The Pirate Bay on the politics of copyright, Globe and Mail, 4/17/09

Via Globe and Mail; The Pirate Bay on the politics of copyright:

"Earlier Friday morning a Swedish judge found four men connected with the popular file sharing site The Pirate Bay guilty of contributing to copyright violations.

Already online observers are calling the decsision a monumental shift in the battle over copyright protection.

The landmark decision has each of the four men facing a year in jail and collective fines of $3.6-million (U.S.).

The Pirate Bay is a sort of underground Google for downloadable media files, where users can seach for and look up music, movies and tv shows to download using a file sharing technology known as BitTorrent. The music and movie industries say that most of the files the Pirate Bay links to infringe on copyrights and have made the site Enemy No. 1 in their fight against piracy.
Pirate Bay has more than 22 million users worldwide on an average day, its tracking system has been accessed more than 4 billion times and some experts believe that the site accounts for as much as two thirds of the world's torrent files. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090417.wgtpiratebaypodcast0417/BNStory/Technology/home

Nigeria: Can NCC's New Copyright Enforcement Tactics Tame Piracy?, allAfrica.com, 3/18/09

Via allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Can NCC's New Copyright Enforcement Tactics Tame Piracy?:

"FOR the past twenty years, the Nigerian Copyright Commission, NCC, has been on the crusade of ridding the economy of the scourge of piracy.

The cankerworm which piracy turned out to be in the fabrics of the economies of musical, film producers and book publishers among other intellectual property owners is on daily basis producing serious headache.""

http://allafrica.com/stories/200903180202.html

Discord on golden oldies' earning power, London Guardian, 12/21/08

Via London Guardian: Discord on golden oldies' earning power, Extending copyright on recordings would swell the labels' coffers, but the lure of selling old tunes may eclipse new signings:

"Record labels spend a huge amount of time and money searching for the artists of the future - but their profits are underpinned by the pop stars of the past. Back catalogues are big business for the major music groups, generating cash that can be ploughed into "A&R" ("artists and repertoire") - the inexact science of discovering and promoting tomorrow's big acts...

But all that could change if copyright on music recordings is not extended from 50 to 95 years, as the major music labels would like, and as the European Commission has recently proposed. Without the extension, early Beatles recordings such as Love Me Do will lose copyright protection from 2012, after which anyone would be free to use these versions of the songs free of charge. The implications for those who made the recordings are obvious.

In the UK, an artist earns a royalty every time their version of a song is sold or played publicly - a copyright that is valid for 50 years and generally administered through the artist's label. But there is also a separate copyright for the songwriter, currently valid for 70 years from the date of his or her death - the same rules that apply to authors outside the music industry. Those rights are generally held by music publishers, which exist both as standalone companies and as divisions within record labels. The music industry has been lobbying for several years to extend the copyright on performances and recordings so they are on equal terms with songwriting and other forms of copyright...

But not everyone agrees that a copyright extension would lead to more investment in new music, and some fear that it would encourage record labels to become more like music publishers and put yet more emphasis on their library."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/21/beatles-copyright-royalties-extension-mccartney

Music Industry Drops Effort to Sue Song Swappers, Via New York Times, 12/19/08

Via New York Times: Music Industry Drops Effort to Sue Song Swappers:

"''We're at a point where there's a sense of comfort that we can replace one form of deterrent with another form of deterrent,'' said RIAA Chairman and Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol...

The group says it will still continue to litigate outstanding cases, most of which are in the pre-lawsuit warning stage, but some of which are before the courts.

The decision to press on with existing cases drew the ire of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who is defending a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits.

''If it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea,'' said Nesson. He is challenging the constitutionality of the suits, which, based on the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, can impose damages of $150,000 per infringement, far in excess of the actual damage caused...

Brian Toder, a lawyer with Chestnut & Cambronne in Minneapolis, who defended single mother Jammie Thomas in a copyright suit filed by the RIAA, said he is also set to retry the case March 9 after a judge threw out a $222,000 decision against her.

''I think it's a good thing that they've ended this campaign of going after people,'' Toder said.

''But they need to change how people spend money on records,'' he said. ''People like to share music. The Internet makes it so easy. They have to do something to change this business model of theirs.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2008/12/19/technology/AP-Music-Downloading-Lawsuits.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Copyright extension is out of tune with reality, Financial Times.com, 12/17/08

Via Financial Times.com: Copyright extension is out of tune with reality:

"Copyright is an economic instrument, not a moral one, and if you consider the economic arguments – as I did two years ago at the request of Gordon Brown – you will find that they do not stack up. All the respectable research shows that copyright extension has high costs to the public and negligible benefits for the creative community.

Consumers find themselves paying more for old works or unable to access “orphan works” where copyright ownership is unclear...

There are issues here that demand policy intervention, but they have nothing to do with Mr Burnham’s pet project. They suggest a focus on the balance and flexibility of copyright, and on better enforcing the protection that already exists – not on extending a right largely derided by younger citizens...

There are two broader messages. First, to music companies: you have moved beyond trying to close the internet down as a distribution channel, but you have still not done enough to exploit the swirl of creative and commercial opportunities unleashed by the world of social networks and web 2.0. Please focus on innovation, not on trying to eke more rent from the successes of yesteryear."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba280756-ca07-11dd-93e5-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

NewYorkMusicCopyrght.org: A Copyright Resource for New York Musicians

NewYorkMusicCopyrght.org: A Copyright Resource for New York Musicians:

http://nymusiccopyright.org/

Press Release from Public Knowledge, 10/27/08:

Public Knowledge today opened a new Web site dedicated to copyright issues as they affect musicians. The site, NYMusicCopyright.Org, is funded by a grant from the New York State Music Fund.

“This new site is dedicated to helping musicians understand a very complicated copyright landscape,” said Gigi B. Sohn, Public Knowledge president and co-founder.

On the site, users will find an introduction to copyright.

There are also sections on:

Music licensing
Sampling
Alternative methods of distribution
Remedies for copyright infringement
Device makers and infringement
Internet service providers and infringement
Peer-to-peer technologies
Digital rights management
Orphan works

“We hope musicians and those interested in the music industry will take advantage of this exciting new resource,” Sohn said."

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1810

Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits, Yahoo.com, 11/17/08

Via Yahoo.com: Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits:

"A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defense of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group — the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA — carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court."

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20081117/ap_on_hi_te/tec_music_downloading

First Royalty Rates Set for Digital Music - New York Times, 10/3/08

First Royalty Rates Set for Digital Music:
"In a decision closely watched by the music industry, a panel of federal judges who determine royalty rates for recordings ruled on Thursday to renew the current royalty rate for CDs and other physical recordings, while setting rates for the first time for downloads, ring tones and other services.
The ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board — a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress — applied strictly to mechanical royalties, which are paid to the songwriters and publishers of music, not the performers...
Some in the industry warned that the measures might not be enough to stem the losses suffered since the rise of illegal file-sharing a decade ago. Jonathan Feinstein, a music lawyer at the Krasilovsky & Gross firm in New York, said the ruling introduced needed flexibility and certainty.
“Whether these developments will be sufficient to return the music industry to health is not clear,” Mr. Feinstein said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03royalty.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse&oref=slogin