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

It was a busy week for copyright news with the closure of one of the more important cases in recent copyright history, another potentially coming to a head and several pieces of big news from the UK and all of Europe.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• RealNetworks Settles RealDVD Case
• Google v. Viacom Lawsuit Heading For Summary Judgement?
• Newspapers Prepare to Crackdown on Infringement
• Crown Copyright Changes to Creative Commons
• A Way to Get Fined $12,000 While Speeding
• And Many more…

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

Show Notes

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 ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Judge Dismisses God of War Copyright Lawsuit Against Sony

First off today, screenwriters Jonathan Bissoon-Dath and Jennifer Dat have had their case against Sony, the publisher of the popular God of War video game franchise, tossed out after the judge found that there was no evidence of copying by Sony or the games developers from their works. The pair had sued claiming that the game bore a strong resemblance to their work but the judge found that the similarities were not extensive and there was no evidence that Sony even had access to their writing when making the game, dismissing the case without letting it head to a trial.

2: Researchers Aim To Reduce Copyright Infringement False Positives

Next up today, Polycipher, a group jointly owned by U.S. ISPs Comcast, Cox and Time Warner, has funded research into a product entitled BitStalker that it claims can actively monitor Bittorrent swarms and do so very cheaply while reducing the false positives that plague current detection systems. There is some doubt if the technique can work and Comcast has said that they are no longer involved with Polycipher or this research, but the news has caused a major stir among those interested in detecting and preventing detection of bittorrent-based piracy.

3: Oregon Candidate Pulls Look-Alike Logo

Finally today, Oregon state senate candidate Mark Delphine was forced to pull his logo from his Web site after it was discovered to have a very strong resemblance to the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team. According to Delphine, the logo was donated by a volunteer and he was unaware of the similarities until he began to get calls about it.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Article Updated: See Below

It is well-known that, if you are a U.S. citizen and wish to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you have to first register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO). If you wish to collect statutory damages, you need to register either before the infringement or within three months of publication.

However, for a time it was very murky whether this element also applies to foreign authors who wish to sue within the U.S. This is because, in 1989, the U.S. became a signatory to the Berne Convention, over 100 years after the first countries signed on, which states, under article five, that “the enjoyment and the exercise of [rights under the Convention] shall not be subject to any formality.”

The theory was that. while the U.S. could do what they wanted to their own citizens, including subjecting them to the 9-month delay for a registration certificate, but they were bound by the Berne Convention to grant full rights to foreign copyright holders.

However, a decision by a U.S. District Court paints a very different picture, saying that the Berne Convention does not preempt U.S. copyright laws and that the treaty is not self-executing. This essentially means that all copyright holders, regardless of where they are located, need to register their works with the USCO before filing suit in the country if they wish to seek statutory damages.

Needless to say, considering that most nations have no formalities at all for copyright protection, this decision is going to cause some major headache for foreign copyright holders as they try to enforce their rights within the U.S.

What Happened

The case in question is Elsevier B.V. et al v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.. Elsevier holds copyright in a collection of science books that they make available through their paid database ScienceDirect and they claim that at least one of the defendants, Ingenix, allowed others to access that database unlawfully.

However, many of the works in Elsevier’s portfolio are foreign and lack copyright registration. Elsevier sought statutory damages for those works, claiming that the Berne Convention should allow them to do as such. The judge, however, ruled that the Berne Convention is not self executing, primarily because the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 said so explicitly.

The result is that, even though the U.S. is a signatory to a treaty that forbids formalities in the “enjoyment and the exercise” of copyright, foreign content creators still have to register their works with the USCO to collect all the potential damages and, most likely, to sue at all.

What Changes?

The long and short of this is that, if you are a foreign copyright holder and think you might ever want to sue in the United States for infringement, you should register your works with the USCO and keep those registrations up to date.

Failure to do so could result in you being unable to claim all the damages you would otherwise be entitled to.

To be clear though, lack of registration does not prohibit you from filing DMCA takedown notices nor does it prevent you from sending cease and desist letters, this only restricts your rights when you go to file a lawsuit. Also, you may still be able to sue and collect significant damages for the removal of copyright management information if it is an element of the case.

Still, the point remains that, regardless of where you are located, if you are considering filing a lawsuit in the U.S. at any point, it’s probably worth your while to register your work with the USCO.

My Thoughts

The decision is legally sound, of that there is no dispute. However, it is fascinating when looked at in the broader context of global politics and intellectual property.

The U.S. is one of the first nations to criticize other countries when we feel their copyright laws are lacking. We even have a “Copyright Watch List” of nations we feel are encouraging piracy through either lackadaisical laws or enforcement.

However, this ruling clearly illustrates just how dated and out of touch our own laws are in many ways. Though we are a signatory to a treaty that bars formalities in copyright enforcement, we require copyright holders to register with the USCO to enjoy the full protection allowed under law.

To make matters even worse, the USCO is a notorious mess. This includes delays 9 months and longer for receiving certificates, even after the use of the electronic registration system. Subjecting U.S. citizens to this is already inexcusable, but to force its use internationally is simply mind-blowing.

Sadly, even as we negotiate treaties that seek to push various elements of the U.S. law on other nations, we are not making any push to change our own laws and harmonize them with the rest of the world. The USCO copyright registration system is a dinosaur in many ways and should be done away with.

Especially since we signed a treaty almost 25 years ago that said we would do away with formalities.

Bottom Line

In the end, the result of this is pretty clear, if you are a copyright holder not in the U.S. but may want to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you need to register your works and keep those registrations up to date if you want all of the damages to be at your disposal.

It is a huge pain and a hassle that most copyright holders outside of the U.S. will be uncomfortable and unfamiliar with, but it is a fact of life at this time.

Hopefully we will begin to see some changes in the law that will make this unnecessary but, in the meantime, it is a reality that we all most adapt to and live with.

Update

Commenter Terry Hart pointed out that there was a previous case on this issue, in the same court, that slipped under my radar and answered this question previously. He also clarified that the issue of registration only affects the ability of the foreign copyright holder to collect statutory damages, not file suit, an element I was admittedly unclear on. I’ve updated the article to reflect these changes.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Pink Floyd Win Court Battle with EMI

First off today, just a day after we first reported on the lawsuit, Pink Floyd has emerged victorious in their battle against their label EMI. EMI will have to pay back royalties to the band as well as cover their legal expenses, estimated at £60,000 ($90,000) for selling the band’s tracks individuallly on iTunes, even though their contract only allowed whole-album sales. The exact amount of the royalties have been kept secret.

2: European Parliament Slams Digital Copyright Treaty

Next up today, the EU Parliament has passed a resolution 633-13 to compel those negotiating the ACTA treaty to publicly disclose the details of the treaty and threaten legal action if the disclosure is not adequate. The ACTA treaty, which includes the U.S., EU, Japan and other nations has been swamped in secrecy, as are most international treaties, but has been the subject of several leaks and increased public scrutiny due to the potential changes in copyright law for some participating nations.

3: Net Giants Rail Against Law to Block File-Sharing Sites

Finally today, a proposed amendment to the Digital Britain Bill in the UK that would allow copyright holders to demand ISPs block access to sites that are allegedly infringing is being protested by many prominent Web companies including Google, Facebook and others who signed a letter to the effect. Some celebrities, including Stephen Fry, have also signed onto the letter of protest.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

If you are launching a new site, especially a new blog, there are several things that you can do to make sure that your copyright is as protected as possible.

Simply put, when you are starting from scratch, you have a rare opportunity to get things right from the start and many of the best tools to protect your work function at their best when you use them from day one.

So, if you’re preparing to launch a new site, whether it is a static one or a blog, here are the steps you need to take today to protect your work or, if you’re not interested in enforcement, track it and encourage its sharing.

1. Register with the U.S.Copyright Office

Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is both slow and expensive. It’s also hopelessly out of date with the current Web and can take some nine months get your certificate.

Still, the fact remains that, if you want execute your full rights in the U.S., you need that registration. You need it both to file suit in a Federal Court and you need to have either registered before the infringement or within three months of publication to be able to collect statutory damages.

If you think you might ever want to sue for copyright infringement, you will want to register your work promptly. It’s a pain and it costs $35 but it can be invaluable down the road.

Likewise, as you add content to your site, you will likely want to re-register every 3 months to ensure that the registration is up to date and all content is protected.

2. Register with FairShare or Use Google Alerts

If you have a site where most of the content will be in an RSS feed, set up an account with FairShare so it can begin tracking the content in your feed from the first post. The service is free and only requires you to subscribe to the provided RSS feed where it will list where matches of your work were discovered along with some basic information.

If your content is largely static, you can use Google Alerts. I’ve covered Google Alerts before, but basically you just find good, unique phrases within your content and have Google search for those phrases and email you with any results it finds.

3. Set up an RSS Footer

If your site will put a large part of its content into an RSS feed, add a footer to the feed. You can use a simple WordPress plugin to do that if you’re a self-hosted WordPress user or, Blogger users can simply use the option in their admin panel.

Ideally, it should include a copyright statement, a link back to your site and, possibly, a digital fingerprint to make the tracking of your content even easier.

Since RSS scraping is one of the biggest problems content creators face, this can make sure that such use is at least attributed and trackable, even if it won’t put a stop to it.

4. Set up Your Site’s Footer

Though you don’t technically need to include any copyright information for your work to be protected, it is a very good idea to do so as many have the misconception that, if it is not marked, it is free to use.

Make sure your footer includes all the basic copyright information including the year, which you can configure to update automatically, the copyright symbol, your name and the license information for the work (All Rights Reserved, Creative Commons, etc.)

5. Add Contact Information for Permissions

Finally, as you’re setting up how people will contact you, make sure to have a means for people to contact you to ask permission to use your work.

This is a good idea even if you use some form of blanket licensing, such as Creative Commons, as people will still contact you about these issues. This happens both because they don’t understand or see the license and because they want to use the work in a way that goes beyond it.

If you offer a clear path to contact you about these issues, even if it is just through your regular contact page, you’ll find people to be much more likely to ask permission than they would otherwise.

Bottom Line

When starting a new site, whether your first or your hundredth, it is a chance to get things right and avoid mistakes that you made with the other efforts. Copyright is no different in that regard.

If you value your content, its worth taking some time before launching to make some adjustments and make sure that your work is protected. Doing so will not only help you enforce your copyright, but also track where it appears on the Web, legitimately and unlawfully, letting you better understand your audience and reach.

So take the opportunity and spend a few minutes making sure your work is adequately protected.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Pink Floyd, EMI Brawl Over iTunes Royalties

The band Pink Floyd and their record label, EMI are at odds over royalties earned from iTunes and other online music sites, The band’s contract, last updated in 1999, makes no mention of digital downloads and, according to the band, bars EMI from selling single tracks, only whole albums, thus prompting the band to take legal action.

2: Piracy Rises In France Despite Three Strikes Law

Next up today, three months after France has started its three-strikes regime to disconnect file sharers after two warnings, a new study has found that piracy has not abated, but has actually increased 3%. Though use of P2P file sharing technology has dropped, piracy methods not covered by the law, including digital locker services, have increased in popularity.

3: Mozilla Apologies Over Jetpack Mockup Design

Finally today, Mozilla, the makers of the popular Firefox browser, found themselves in some hot water after it was discovered that their new site for Jetpack Flightdeck, an upcoming API to make building extensions easier, plagiarized many elements from MetaLab, a Web site design firm that had provided a quote for designing the site. Mozilla has removed the site, calling the look an “early mockup” and apologized for the error.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

Update: Minor corrections to the article to remove the name.

When it comes to matters of image protection, one usually has to think about shifting gears. Where text nearly impossible to protect but can be trivially tracked and monitored for reuse, with images it is more important to be proactive, including watermarks on images, adding appropriate metadata and being sure to register your work with services that help identify you as the author.

However, the owner of Bellenza.com recently contacted me about an unusual kind of visual plagiarism that actually defeats even visible watermarks, but at the cost of ruining the image. The site, which sells wedding accessories, party favors and decorations, had several images from its decorating blog used on a WordPress.com blog but the ever-present watermark was gone.

Instead, where the watermark should have been, was words and instructions overlaid on top of it. This covered up the watermak and all indication of where the image was from.

Bellenza was able to get the entire blog taken down by filing DMCA notices with WordPress.com’s staff, but the case highlights an unusual and rare danger, but one that visual artists should be aware of.

Image Watermark Hijacking 101

A well-placed and well-done watermark on an image is almost impossible to beat. Removing it requires a great deal of time and skill with image manipulation, well beyond the effort or skill the average plagiarist has. However, that is only necessary if you wish to leave the original image intact.

What the plagiarist did in the Bellenza case was simply ad another image over the watermark, in this case it was simply an instruction to go along with the image. However, there is nothing that says it can’t be another logo or company name.

The problem with this, however, is that the plagiarist has to use an image that is more opaque than the original watermark. This means, as in this case, that it essentially covers up that part of the image and looks very ugly. It’s also trivial to prove that the mark was covered up and done so deliberately.

However, the damage is still done. The image is now unattributed (or misattributed) and that can impact the work’s status as an orphan or result in it being used elsewhere without proper license.

So what can a photographer or visual artist do to stop this kind of plagiarism? Fortunately the law provides some very good suggestions.

Watermark Hijacking and the Law

From the legal perspective, watermark hijacking is one of the worst kinds of infringement you can possibly engage in.

First, there would be almost no fair use argument that could be reasonably made. Removing a watermark shows a great deal of bad faith and can greatly harm the potential market for a work. Even if other elements of the use were fair, that would be two major strikes against it in any such argument.

However, the biggest problem would be that, in the U.S. under the DMCA, hijacking a watermark would constitute removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI) and such infringements can accrue significant damages, even if the work is not registered. This makes it a very practical infringement to sue for.

In short, anyone who would engage in this behavior is setting themselves up for a very bad day in court, in addition to the simple fact that the copying and reposting of the image is by itself an infringement.

But even with the legal ramifications of such infringement, a lawsuit will very often be impractical and that, in turn, raises the question of what a visual artist should do to prevent it.

Steps to Take

If you’re a visual artist reading this and worried, don’t be, at least not too much so.

The good news is that this type of plagiarism is still very rare, this being is the first case I’ve seen first hand in almost five years running this site. It is rare because most plagiarists, upon seeing a watermark, will simply try and find an un-watermarked image that fills the purpose, it is only when there is a specific need that it would even be considered.

If you are concerned and have images that might be subject to this, such as demonstration images (as in the example), news images or other targeted content that good replacements are unlikely, it’s worth a moment to reflect on your watermarking strategy and do what you can to mitigate the risk.

1. Focus on Larger, Not More Visible: A watermark that is larger is more resistant to this kind of plagiarism. A relatively transparent watermark still has to be covered completely so it is unlikely a plagiarist would be able to cover it with anything less than an opaque image. The larger the mark, the more useless the image becomes without it.
2. Multiple Marks: Another solution is to use a much smaller mark, but place multiple ones on the image, making it impossible to cover up with a simple stamp.
3. More Emphasis on Matching: Finally, consider regularly searching for your images on Tineye to see if it detects any potential matches. Though the database is limited, the matching is very good, even in cases where elements have been changed. It will be useful in these cases.

None of these steps should take a great deal of time, save perhaps the last one if you have a very large library, but they can all go to great lengths to prevent and track this kind of misuse.

Bottom Line

While this is a type of plagiarism that I think visual artists should be aware of, it isn’t extremely common and can be mitigated against pretty easily if one is prepared.

Fortunately, Bellenza was able to detect and stop this use of his content with relative ease but it does make me wonder if there are, perhaps, more cases of this kind of infringement taking place than I’ve seen. With it being so difficult to detect, it is very likely.

Still, I wouldn’t say there is a cause for alarm. If you watermark your images, take a moment and see how resistant your images are to this kind of misuse and make adjustments as necessary. I wouldn’t recommend any drastic action.

In short, this is something to be aware of, but not worry too much about, that is, unless I am wrong about the amount of misuse taking place.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Crown Copyright switches to Creative Commons

First off today, the UK Crown Copyright, which holds copyright in all works created by the government, has phased out a click-use license, which allowed anyone to use the content if they agreed to a set of terms, to a Creative Commons-compatible one. The license, which is compatible with the CC-BY license has still drawn some controversy as many want to see it placed under CC Zero, effectively public domain, which would bring it more in line with the United States.

2: Avatar Studio Says it Will Win Copyright Lawsuit Against B.C. Man

Next up today we have what many will think to be a repeat of yesterday’s story about a Chinese author suing James Cameron over Avatar, but today it’s a British Columbia man named Emil Malak who is doing the suing. According to Malak, the movie bears a strong resemblance to “Terra Incognita”, a screenplay he wrote in 1998.

3: Music Industry Failing to Promote Legal Alternatives to Piracy

Finally today, a recent study by Consumer Focus in the UK found that some 40% of adults surveyed could not name a single legitimate music downloading service and, of those who could, 95% could only name two, most commonly iTunes and Amazon. Industry reps, however, countered by citing their own, larger survey, which found that awareness of legal alternatives was “almost universal”.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

When a big part of your job has you visiting both spam blogs and pirate Web sites, ad blocking software is not option, it is a requirement. Not only do I not wish to give money to those sites, but the ads are often so intrusive as to interfere with whatever I am doing. As such, ad blocking software, quite literally, makes it possible for me to do my job on many projects.

But what about ad blocking on legitimate sites?

Ars Technica recently raised the issue by conducting a brief experiment on the matter. The site altered their code so that anyone running ad blocking software would also strip out the site’s content, essentially making it useless. Anyone who either A) Whitelisted the domain or B) Paid for a subscription would be immune to this effect.

However, this caused a great deal of controversy among Ars Technica’s readers when it was discovered. Many leaped to the site’s defense, others whitelisted the domain, but still a sizable mob vented anger and frustration at the change, many vowing never to return.

Ars Technica eventually backed away, undoing the changes. This came after AdBlockPlus updated itself to defeat the protection but Ars Technica staffers said they could easily rotate the code to defeat the reversal, essentially playing “cat and mouse” for all eternity.

But Ars’ goal wasn’t to shut the ad blockers away permanently but rather, to start a dialog on the issue and to educate users. A dialog I am hoping to continue here.

Ad Blocking as a Form of Piracy

With rampant piracy and a swell of free, legal content hurting nearly all content industries, many view ad-based distribution as one of the few possible business models that can still work. Furthermore, it is one employed by countless Web sites, including Ars Technica.

However, ad blocking essentially short circuits that model. Since the ads are never loaded, the site pays for the content, bandwidth and server costs to deliver the material to the reader but never has a chance to recoup the costs. In short, every person who blocks ads on a site is a mathematical loss for the site, albeit a small one.

Since many Web sites, especially larger ones, are paid on a per impression basis, simply saying “I wouldn’t click on them anyway” is no consolation. Refusing to look at the ads or be subject to the impression deprives the site of revenue.

Patrick O’Keefe, both my co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show and the operator of many advertising-supported forums, agrees with this, “I say this as both a publisher and an active website user and reader: If you love a site, you should view their ads or, if they offer it, subscribe to their ad-free version. You should not block their ads because, if you do, you are contributing to the end of that site.”

As a result, many, though not necessarily O’Keefe, view this as a strange form of piracy. A situation where the viewer is trying to obtain content for “free”, without taking on their share of the burden. The only difference is where traditional piracy involves obtaining a normally paid creation for free, ad blocking takes a work that was available at the “cost” of viewing ads but removes that expense.

As with any other type of piracy, this shifts the cost of the work to the paying customers, in this case those who view the page normally, and forces creators to squeeze more revenue from them in order to stay alive.

With that in mind, there is little doubt that ad blockers do hurt legitimate sites, but the question is how much and, more importantly, why do people use them in the first place.

Why Block Ads?

Given that everyone seems to want to support the site they love, the question becomes why do so many people go out of their way to block ads?

On that front, there are many reasons given, below are just a few:

1. Annoyance: Many ads on today’s Web are animated and even contain sound. Not only are these distracting but may be inappropriate to view in certain environments, such as computer labs. They may also interfere with other programs, such as music players.
2. Bandwidth Issues: Many consumers are paying for the bandwidth they use and ads, especially animated or large image advertisements, can cost them money, essentially showing them advertisements that they have to pay for.
3. Privacy: As ad networks have consolidated and have spread across more and more sites, they are able to track user’s surfing activities all over the Web and many intentionally do so to serve better targeted ads. Mix that in with the dubious privacy history of some ad networks and many feel uneasy about loading ads.

The problem is pretty simple. As advertisers have become more and more aggressive about selling their ad space, out of necessity, they have used tactics that have made visitors less and less happy, so much so that many have installed ad blocking software, including 40% of Ars Technica’s audience according to their research.

But is ad blocking a copyright issue? It’s an unfortunately dubious area of the law.

Ad Blocking as Copyright Infringement

One area of contention with ad blocking software is whether it is illegal or not. There are several legal theories that may offer an avenue of attack for those who wish to seek recouse against the creators of such tools and, possibly, their users.

The biggest is that ad blocking software infringes the copyright of the sites they filter by creating an unlawful derivative work of the site. It is an interesting theory, by which the Web page, as it is intended to be displayed, is a work that is unlawfully altered by the application.

The problem is that it would, at least theoretically, also affect a slew of other Web page moderation tools, including those that add search links or notations for bookmarks. Anything that displayed a Web site in its non-intended form, could be bit.

Another theory is that, depending on the site’s terms of service, that the use of such applications could be a violation of that contract. This one would be targeted more to the users of ad blocking software rather than the makers. However, this would be a dubious path to go down in the courts as the PR backlash would inevitably do more damage than ad blocking.

Instead, it would more likely be used as a tool to flag user accounts and even ban repeat users. While still dangerous from a PR standpoint, it’s better than filing suit.

However, none of these theories have been tested and, to date, marketers have been trying a more conciliatory routes. The Ars Technica “experiment” marking the first time in recent history a major, well-respected site went against ad blockers head on, even calling them freeloaders.

But that begs the question: Are ad blockers freeloaders? If so, is it worthwhile for sites like Ars Technica to turn them away?

Are Ad Blockers Freeloaders?

On the surface the math seems pretty simple. A user with ad block generates zero revenue and consumes bandwidth, server resources, etc. As such, they operate at a net loss.

The reality, however, is not that straightforward. Ad blockers often contribute to the site in other ways, including posting comments, submitting links to social news sites, sharing URLs with friends and helping build a community that others, including those who don’t block ads, will want to visit and partake in.

The challenge for Web sites is determining if these visitors are valuable enough to welcome. Would a site make more money blocking those with ad blockers and swapping the decreased traffic for some users whitelisting the site? Or do those who block ads add enough value to increase the site’s revenue without seeing ads? There’s no sure-fire way to tell.

The better solution, it would seem, is to find a way to reach the ad blockers without turning them away. In short, find a way to increase the number who view ads while not completely blocking the ad blocking crowd.

Seeking a Better Solution

The path Ars Technica chose seems likely to be the best. Though it initially blocked ad blockers, it instead chose to educate those users about the harm they were doing and ask them to either disable their plugins or whitelist their domain.

There are even WordPress plugins that can help achieve this goal, replacing ads with pleas to disable ad blockers for those who use them.

This is something that O’Keefe agrees with saying that, “Ad blockers are scary. I think that some people don’t realize the damage they can do. In which case, it’s good to try to reach those people and educate them. Displaying a message to people who run ad blockers, asking them to turn them off, and explaining why, sounds like a good way to do that.”

Though these methods won’t convince everyone, or even a majority, to turn off their ad blockers, they will convince some and do so without turning away those who won’t or can’t.

Bottom Line

There are no easy answer to the ad blocking puzzle. The ethics and legality of ad blocking are going to be debated for a long time to come. Where traditional piracy fits more neatly into existing copyright law and social norms are becoming somewhat more settled, ad blocking is still relatively new and untested both in courts and in society at large.

However, as the Ars Technica ordeal illustrates, it is starting to get to a level that impacts Web sites enough to take action. It will be interesting to see if, in five years or so, if we look back on Ars Technica’s play as something of a “Napster moment” in the war against ad blocking.

What is clear is that this issue is growing in importance and it is only going to get more divisive and more heated in the future. What we saw this weekend was, almost certainly, just a mere taste of what’s to come

This issue is about to blow up and in a very big way.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Case against Avatar dismissed

First off today, Zhou Shaomou, an amateur science fiction author from China, had a lawsuit of his against James Cameron dismissed. The author accused Cameron of plagiarizing his hit movie Avatar from his 1997 work “The Legend of the Blue Crow”. Shaomou is undaunted and is gathering more evidence to file a second lawsuit sometime in the near future.

2: CD Pirate Fined Thousands For Serbian Discs

Next up today, a Serbian man who was pulled over for speeding in New South Wales, Australia walked away with a $12,000 fine, but not for speeding. He was carrying burned CDs of a famous Serbian composer and was arrested on suspicion of copyright infringement. Sasha Dimititijevic initially pled not guilty to the offense, claiming Serbian copyright did not apply to Australia but was proved wrong in court.

3: No Misconduct by Professor Who Used Student’s Work in Paper

Finally today, in the UK, the Health Professions Council (HPC) has ruled that a professor who used portions of a student’s paper in his own research, including signing a copyright agreement with a journal seeking to publish it, did not commit any misconduct, despite the fact the student had not granted permission. The reason was because, the HPC found, the student was not the copyright holder in the work in question.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr