students were blackmailed over the essays they bought.

Yet, in spite of all of these ethical and legal issues, the essay mill industry still managed to find a friendly home on the AP website.

As someone who fights for academic integrity, I find this to be deeply disheartening and discouraging. Though I try to write the articles on this site from a neutral and analytical perspective, I find it impossible to remain dispassionate about this.

What the AP and KISSPR is doing is wrong and it puts the hard work of educators all over the world at risk by legitimizing an inherently illegitimate service.

Bottom Line

To be clear, the AP and its staff were not responsible for this. It is a press release from KISSPR published as-is on their website.

However, it’s clear that the AP needs to rethink their partnerships and how they execute them. Essay mills are exploiting those connections to take advantage of the AP’s credibility in promoting and legitimizing their industry.

My hope is that the AP will realize their mistake and remove this piece as well as put in checks to prevent future ones from going up.

Until then, they risk being a shill for an industry that seeks to undermine education, enable cheating and generally make the job harder for educators.

Note: In case the press release goes down, I have archived it here.

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

1: Lawmakers are Cramming Controversial Copyright Provisions Into a Must-Pass Spending Bill

First off today, Emily Birnbaum at Protocol reports that the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have agreed to include several intellectual property-related provisions in an omnibus spending bill, which aides say must pass before a Dec. 11 government shutdown deadline.

The provisions include the CASE Act, which would implement a copyright small claims court, the Trademark Modernization Act, which would a broad overhaul of trademark law, and a felony streaming proposal, which would make streaming content the same as distributing copies of it from a criminal law perspective.

Though all three have been heavily examined by Congress before, none have passed on their own. Tech groups are protesting the inclusion of packages in the spending bill, saying that they are major changes that could have significant negative consequences. Groups representing rightsholders, on the other hand, largely support the measures.

2: In a Blow to Experience-Art Emporium Meow Wolf, a Judge Allows an Artist’s Copyright Lawsuit to Proceed

Next up today, Sarah Cascone at Artnet News reports that a New Mexico judge has ruled in favor of artist Lauren Adele Oliver in her copyright lawsuit against the art collective Meow Wolf.

Oliver sued Meow Wolf back in March claiming that the collective raised significant money, $158 million off an exhibition that featured her work Space Owl but only paid her $2,000 in compensation. She alleges the collective breached their contract with her and, in doing so, committed copyright infringement.

The defendants had asked for the case to be tossed but the judge has denied those motions and is also allowing claims against the organization’s CEO, Vince Kadlubek, to continue as well. The judge did dismiss the breach of contract claims since there was no written contract between the parties. However, the judge is allowing Oliver to pursue unjust enrichment claims instead.

3: Pirating Cyberpunk 2077: CD Projekt Sends Waves of DMCA Notices

Finally today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that today, December 10, marks the release of Cyberpunk 2077, one of the most-anticipated games of all time. However, ahead of that release, pirates have been hard at work trying to both make available and access pirated copies of the game.

However, these early efforts have been stymied by bugs and issues with getting pirated copies of the game to work. Though pirates are releasing patches regularly, groups are encouraging people not to download the early builds and wait for things to stabilize.

CD Projekt Red, for their part, are not sitting idly by and are sending “waves” of DMCA notices targeting suspected pirated copies of the game as well as files that would enable pirated copies to work. However, despite the heavy interest in pirated copies, the game does appear to be selling quite well on legitimate channels, with over 1 million players enjoying it on Steam.

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

Though I openly admit that Halloween is my favorite holiday, Christmas leaves plenty of opportunities to explore copyright and plagiarism issues from a more festive angle.

Over the fifteen-year history of this site, we’ve covered dozens of Christmas-related stories including, just last week, looking at 5 Public Domain Christmas Movies.

However, there’s plenty more in the archives and, this week, we’re going to highlight five copyright-related Christmas stories and, next week, we’ll look at a different collection of plagiarism-related Christmas stories.

So, sit back, relax and let’s enjoy a stroll down copyright memory lane.

1: It’s a Wonderful (Copyright) Life

The copyright history of It’s a Wonderful Life is easily one of the most interesting copyright stories during any season. Originally seen as a commercial failure, the copyright in the film was allowed to lapse into the public domain.

However, that public domain status meant it received near-constant airplay and became a holiday staple, even if the filmmakers received nothing from it.

But, following the Rear Window Supreme Court decision, Republic Pictures was able to acquire the rights to the original story the film was based upon and the soundtrack for it, essentially bringing the film back under copyright protection. While feelings about this are understandably mixed, it’s an interesting story about how, even in copyright, there are second chances sometimes.

2: Copyright, Royalties and Christmas Music

Whether you love or hate Christmas music, there’s no doubt that it is big business. However, this raises a lot of questions, most notably: Who is making all the money from them?

The answer, as with all things related to music licensing, is complicated. However, the songwriters and their publishers take home the lion’s share (and all the revenue when the song is played on radio) and performers, in general, make less.

Still, it’s amazing how many songwriters have made exceptionally good livings off just one or a few longstanding Christmas classics.

3: 5 Public Domain Christmas Songs (And 5 That Aren’t)

All that talk about royalties owed for playing compositions may have you seeking some public domain Christmas music. This article has you covered.

Bear in mind that this article ONLY looks at the composition (the recording would have its status determined by when it was created). However, since there is no public performance right for sound recordings, this opens the use of these songs for a lot of things.

That said, this article is also a great barometer of when it is the holiday season as it usually becomes the most popular article on the site from the middle of November through the new year.

4: 5 Christmas Copyright Myths

Though this one is technically a cheat since two of the myths are covered elsewhere, it’s still a good look at many of the copyright-related myths that permeate the holiday season.

No, Santa Claus is not copyrighted by Coca Cola and the Elf on the Shelf is not public domain. Also, you’re free to sing and play any Christmas song at a private party.

Though the holidays may be a special time, copyright still applies the same old way and that is something important to remember.

5: The Christmas Parodies

Approximately once every seven years, I feel inspired around the holidays to try my hand at parody. So far, that has happened only twice in the history of the site.

The first was in 2010 when I wrote The Night Before a Copyright Christmas, a parody of A Visit from St Nicholas, which is more commonly known as The Night Before Christmas.

It’s a more generalized parody of the poem dealing mostly with the copyright climate that existed at that time (though much of it remains relevant today).

Seven years later, I wrote How the Seuss Estate Stole Christmas, a parody of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas. This one was much more pointed and dealt with the Seuss estate’s failed attempts to shutter Who’s Holiday, a raunchy parody of the iconic book.

So, if you need something a bit more lighthearted, these posts may be just what you need.

Bottom Line

The holidays are an interesting time to be involved in copyright, especially as we watch well-established law collide with equally established traditions.

While it might seem weird for copyright law to play such a major part in a holiday about giving and sharing, there’s also no doubt that Christmas is big business and the basis of many creators’ livelihoods.

However, it’s not just copyright issues. When we look on the ethical side of things as well, we find that plagiarism has also played a key role in the holiday season and that is something we’ll look at in a later post.

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

1: Nintendo Reportedly Strike Down YouTubers Using Music from Mario & Zelda

First off today, Alex Tsiaoussidis at Dexerto reports that Nintendo has been continuing its crackdown on the use of content they own on YouTube and have begun ordering the removal of soundtracks for additional games including Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time and Mario Kart Wii.

The new wave of claims was first reported by YouTuber GilvaSunner. He is best known for uploading soundtracks to video games, usually Nintendo games, and has seen many takedowns and removals over the years.

However, the takedowns over these games appear to be new and point to Nintendo continuing to expand its efforts to limit the use of its content on YouTube. Though many fans were supportive of Nintendo, noting that GilvaSunner’s channel does infringe their copyright, they did ask that Nintendo follow other publishers and release their soundtracks on Spotify and other legitimate music streaming services.

2: Spanish Piracy Giant Movidy Shuts Down, Owner Too Sick to Continue

Next up today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that the Spanish piracy site Movidy is shutting down due to the ill health of the site’s owner and ongoing pressure from various copyright holders.

The site’s operator, who uses the name Gabriela Algara, revealed on Twitter that he has been diagnosed with cancer and will be stepping away from the site. Initially, he sought to sell it but said that not suitable buyers could be found as all the potential buyers did not fully understand the risks.

Needing to focus on his own health and with no suitable buyers, Gabriela Algara announced that he is shuttering the site. As of right now, all content and accounts on the site have been deleted, making a relaunch of it impossible.

3: TikTokkers are Writing Ratatouille, the Musical. But Who Owns the Copyright?

Finally today, Daniela Simone and Isabella Alexander at The Conversation report that thousands of TikTok users have been cobbling together a musical based upon the 2007 film Ratatouille and, as Disney itself gets on the act, raises questions about who owns the right to it.

The saga began when a US-based schoolteacher Emily Jacobsen wrote Love Ballad, a song that honored the character Remy. Others jumped in and expanded on the song and, since then, the project has only grown with others adding more songs, choreography, sets and more.

Disney itself joined the fun adding a “Hamilton-esque” rap about Remy. However, this raised questions about who owns the created musical should Disney want to do more with it. As the article discusses, this enters into a mess as we not only have hundreds of potential stakeholders, but they are all over the world. This means not only are there countless potential rightsholders, but countless sets of laws to consider. However, ultimately, TikTok may be the most important license holder due to its user agreement.

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: Neil Young Ends Copyright Suit Against Donald Trump

First off today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that Neil Young has ended his lawsuit against President Trump’s campaign, indicating that the two sides likely reached a settlement.

Young sued the campaign back in August alleging that they did not have the right to use his songs, including Rockin’ in the Free World and Devil’s Sidewalk at campaign events. Though Young originally objected to the use of his songs in 2016, he did not act as the venues hosting Trump’s events had BMI licenses to play his music. However, since then, BMI has amended its terms to limit political uses of music, thus prompting Young to file the lawsuit when his music was used as part of the 2020 campaign.

However, that lawsuit is now over with Young voluntarily dismissing it with prejudice. This means that the lawsuit cannot be refiled and is also a strong indication that a settlement was reached. However, there is no confirmation of that. President Trump’s campaign is currently facing another lawsuit filed by Eddy Grant over the campaign’s use of Electric Avenue. There, the campaign is arguing fair use.

2: Team-Xecuter Defendant ‘GaryOPA’ is a Flight Risk and Remains in Prison

Next up today, Ernesto Van der Sar at Torrentfreak writes that federal court has ruled that Gary Bowser, a defendant that is part of the Team-Xecuter case, is a flight risk and must remain in prison ahead of his trial.

Team-Xecuter rose to prominence for creating modifications that allow video game consoles to play pirated games. Their most notable work involves the Nintendo Switch, which they have faced both criminal and civil action over.

Bowser is the only defendant in custody in the United States. He was arrested in the Dominican Republic and quickly deported to the U.S. In a recent hearing. The court ruled that Bowser poses a significant flight risk and is to remain in prison pending trial. One of the other defendants remains at large in China and a third was arrested in Canada pending deportation to the United States.

3: Bob Dylan Sells His Songwriting Catalog in Blockbuster Deal

Finally today, Ben Sisario at the New York Times reports that Bob Dylan has sold the rights to his songwriting catalog to Universal Music, marking a blockbuster deal likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The deal means that Dylan gives up any ability to control how his compositions are used and any future royalties from them. The deal includes over 58 years of music history and more than 600 songs. Though terms of the deal were not disclosed, it’s estimated to be worth about $300 million.

The move is just the latest major songwriting purchase as artists such as Stevie Nicks have been selling their rights as well. One company, Hipgnosis Songs Fund, claims to have spent about $670 million on artists’ rights, including Blondie, Rick James, Barry Manilow and more.

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

Last week, the music streaming service Spotify attracted headlines from all over the world after a European patent filing revealed that they were working on a new tool that would help spot songwriter plagiarism, whether accidental or intentional.

Though many, including myself, initially thought that this was part of their ongoing battles over songwriter royalties, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Spotify’s service is about addressing another issue: The perception that wrtiting and publishing music is risky business.

Following the Blurred Lines ruling, many musicians were worried that their songs could also be deemed rip offs and that could lead to court battles and royalty headaches down the road.

Though other rulings such as the Stairway to Heaven case, which concluded in October, should calm those fears somewhat, there is still a lot of fear in the songwriter community.

That, in turn, seems to be what Spotify is addressing. As an analysis of the tool by Bobby Owsinski on Hypebot points out, Spotify’s tool is more about helping songwriters avoid litigation and less about royalties or finding infringements on Spotify’s platform.

It’s a plagiarism detection tool meant to help prevent copyright infringement cases, not start them.

To that end, the tech is worth a brief exploration and an expalantion of why it is so unique.

How it Works

The way the technology works is that it doesn’t look at the song’s composition, but rather, the song’s lead sheet.

A lead sheet is a form of musical notation that only focuses on including only the essential elements of the song. This includes harmony, melody, tempo and lyric information.

Other aspects are either improvised by the performers or handled by an arranger. They are a way to quickly communicate what a song is about while allowing performers the ability to have some creative freedom.

These are often used by cover bands so they have access to a large library of music quickly. However, they’re also often used when writing and developing songs, especially in a collaborative environment.

Their truncated nature also makes them easier to compare and that’s exactly what Spotify’s tool does, take the lead sheets and compare them to a database of other such sheets.

When similarities are found, they are flagged. From there, as with all plagiarism checks, the human has to make the ultimate decision about whether the overlaps are problematic or something that can be safely ignored.

It is a very simple idea but it’s the application of it that makes it unique. In truth, there’s not really a tool like it and there are three reasons why it stands out.

1: Meant for Composers

Back in October, we looked at the three types of plagiarism analyes. However, it can be argued that Spotify has made a fourth with this new tool.

Plagiarism detection is usually a tool for teachers, editors and those that believe they were plagiarized. Spotify’s system turns this on its head by making it for the original author.

This might seem silly as the original composer should have a handle on whether they copied someone else’s work. But, with music, that may not be the case. Many composers express concern about subconscious copying, including cryptomnesia.

And, with music, cryptomnesia may be more possible. While it’s not possible to subconsciously remember a paragraph or even a whole sentence of a text work, it is possible to subconsciously remember a few bars or chords from a song.

Sure, there have been other products offered to authors including Turnitin’s now-closed WriteCheck, but those were supplemental uses of a different product.

Disclosure: I am a former paid blogger for Turnitin, which is mentioned in this article.

Spotify appears to be creating a product ground up for authors to detect plagiarism in their own work. That is extremely rare, if not completely novel.

2: Works with Lead Sheets

Plagiarism detection isn’t new to music. It’s likely you even use tools such as Shazam and Musixmatch to detect what song is playing. Those same approaches can spot similarities in recorded music and take action.

One of the prominent providers in this space has been Audible Magic, which is used by Facebook, Twitch and Soundcloud to filter out infringing uploads. YouTube has their own system that they’ve built.

Such systems have gotten so advanced that they can detect short samples of music and have been used to bring lawsuits in cases where that sampling wasn’t licenced properly.

However, all the tools above have one limitation: They work with recorded music, not the composition (or the lead sheets). This is an issue because many of the most recent music battles, including Blurred Lines and Stairway to Heaven, centered around the compositions.

Though I have little doubt Spotify is not the first to work on such a system, it is the first to potentially bring it to a mass market like this. That, in and of itself, may be a huge game changer.

3: It Comes from Spotify

Spotify, according their patent, is creating a product that targets a new audience with a new way to detect copying. All of that is unique enough. However, Spotify itself adds a layer to this story.

Most systems for detecting copied content from companies dedicated to that, whether it’s Turnitin for text, Audible Magic for audio, etc. YouTube is the only major player to have wholly developed their own system and it was originally built for completely internal use.

Spotify isn’t just creating a new system to detect plagiarism but is targeting it at an outside audience.

However, this may wind up being more of a hindrance than a help to the tool. Spotify has earned a great deal of mistrust among songwriters and, as George Howard, a professor of music business at Berklee College put it to OneZero, “I don’t think in any scenario anyone can say Spotify’s motive is to be helping artists.”

According to Howard, he believes that this is an attempt to either defend themselves against lawsuits or to simply find tracks they don’t have to pay royalties on. There’s also speculation the system could be used to create A.I.-generated music.

In short, even if Spotify’s offering is purely altruistic, which it likely isn’t, it will never be accepted as such. Songwriters have a tremendous mistrust of Spotify and that isn’t likely to change.

Bottom Line

There is a LOT of reason to be skeptical here. Spotify is a company with a very tense relationship with songwriters, and we’ve seen few details on how the system works behind the scenes and how it benefits Spotify long term.

There’s also no guarantee that Spotify will ever implement the system. As Spotify itself noted in the above OneZero article, not every patent becomes a part of its product. This may simply never leave the design/development stage.

That said, if it does become part of the Spotify’s product, it would be one of the most unique anti-plagiarism offerings in the world. However, whether that uniqueness is a good thing or not on whether you feel the importance of the product outweighs the risk of working with Spotify.

But even if this product never comes to fruition or never sees widespread adoption, it’s still an incredibly unique beast. The fact a major tech company spent so much money developing this and getting it to the patent stage tells me that there is some shifting taking place when it comes to music plagiarism.

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

1: U.S. Judge Nixes Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Jilted Plan Developer Filed Against Harrisburg

First off today, Matt Miller at Penn Live reports that a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the city of Harrisburg by a former contractor over whether the city was infringing on a plan they were working on.

The lawsuit was filed by OPA in June. The company claimed that the city had improperly terminated their agreement and was handing the work they had done on a citywide comprehensive plan over to a new company. OPA further claimed the city owed them nearly $110,000 but the city claimed that OPA was causing delays in the project. Because of this, the company sued for copyright infringement.

However, on the copyright issue, the court ruled that OPA had granted the city a license to use the work and that the license was never terminated. OPA has asked for permission to file an amended complaint though that motion has not been ruled on yet.

2: Darkest Dungeon Composer Asks YouTube to Stop Copyright Strikes Against Streams Due to his Music

Next up today, video game composer and The Tea Party band member Stuart Chatwood has asked YouTube to stop issuing copyright strikes for streaming video games that he helped create the music for.

The specific games are Darkest Dungeon and much of the Prince of Persia series. According to Chatwood, he has granted permission for gamers to stream his songs on both YouTube and Twitch but, for reasons unclear to him, YouTube continues to issue copyright strikes against those that do.

The issue of music in video game streaming has become a contentious issue as of late with streamers on Twitch seeing a sharp rise in takedown notices due to fresh action by the music industry. It is unknown if the takedowns for Chatwood’s music is a part of that larger push.

3: France’s Hadopi Counts Cost of Piracy: 12m users, €1bn Loss of Earnings

Finally today, Stuart Thomson at Digital TV Europe reports that the French antipiracy group Hadopi has released a study that found some 12 million French Internet users consumed pirated goods and that represents a loss of €1.03 billion in the past year.

According to the study, some €310 million was lost to physical media sales while Pay TV services lost a total of €260 million. This resulted in a loss of €332 million in taxes.

The report did have some good news nothing that peer-to-peer piracy has declined, with illegal streaming picking up much of the slack. Also, the number of pirates has remained flat over the past decade but the percentage that represents has dropped as more users have come online.

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