Stephen Covey's digital rights deal with Amazon startle New York publishers; Guardian, 12/15/09

Ed Pilkington, Guardian; Stephen Covey's digital rights deal with Amazon startle New York publishers:

"The scramble for survival in the New York publishing world provoked by the rise of the ebook has become so ruthless it makes the Wild West look like a Swiss finishing school. Authors and publishers are squabbling over rights, internet retailers are slugging it out with bookshops, and tech companies are climbing over each other to produce an ebook reader that can challenge Amazon's hit, the Kindle.

The latest blast of gunfire has come from one of America's leading authors in the highly lucrative market of business self-help books.

Stephen Covey has announced he is selling exclusive digital rights to two of his bestsellers – The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, and Principle-Centered Leadership – to Amazon, bypassing the traditional publisher, Simon & Schuster, that has up to now handled all his output.

The move has put a chill over New York publishing houses already struggling to keep up with the ebook revolution. One of their big fears is that of becoming separated from their backlists, the titles that act as the cash cows of the industry, bringing in a steady and increasingly crucial income in the insecure digital world.

As jitters spread, some big publishers have moved to defend what they claim is theirs – the digital rights to the backlist.

Random House startled many in the book world this week by sending a letter to agents informing them that, in its view, the publishing house holds the exclusive rights to digital editions of the "vast majority" of its backlist titles. That made authors and their agents see red. They pointed to a ruling by the New York courts as far back as 2002 in which Random House itself failed in an attempt to block on ebook firm from publishing works by the late William Styron, author of Sophie's Choice, and Kurt Vonnegut. The ruling, upheld on appeal, found that copyright for books that were written before digital publishing existed, remained with the author.

Arthur Klebanoff, head of RosettaBooks, the ebook company that beat off Random House in 2002, secured Covey's exclusive deal this week with Amazon. He said: "We are very clear about this, the author controls the rights unless it is specified otherwise, and that was settled by the courts years ago...

The spat in the US stands in contrast to Britain, where publishers broadly accept that they do not have the rights to the ebook editions of older titles, and authors accept that they should avoid offering ebooks to other publishers.

"There is a kind of gentleman's agreement," said Anthony Goff, an agent with David Higham, who heads the trade association for literary agents in the UK...

As these behemoths fight it out in an increasingly ungainly display of muscle, the big question is what happens to authors and their readers, which is after all what the fuss is about.

Bestselling names such as Covey are likely to prosper, as will their fans who will benefit from knockdown prices. Amazon is selling some titles for as little as $7.99, massively below their paper price.

Less well-known authors have yet to reap any rewards."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/dec/15/stephen-covey-amazon-ebook-deal

Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill; Guardian, 12/

Katie Allen, Guardian; Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill:

Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay call on business secretary not to grant wide powers to ministers to alter copyright law

"Leading internet companies including Google have written to business secretary Peter Mandelson urging him to change the new digital economy bill to throw out a controversial clause that could give future ministers sweeping powers to change copyright law.

Their letter, sent to coincide with today's second reading of the recently announced bill in the Lords, voices support for parts of the bill and a "shared respect" for copyright. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay also express "grave concerns" over proposed measures "which risk stifling innovation and damaging the government's vision for a digital Britain."

They highlight elements of Mandelson's bill introduced at the 11th hour: "In particular, we believe the bill's clause 17 – which gives any future secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place," the letter said.

The internet companies warn that such an unclear copyright backdrop could run counter to former communications minister Stephen Carter's Digital Britain report, which examined ways to ensure the UK remained at the leading edge of the global digital economy.

"This would discourage innovation, impose unnecessary costs, potentially unsettling the careful balance of responsibilities for enabling market change which Lord Carter outlined in the Digital Britain report," the letter said. "This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments ... The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK's leading position in a digital Europe. We urge you to remove clause 17 from the bill."

A spokesman for Mandelson's department sought to reassure the internet companies the government would not abuse any future powers.

"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future. However, business will not wake up one morning to a world in which government has taken extensive digital powers," he said.

While the digital economy bill was welcomed by many media companies, which feel their copyright on music, film and other content need better protection online, it has also faced a large amount of opposition from internet service providers and consumer groups.

Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone recently condemned as "crazy" plans to combat online piracy by severing people's broadband connections. The group's broadband arm, TalkTalk, has threatened to take legal action if proposals to cut off persistent unlawful online file sharers make it into law.

An e-petition on the No 10 website against the law has already garnered more than 28,000 signatories and the support of such technophiles as Stephen Fry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook

When piracy isn't theft; Guardian, 11/24/09

Alexandros Stavrakas, Guardian; When piracy isn't theft:

The argument over file sharing is redundant: creative businesses must change, and the social value of free must be recognised

"Stewart Brand, during the first Hackers' Conference in 1984, uttered the infamous maxim, "Information wants to be free". The implication was that any attempt to control and limit the free dissemination of knowledge and information would be met with resistance. That was yesterday's news. Today's is that the British government is seeking to tackle the problem of online piracy by passing a law disciplining those wishing to freely share intellectual property that is under copyright protection."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/24/file-sharing-free-piracy

UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly; Ars Technica, 11/22/09

Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly:

Just two days after the Queen announced that an online copyright enforcement bill was coming, it landed in the House of Lords. It has no sanctions, no "three-strikes" rules, and no fines—but it gives one official the power to levy them at any time in the future.

"The Queen announced on Wednesday that her government would deliver Internet piracy legislation; today it arrived in the form of the massive Digital Economy bill meant to modernize the UK's approach to everything from copyrights to broadband to video game ratings to domain names. The bill contains no sanctions against suspected P2P file-swappers, but it introduces a "reserve power" that can be deployed whenever the Secretary of State feels that it's time to bust out the switch and administer some beatings.

The bill implements the Digital Britain report, which was completed earlier this year and attempted to chart a course forward for Britain in a high-tech world. It initially imposes two obligations on ISPs: they must forward warning letters from copyright holders to their subscribers, and they must maintain an anonymized list of the number of such warnings received by each subscriber. If a copyright holder asks, they must be shown the list, at which point the rightsholder can go to court and seek to uncover the names of the top offenders, and then sue them.

There are no sanctions, but such sanctions could be coming. The government has written "reserve powers" into the law that can be deployed at a later date without needing Parliamentary approval. What powers are those? Here's how the bill describes them:

"The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur."

In other words, whenever the Secretary of State decides that speed throttling or Internet disconnections are a good idea, he can implement them with a simple order. The government insists that such power will be introduced only against the "most serious infringers" and only "in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected."

Public outrage
But the prospect is clearly on the table in this bill. That has kicked up furious opposition since the idea was floated back in April; public opinion was so against the idea—which came weeks after current Secretary of State Peter Mandelson vacationed with media mogul David Geffen—that the government had to publish a response called "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers."

Clearly sensitive to public outrage, the drafters of the Digital Economy bill go out of their way to explain that "introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures… We recognize that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure [disconnection], and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized."

This is very much a "take our word for it" approach, since the bill does not appear to contain such safeguards. Indeed, the Secretary of State is given broad powers to give or remove rights and even to impose fines of his or her own choosing.

But there are two safeguards; the idea that the bill suddenly creates a totally autonomous Pirate Finder General who can go on a crazed seek-and-destroy mission and implement any rules he or she chooses has both a political and a Parliamentary limit. The political limit is that the bill requires any new order drafted by the Secretary of State to first be put up for public comment."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/uk-pirate-finder-general-law-innocuous-now-could-get-ugly.ars

Appeal Court: Mod chips infringe game copyright after all; Register, 11/17/09

Register; Appeal Court: Mod chips infringe game copyright after all:

"A man who sold computer chips that enabled pirated video games to be played on consoles was rightly convicted of copyright offences, the Court of Appeal has ruled."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/modchip_ruling/

OpEd: Digital economy bill: A punishing future; Guardian, 11/23/09

OpEd, Guardian; Digital economy bill: A punishing future:

"The digital economy bill is misnamed. A more honest title for the legislation, recently introduced in the Lords, would be the copyright protection and punishment bill. It is less about creating the digital businesses of the 21st century than protecting the particular 20th century business models used in music and film.

The bill is narrow in vision but dangerously broad in creating sweeping ministerial powers to punish digital pirates. It boils Digital Britain down to three Ms – media, music and movies – myopically ignoring the pioneers of new technology, and showing a blind spot for all creativity outside the so-called creative industries. Digital Britain is much more than digital media – there are the start-ups of London's Silicon Roundabout, the great success story of Cambridge chip designer ARM and the small businesses all over the land using the net to open up opportunities. Instead of empowering digital Britons, the bill follows the lead of music and movie corporations, who already apply a presumption of guilt to their customers. Instead of treating the web as a platform of possibilities, it recasts it as a tool for mass theft.

The only digital thing about this bill is the cut-and-paste facility it grants the secretary of state to redefine the copyright laws and increase maximum penalties. The government may argue, with some force, that it needs flexibility to ensure the rules keep pace with technology. But granting this administration – or any future one – such latitude to rewrite crucial laws on the fly, with only the merest figleaf of parliamentary oversight, is a dangerous precedent, and one sure to inspire future abuses – of democratic as well as digital rights.

Vague laws create opportunities for unintended consequences and offer an open invitation for aggressive lobbying. If it is understood that the secretary of state has it within his gift to change the rules on a whim, then Rupert Murdoch, for instance, could soon be advancing his war against Google in Whitehall.

While Finland enshrines web access as a human right, this bill legislates plans to deprive users of access. It will force internet service providers to become copyright police, obliging them to provide lists of violations to copyright owners. After warnings, violators will have their service crippled, or even cut off. All this will drive up the costs of web access, by piling duties on providers. Add the more defensible surcharges to pay for next generation services, and Digital Britain risks becoming a land beset by an even deeper digital divide. Instead of building on a positive vision of Digital Britain, the government has capitulated to the fears of music and movie moguls struggling to defend their multimillion-pound businesses."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/editorial-digital-economy-bill

Queen: We sank the Armada, we can sink some P2P pirates!; Ars Technica, 11/19/09

Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Queen: We sank the Armada, we can sink some P2P pirates!:

The Queen opened the UK parliamentary session yesterday and announced that an Internet disconnection bill would be coming soon. But will it actually be legal?

"My Government will introduce a Bill to ensure the communications infrastructure is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting," said Her Majesty, an innocuous description of the about-to-be-introduced Digital Economy bill.

That bill will likely attempt to reduce Internet copyright infringement, as measured by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom, by 70 percent from its current levels over the next two years. It's also widely expected that the bill will give the Secretary of State certain abilities to expand the enforcement regime and to introduce new sanctions, regardless of what happens on the piracy front. Still, we'd be a bit surprised if the bill opened the door to some kind of "Pirate Finder General" who can turn the recording industry into a legal, doorbusting militia, but Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing insists the current language in the bill (which should be available by the end of the week) is in fact this broad."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/queen-we-sank-the-armada-we-can-sink-some-p2p-pirates.ars

Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing; Guardian, 11/19/09

Charles Arthur, Guardian; Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing:

Labour colleagues are concerned business secretary could set precedent that would allow Tories to help Murdoch take on Google

"Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.

But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.

In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".

By writing to Harman, the business secretary is seeking to get the change made through a "statutory instrument" – in effect, an update to the existing bill that the government can push through using its parliamentary majority.

That can be done with the minimum of parliamentary time, which is already at a premium.

The letter, which is circulating inside the government, comes as ministers prepare to publish the digital economy bill at 7.30am tomorrow. That is expected to set out a "three strikes" policy under which people who are found to be illicitly downloading copyrighted material have their internet connections withdrawn after three warnings.

Internet service providers have warned that the scheme is unworkable and unlawful.

The proposed alteration to the Copyright Act would create a new offence of downloading material that infringes copyright laws, as well as giving new powers or rights to "protect" rights holders such as record companies and movie studios – and, controversially, conferring powers on "any person as may be specified" to help cut down online infringement of copyright.

The changes proposed seem small – but are enormously wideranging, given both the breadth of even minor copyright infringement online, where photographs and text are copied with little regard to ownership, and the complexity of ownership.

Mandelson says in his letter that he is concerned about "cyberlockers" – websites that offer users private storage spaces whose contents can be shared by passing a web link via email.

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson writes in the letter.

But the proposal to alter the Copyright Act in this way has caused alarm within government, where some fear that an incoming Tory administration could use it to curry favour with Murdoch, head of the News International publishing group.

"They've seen that file-sharing is essentially unpoliceable, but the net effect is that a future secretary of state could change copyright law as they see fit," said one Labour insider.

In his letter, Mandelson sets out the expected reaction from the three groups who would be affected by the changes: rights holders such as record companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.

"I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs." Consumer groups "are likely to oppose [the move] but will see it may lead to further unquantifiable measures against infringing consumers."

He also expects "a great deal of scrutiny" of the idea in parliament.

Murdoch has recently said that he believes that copyright is being abused, particularly by organisations such as Google, which uses short extracts from online newspapers to create its Google News page, and the BBC, which he has accused of "stealing from newspapers".

Earlier this month Murdoch was vituperative about how search engines have aggregated news. "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... They shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

By giving the business secretary the power to amend the Copyright Act at will, Labour fears Mandelson could be creating a Trojan horse that under a Tory administration would allow Murdoch to be rewarded for his support for David Cameron over Gordon Brown, for example by making it illegal to use such extracts from a news site for profit.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business said the department could not comment on correspondence between ministers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google

Digital divide over filesharing plans; Guardian, 11/20/09

Richard Wray, Guardian; Digital divide over filesharing plans:

"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.

Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...

Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.

But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."

"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."

Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown

Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys; Guardian, 11/12/09

Katie Allen, Guardian; Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys:

"With authors who want to control their own publishing in mind, [Neil Jones] founded Interead and developed the Coolerbooks.com ebook site. He wanted to sell the Sony Reader to accompany the downloads but Sony could not guarantee supply, so he created the Cool-er ereader instead. After a few months in the market, worldwide sales of the Cool-er (which costs £189 in the UK) have soared...

He is confident that his brightly coloured devices, which have been called the iPods of the ebook world, will be number two in America by next autumn in terms of sales, and number one in the UK.

As he takes on the likes of Sony and Amazon – whose Kindle reader launched internationally in October – Jones has been looking into research on David and Goliath battles throughout history. He thinks the odds for the small guy are pretty good. Outside the battlefield, he cites the business example of Virgin Atlantic, currently celebrating its 25th year. "Twenty-five years ago, who would have given Virgin Atlantic any chance against the likes of British Airways?"...

Interead's ebook site recently became the first ebookstore outside the US to offer 500,000 of the public domain books (books that have fallen out of copyright) available from Google Books.

Jones says Interead's latest example of thinking differently is the US retail launch of its reader on the QVC shopping channel. "We know the majority of our market is women – women read more," he says."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/small-business-ereaders-neil-jones-profile

Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music', says poll; Independent, 11/1/09

Rachel Shields, Independent; Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music', says poll:

Crackdown on music piracy could further harm ailing industry

"People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.

The findings suggest that plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a "three strikes and you're out" rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers.

An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year. The record industry's trade association, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), believes this copyright infringement will cost the industry £200m this year.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally.

"The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access," said Peter Bradwell, from the think-tank Demos, which commissioned the new poll conducted by Ipsos Mori.

However, music industry figures insist the figures offer a skewed picture. The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month.

"The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music," said Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research. "They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity," he continued. "You need to have it at a price point you won't notice."

The Digital Economy Bill, which will become law next April, sets out new measures to crack down on internet piracy. But these have generated criticism from internet service providers, who say they will be difficult to enforce.

Artists are also divided over the issue, with Lily Allen and James Blunt recently supporting the Government's stance, while the Latin pop star Shakira argues that illegal file sharing brings her closer to her fans.

This year Virgin Media and Universal Music plan to launch the first music subscription service allowing customers to download and keep unlimited tracks from Universal's catalogue for a fee of around £15."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?; TechDirt, 10/30/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?:

"With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." ...

But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0328096729.shtml

Vampire fever is biting hard; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/09

Jonathan Dart, Sydney Morning Herald; Vampire fever is biting hard:

"Hamish Fraser, a partner at Truman Hoyle law firm, warned people to not get too fired up by Halloween and start copying ideas that might belong to someone else.

It follows a case in Britain where a single mother was sent a warning letter by Warner Bros over potential copyright breaches, after she planned a Harry Potter themed dinner event.

"What probably went wrong in the United Kingdom in this case was that it might have looked, to Warner Brothers, that this woman was trying to earn money rather than having a fun night," Mr Fraser said.

"The problem is that the copyright law is what it is. If you copy the Harry Potter logo, for instance, you are almost certainly infringing copyright.''

But in a year when vampires are so popular, Mr Fraser said it will be harder for companies to suck the blood out of parties by protecting copyright - recent Twilight-themed parties have been held everywhere from Yass Valley Council Library to the Loft Bar in Darling Harbour."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/vampire-fever-is-biting-hard-20091030-hpqy.html

MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans; ZDNet, 10/30/09

Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans:

"There has been more controversy this week with a major Internet service provider, a petition set up to harness the power of democracy, but also the British Security Service, MI5, all opposing the cut-off laws which are being pushed through by a key figure in the British government’s cabinet."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3187&tag=post-3168;col2

British Copyright Org Threatens Singing Store Employee, Then Apologizes; DailyTech, 10/23/09

Jason Mick, DailyTech; British Copyright Org Threatens Singing Store Employee, Then Apologizes:

"The humorous tale involves the organization catching wind of a “heinous” offense -- an employee singing in public. Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store (a British supermarket) in Clackmannanshire, UK was told by organization representatives that she would likely face fines for lost royalties for her "performance".

The debacle began earlier in the year when the PRS threatened the grocery store she worked at, telling them to ditch the radio that played in earshot of customers or pay royalty fees. Missing the music, Ms. Burt decided to start singing some of her favorite tunes. She describes, "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.

"Then came new threats from the PRS. Ms. Burt describes, "When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance license, I thought it was a joke and started laughing. I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing."

http://www.dailytech.com/British+Copyright+Org+Threatens+Singing+Store+Employee+Then+Apologizes/article16592.htm

Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing; ZDNet, 10/25/09

Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing:

"The battle against online piracy is heating up: a new artist led initiative is taking on the diplomatic and negotiation approach whereas governments and legislators are hitting down punitive policies on their citizens.

Jon Newton of p2pnet, alongside Billy Bragg, musician and director of the Featured Artists Coalition, have begun work on a2f2a.com, a campaign started to discuss how artists can cut out the middleman - such as the suicide inducing RIAA - and ensure artists are fairly remunerated.

Along with their mission statement, the efforts seem to be focused towards not only admitting there is no technological solution to the problems artists already face, but that users would be “willing to pay for music if they can be sure that the money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.”"

http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3168

David Lammy calls for pan-European approach to copyright protection; Guardian, 10/27/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; David Lammy calls for pan-European approach to copyright protection:

Intellectual property minister tells C&binet Forum delegates that progress on copyright piracy cannot be made without a 'European consensus'

"David Lammy, the intellectual property minister, has today warned that the UK cannot solve the problem of copyright piracy without the support of other European governments.

Lammy, speaking at the government's digital creative industries conference C&binet, said the UK has been stymied in its efforts to strengthen the enforcement of copyright because it is a "minority" player on the European stage.

"Some people tell me that content is national, they tell me the solutions lie in my backyard [but] this is not right, content is international," he added.

"Solutions lie internationally. For us, solutions lie in Europe. The UK must continue to encourage and support wider innovation and improve access to copyright works. But we can do relatively little domestically. A great deal of policy making is harmonised at European level and progress simply can't be made without a European consensus," Lammy said.

"The UK often finds itself in the minority in Europe when it comes to copyright issues. I want to see the UK play a greater role in influencing European action."

He added that while models needed to be developed to make legitimate content attractive to all, consumers needed to understand they had to pay to make the system work.

"If the world wants to continue to enjoy works that are protected by copyright, then the world must be a paying customer," he said. "Consumers have built a digital culture based on access, even if it cuts across the law. I want a world where rights holders will be paid for their efforts. For me, the balance must always tilt strongly in favour of freedom. But freedom to access material is not the same thing as access for free."

Lammy added that the current copyright system was out of step with the digital age and that government and businesses had "sleepwalked" into the piracy situation.

"The mechanisms by which copyright operates can be too complex. I don't want to see copyright, in the UK, or anywhere in the world, lagging so far behind technology that it loses relevance," he said. "I don't want to see a regime based on arbitrary rules. It must ensure that it allows limited copying for personal use of lawfully obtained material. I want to see this made possible rather than discouraged."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/david-lammy-copyright-piracy-europe

TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan; Guardian, 10/29/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan:

Carphone Warehouse-owned internet service provider attacks plans to cut off connections of persistent filesharers

"TalkTalk, the second largest internet service provider in the UK, has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers' internet connections.

Carphone Warehouse-owned TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government's plan was based on filesharers being "guilty until proven innocent" and constituted an infringement of human rights.

"The approach is based on the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent' and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court," said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. "We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations."

The government plans to look at increased action against illegal downloaders, including potentially suspending the accounts of persistent offenders, from July 2011 if a 70% reduction in online piracy is not achieved by sending warning letters. Customers will have the right to appeal if they are targeted and their connection subjected to technical measures.

"If the government moves to stage two, we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures, and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights," Heaney said. "TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal."

BT, the largest ISP in the UK, said it "remains concerned" about some of the government's proposals and is "interested to hear whether or not customers will have some form of fair legal hearing before their broadband supplier is required to take any action against them"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson

Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either; Guardian, 10/28/09

Charles Arthur, Guardian; Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either:

Implementing "three strikes" rule would weigh down ISPs while bringing music industry no benefit - and streaming companies unhappy

"Lord Mandelson's proposals to cut off "persistent" file sharers do not make financial sense, according to estimates of its cost put forward by those who would have to implement it.

British Telecom and Carphone Warehouse estimate that running the enforcement system would cost about £2 per broadband line per month - a total of £24 per broadband line per year. With 17.6m broadband connections in the UK as of September, means it would cost £420m annually to run a system to defeat a problem the music industry complains costs it £200m per year.
Lord Mandelson said that "ISPs and rights-holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and plan."

If the costs of running the system are equally shared between rights-holders and ISPs, that means that ISPs will have to push up bills for the majority of law-abiding customers who do not download illegally, while the rights-holders spend as much as they claim they are losing.
Reactions from the music and music streaming industry to Lord Mandelson's reasserted determination to cut off "persistent" file-sharers has not been positive either."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/costs-piracy-filesharing-mandelson

Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape; Guardian, 10/28/09

Jack Schofield, Guardian; Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape:

"The government has proposed a complicated and expensive system of letters, independent bodies and First Tier Tribunals as a way to stop the sharing of copyright content, but it seems unlikely to work

"Lord Mandelson has "warned internet users today that the days of 'consequence-free' illegal filesharing are over," according to my colleague Mark Sweney. This will no doubt give most of the large copyright owners a warm glow, but whether it will make any practical difference is another matter. I suspect it won't.

The government plan has two stages....In stage 1, a "rights holder" is going to identify the IP address of an illegal uploader by "phishing" on a file-sharing site, then get the ISP to send that user a warning letter. After sending more than one warning, the rights-holder takes legal action.
In stage 2, the ISP takes "technical measures" against the "serious infringer", who can then appeal to "an independent body established by Ofcom". (These "technical measures" may include the not-very-technical suspension of the user's account.) If that appeal is unsuccessful, the "serous infringer" can appeal to a "First Tier Tribunal", following which the "technical measures" are either re-implemented or dropped.

It sounds like an expensive and extremely bureaucratic plan where the cost of implementation will be far higher than the cost of the content. Mandy's thinking is presumably that making a public example of a small number of "serous infringers" will discourage others. It should certainly discourage peer-to-peer file-sharing, at least among those smart enough to realise that if they are downloading something, they are probably uploading it as well."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/mandelson-blocking-filesharing