Plagiarism is a controversial and debated topic in different fields, especially in the Music one, where the commercial market generates a huge amount of money. The lack of objective metrics to decide whether a song is a plagiarism, makes music plagiarism detection a very complex task: often decisions have to be based on subjective argumentations. Automated music analysis methods that identify music similarities can be of help. In this work, we first propose two novel such methods: a text similarity-based method and a clustering-based method. Then, we show how to combine them to get an improved (hybrid) method. The result is a novel adaptive meta-heuristic for music plagiarism detection. To assess the effectiveness of the proposed methods, considered both singularly and in the combined meta-heuristic, we performed tests on a large dataset of ascertained plagiarism and non-plagiarism cases. Results show that the meta-heuristic outperforms existing methods. Finally, we deployed the meta-heuristic into a tool, accessible as a Web application, and assessed the effectiveness, usefulness, and overall user acceptance of the tool by means of a study involving 20 people, divided into two groups, one of which with access to the tool. The study consisted in having people decide which pair of songs, in a predefined set of pairs, should be considered plagiarisms and which not. The study shows that the group supported by our tool successfully identified all plagiarism cases, performing all tasks with no errors. The whole sample agreed about the usefulness of an automatic tool that provides a measure of similarity between two songs.

This paper presents several scenarios where digital evidence can be collected from mobile devices, their legal value keeping untouched. The paper describes a robust methodology for mobile forensics developed through on-field experiences directly gained by the authors over the last 10 years and many real court cases. The results show that mobile forensics, digital analysis of smartphone Android or iOS can be obtained in two ways: on the one hand, data extraction must follow the best practice of the repeatability procedure; on the other hand, the extraction of the data must follow the best practice of the non-repeatability procedure. The laboratory study of the two methods for extracting digital data from mobile phones, for use as evidence in court trials, has shown that the same evidence can be obtained even when the procedure of unavailability of file mining activities has been adopted. Indeed, thanks to laboratory tests, the existence of multiple files frequently and continuously subjected to changes generated by the presence of several hashes found at forensic extractions conducted in very short moments of time (sometimes not exceeding 15 min) has been proven. If, on the other hand, the examination of a device is entrusted to a judicial police officer in order to conduct a forensic analysis to acquire data produced and managed by the user (such as images, audio, video, documents, SMS, MMS, chat conversations, address book content, etc.) we have sufficient grounds to believe that such examination can be organized according to the system of repeatable technical assessments.