CyberLaw Blog

Archive for March 13th, 2009

Interesting case developing in Canada…

Post from: TorrentFreak

isoHunt Takes on the CRIA in Court

Last September, isoHunt decided to sue the CRIA looking for confirmation that the site is not doing anything illegal. In an act of self defense, isoHunt owner Gary Fung filed a petition (pdf) asking the Court of British Columbia to confirm that isoHunt –and sister sites Torrentbox and Podtropolis– do not infringe copyright.

‘This is our preemptive strike with a narrowly defined petition for Declaratory Relief that we do not infringe, in anticipation they are going to file their own lawsuit that we do infringe (their copyright),’ Fung told TorrentFreak at the time.

IsoHunt has asked the court to decide whether .torrent files, and BitTorrent search engines in particular, are infringing copyright or not. In other words, should BitTorrent search engines be held liable for the .torrent files that might point to copyrighted data? If so, what does this mean for other search engines, and sites such as YouTube?

Today, isoHunt and the CRIA appeared in court. While isoHunt asked the court to rule that they do not break any laws, the CRIA is demanding a full trial against the BitTorrent site.

This landmark case might be the one to define how files can be distributed online. Among other things, isoHunt argues that they are just a search engine, like Google, and that they have no control over the files they find elsewhere on the web. In court today, they showed that a filetype:torrent search for Coldplay on Google returns plenty of torrent files, similar to a search on isoHunt.

All isoHunt does is index other BitTorrent trackers and indexers, without human intervention. The files that can be found on isoHunt are scattered all over the Internet, and even these files are just metadata.

IsoHunt founder Gary Fung told TorrentFreak that the judge converted their petition into action at the end of today’s hearing. ‘He just thinks the issues are too complicated and consequences far reaching legally and technically, and a full trial is more appropriate for discovering all documents,’ Gary said.

‘The important issue is not about the complexity or ramifications of our case which we won’t dispute, but rather CRIA liking to use full action and discovery because it’s costly for all parties and the court and was exactly why we decided to bring our petition first for efficiency before they were going to sue with an action,’ Gary told TorrentFreak in a response. IsoHunt is likely to appeal the order for conversion.

To be continued.

Post from: TorrentFreak

Piracy Has Become Mainstream, Studies Show

In recent years many studies have shown that a large chunk of Internet users share copyrighted files on P2P networks, and this number is rapidly increasing every year. The results of a Canadian study published today show that 45% of all those surveyed use file-sharing networks to download movies and music. Also, this behavior is widely accepted since only 3% of the people who participated in the study said that file-sharers should be punished by law.

These results are not unique to Canada either. A few weeks ago a Spanish survey found pretty much the same results (pdf). Of the thousands of Internet users questioned, more than half admitted using file-sharing software regularly. In fact, 28% said they use it every day. Only 1% of the respondents saw downloading copyrighted files as criminal behavior, while 43% said that the development of P2P networks should be promoted.

The results of these two reports clearly show that public opinion is changing in favor of P2P users. So how did this happen? Could it be that the Internet has changed the way we interact with digital media? Unlike 10 years ago, people are now used to unlimited access to all kinds of information, much of it thanks to Google. The Internet allows people to access an unlimited library of information, and at an increasing rate people demand the same experience for TV, music and other forms of digital information, as the studies show.

Meanwhile, entertainment industry lobbyists do all they can to get tougher copyright laws in place, and to get repeated copyright infringers disconnected by their ISPs. They argue that filesharing is hurting content creators, even though research indicates that the opposite might actually be true. So what’s going on here? Could it be that the bosses at the record labels and movie companies are trying to slow down innovation simply because they want to preserve their old business models?

The people who actually create the movies and music want their content to be shared, only the large corporations behind it are too afraid to move on. Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators. They even pay politicians to support their cause by voting for or against laws so that legislation is made with their interests in mind. Is that moral? When some of the most successful musicians start their own lobby group to take on the record labels for their alleged extortion practices, there’s clearly something wrong.

So should sharing copyrighted material be legalized? Not per se, but the entertainment industry should focus on monetizing filesharing networks instead of bringing them down. The Internet has drastically changed the way people consume music and other forms of entertainment. Every piece of information is only a few clicks away, and people demand the same for their music and other types of media. There are no boundaries anymore. 15 years ago it was unthinkable that someone could have access to millions of songs, on demand. Now, this has become reality, but the music industry is still hesitant to offer such a service.

The answer really is to compete with piracy. Right now most of the online music services don’t offer a very good experience or are simply too expensive. Most of them still include some form of DRM, no unlimited access, or a limited library. ‘All you can eat’ plans are the future though, either for a small fee or ad supported. If it’s done right, the motivation to download something illegally will simply disappear, at least for the majority of the people. This aside, it is likely to generate more revenue for the artist and labels. Everybody wins.

A Dirty Pun Tweaks China’s Online Censors: “A craze over a mythical beast conceived as an impish protest raises questions about China’s Internet censorship.”

(Via NYT > Technology.)

Phorm CEO clashes with Berners-Lee at Parliament: “

Ertugrul demands privacy panel opt-in

An exasperated Kent Ertugrul took on Sir Tim Berners-Lee in a tense encounter at a discussion on internet privacy at the Houses of Parliament today.…

“

(Via The Register – Comms.)

YouTube explains the UK music videos blocking issue.

YouTube, the UK and the Performing Rights Society for Music: “We have invested a lot of time and effort trying to ensure that our community can find and enjoy the music they love, and we have strong partnerships with three of the four largest record labels in the world, as well as many independent labels. But copyrights in music can get pretty complicated. For example, there may be several different copyrights in a single music video, controlled by different organizations with different interests. The visual elements and the sound recording of a music video are typically owned by a record label, while the music and lyrics of the song being performed are owned separately by one or more music publishers. These publishers often designate organizations called collecting societies to issue licenses and collect royalties on their behalf. In the UK we’ve had a license from the collecting society called PRS for Music to make music videos provided by our record label partners available to our users in the UK.

Our previous license from PRS for Music has expired, and we’ve been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us. There are two obstacles in these negotiations: prohibitive licensing fees and lack of transparency. We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright. But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license than before. The costs are simply prohibitive for us — under PRS’s proposed terms we would lose significant amounts of money with every playback. In addition, PRS is unwilling to tell us what songs are included in the license they can provide so that we can identify those works on YouTube — that’s like asking a consumer to buy an unmarked CD without knowing what musicians are on it.

We’re still working with PRS for Music in an effort to reach mutually acceptable terms for a new license, but until we do so we will be blocking premium music videos in the UK that have been supplied or claimed by record labels. This was a painful decision, and we know the significant disappointment it will cause within the UK. And to be clear, this is not an issue with the record labels, with most of whom we have strong relationships.

While negotiations continue, we’ll still be working to create more ways to compensate musicians and other rights-holders on YouTube. In addition to various advertising options, we recently introduced a click-to-buy feature that enables fans to purchase downloads of their favorite songs. We’re also proud of our Content ID tools that help rights owners identify their content and even use the power of our community to increase advertising and revenue potential.

We will continue to seek partnerships that benefit our community, music publishers, music labels and, of course, musicians and songwriters, and we will work hard with anybody who shares this commitment. We hope that professional music videos will soon be back on YouTube for our users in the UK to enjoy, and if and when that time comes, you can be sure that you’ll be the first to know.

Yours,
Patrick Walker
Director of Video Partnerships, Europe, Middle East and Africa
“

(Via YouTube Blog.)

Amazon using DMCA to restrict Kindle content sources: “

Oh, Amazon. Just a couple weeks after the Authors Guild’s overzealous copyright-maximalist stance forced the bookseller to modify the Kindle 2’s text to speech feature, the company’s lawyers have had a fit of irony and sent out a DMCA takedown request to MobileRead, claiming that the site’s links to a Python script that enables Kindle owners to shop at Mobipocket-format ebook sites constitutes circumvention of the Kindle’s DRM. There’s all kinds of corporate-lawyer idiocy at play here: MobileRead was just linking out to another site hosting the script, which can’t actually be used to break Kindle DRM, and the only people using it are the people who want to buy more books — not exactly the sort of customers you’d want to piss off. Amazon’s sole motivation here seems to be the fear that people might buy Kindle content from somewhere besides Amazon, and it appears to be using copyright law to try and prevent that. Another corporation driven mad with DRM power? Say it ain’t so.

[Via TechDirt]

Filed under: Handhelds

Amazon using DMCA to restrict Kindle content sources originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:48:00 EST.

(Via Engadget.)

Secret emails reveal sexing-up of Iraq dossier: “

Inquiry time?

Opposition parties are today renewing calls for a proper investigation into the Iraq war because a Freedom of Information request has revealed senior officials were concerned about how the intelligence was presented.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

If you are a fan of Twitter, you can then follow this blog through http://twitter.com/lawya.

French government accused of ‘Big Brother’ tactics over internet piracy

10 March, 2009

New law would punish illegal downloading by cutting off web access

The French government has been accused of ‘Big Brother tactics’ over a proposed anti-piracy law that aims to punish people who repeatedly illegally download music and films by cutting off their internet access for up to a year.

A bill is to be debated in parliament this week which could lead to a new surveillance agency to monitor internet users. With the help of internet service providers and tip-offs from music and film companies, those who illegally download music, films or video games would be identified. They would receive an email warning, followed by a letter, and if caught again would see their internet access cut off for up to a year.

The bill is a pet project of the president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has taken advice from music and film industry leaders, who have warned that the country’s creative industries are on their knees as a result of illegal downloading. The president’s wife, the singer Carla Bruni, has long advocated a crackdown on piracy.

Christine Albanel, the culture minister, has said that France is ‘the world number one’ in illegal downloading. An estimated 1bn pirated files were shared in the country in 2006. In a recent poll, 57% of 18- 24-year-olds admitted they had made illegal downloads and one in three French internet users admitted to online piracy. Music accounts for the biggest share of illegal downloading, followed by films, video games and American TV series.

Although the senate has passed the bill, a row over civil liberties is expected as parliament debates the law this week.

Christian Paul, a Socialist MP leading opposition to the law, said it would create a precedent for ‘massive surveillance’ of the internet and society as a whole.

‘Criminalising a whole generation is a dead end,’ he added, warning that the law would not bring an extra euro to crisis-hit record companies, which instead needed to look at their business plan. Socialists argue that the law, which focuses on file sharing or download sites rather than new technologies of streaming, is inconsistent and already outdated.

The consumer group UFC-Que Choisir called the law a ‘judicial monstrosity’, warning it could cut off homes from the internet before they were given a chance to challenge the accusations. Several French blogs and websites, as well as groups on Second Life, have protested with black banners across their sites.

Frédéric Lefebvre, a spokesman for Sarkozy’s ruling centre-right UMP party, said the law was about defending the ‘French cultural exception’ and urgently protecting the nation’s creative industries. The music industry has seen its market plunge by 50% in the past five years.

The proposed French law will go further than those of Germany or Britain.

An EU report last year argued that cutting off internet use was the wrong way to combat piracy. But the US, Ireland and Italy have taken measures to work with internet service providers to fight illegal downloading by suspending web access.

(Via Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk.)

CoE – Countries Move Forward on Cybercrime Treaty: “(IDG News Service)
Countries are ratifying the only global cybercrime treaty slower than expected, but many are closer to implementing it, a senior Council of Europe official said. The Convention on Cybercrime, adopted in 2001, defines legal guidelines for countries seeking to establish effective laws against computer crime. The Council of Europe (COE), an organization composed of 47 European countries, has spearheaded a drive to help countries either create computer crime laws or bring existing ones in line with the treaty. So far 24 countries have ratified it, with Germany being the latest one. Twenty-three others have signed it but not ratified it. The COE was hoping that as many as 40 countries would have ratified it by the year, but the pace has been slower than expected, said Alexander Seger, head of the COE’s economic crime division.”

(Via QuickLinks Update.)