Kevin Melrose, SpinOff Online; Hurt Locker Producer Files Multimillion-Dollar Antipiracy Suit:
"The producer of The Hurt Locker pulled the trigger last week on a lawsuit against 5,000 unidentified people who allegedly pirated the Academy Award-winning film.
THR, Esq. reports that lawyers for Voltage Pictures will subpoena Internet service providers to identify individuals linked to IP addresses used to download the movie. Once those people have been identified, demand letters will be sent seeking $1,500 to release each alleged pirate from liability. Penalties will increase if there’s no response. If a case goes to trial, Voltage could seek damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, plus attorneys fees and costs.
Voltage is represented by the U.S. Copyright Group, a Washington, D.C.-based company that’s begun pursuing torrent downloaders on behalf of a coalition of independent movie producers.
The Hurt Locker leaked online some five months before its U.S. release, ultimately grossing only about $16 million in the domestic box office. It’s the lowest-grossing film to win the Oscar for Best Picture."
http://www.spinoffonline.com/2010/06/01/hurt-locker-producer-files-multimillion-dollar-antipiracy-suit/
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
What Would Happen To Marvel If The Kirbys Won?; SpinOff Online, 5/30/10
Graeme McMillan, SpinOff Online; What Would Happen To Marvel If The Kirbys Won?:
"Disney’s legal memo supporting Marvel’s position against the heirs of Jack Kirby this week got me thinking. Not, necessarily, about the legal positions adopted by all parties involved, but more along “What If” lines (Somewhat fittingly). Namely, what if Kirby’s heirs won?
For those coming in late, the heirs of comic creator Jack Kirby are suing Marvel and Disney to terminate the copyrights of Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Ant-Man, the X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, Thor, Nick Fury, Spider-Man, Rawhide Kid and material created between 1958 and 1963 for Journey Into Mystery, Strange Tales, Tales of Suspense, Amazing Adventures and Tales To Astonish, a suggestion that both Marvel and Disney, unsurprisingly, take issue with. But what if, somehow, they got what they wanted?
Marvel, of course, would be in trouble, not only losing the ability to publish a large percentage of their line (Even assuming that non-Kirby characters and series spun out from the Kirby series – X-Factor, War Machine, and so on – would remain with Marvel) but also having to surrender the rights to almost every active movie project at multiple studios (No surprise, perhaps, that Marvel is moving forward with a movie based on Brian K. Vaughan’s Runaways, which will not be affected by any ongoing lawsuits coming from the Kirby heirs’ demands), effectively – if, presumably, only temporarily – wiping them out as a multimedia power altogether.
Perhaps more worryingly, what would Disney do with a Marvel devoid of the reasons it bought the company in the first place? It wouldn’t just be that the big name characters would be gone, but a large chunk of the mythology responsible for the remaining characters would be missing as well (Remove the Avengers, FF and X-Men from the Marvel Universe, and what are you really left with?) – Would Disney really care about a company whose flagship characters are Luke Cage and Captain Marvel, or care enough to not think about offloading the stripped publisher to someone else?
All of this assumes, of course, that – were they to gain the rights to all of the characters and concepts they’re asking for – the Kirbys wouldn’t just license them back to Disney/Marvel for some likely-to-be-undisclosed sum, which is admittedly a massive assumption; no matter how bitter the legal arguments may get, it would be within both parties’ best interests to not completely burn bridges or destroy the possibility of working together at a later date. I mean, aside from DC/Warners, who else would have the ability (read: money) to offer the Kirbys as good an offer as Marvel/Disney, and from Marvel’s point of view, they get to keep old material in print and not require a Crisis-style continuity reboot or some similarly inventive workaround. It’s these two last points that makes me think that it’s unlikely that this subject will get resolved in any way other than a generous settlement before it ends up in court – It’s in both parties’ ultimate best interests, after all – as much as the vulture in me longs for a long and bloody legal battle full of disclosures and stunning revelations.
But, just imagine – What do you think would happen if Marvel didn’t have the Kirby creations to play with?"
http://www.spinoffonline.com/2010/05/30/what-would-happen-to-marvel-if-the-kirbys-won/
"Disney’s legal memo supporting Marvel’s position against the heirs of Jack Kirby this week got me thinking. Not, necessarily, about the legal positions adopted by all parties involved, but more along “What If” lines (Somewhat fittingly). Namely, what if Kirby’s heirs won?
For those coming in late, the heirs of comic creator Jack Kirby are suing Marvel and Disney to terminate the copyrights of Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Ant-Man, the X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, Thor, Nick Fury, Spider-Man, Rawhide Kid and material created between 1958 and 1963 for Journey Into Mystery, Strange Tales, Tales of Suspense, Amazing Adventures and Tales To Astonish, a suggestion that both Marvel and Disney, unsurprisingly, take issue with. But what if, somehow, they got what they wanted?
Marvel, of course, would be in trouble, not only losing the ability to publish a large percentage of their line (Even assuming that non-Kirby characters and series spun out from the Kirby series – X-Factor, War Machine, and so on – would remain with Marvel) but also having to surrender the rights to almost every active movie project at multiple studios (No surprise, perhaps, that Marvel is moving forward with a movie based on Brian K. Vaughan’s Runaways, which will not be affected by any ongoing lawsuits coming from the Kirby heirs’ demands), effectively – if, presumably, only temporarily – wiping them out as a multimedia power altogether.
Perhaps more worryingly, what would Disney do with a Marvel devoid of the reasons it bought the company in the first place? It wouldn’t just be that the big name characters would be gone, but a large chunk of the mythology responsible for the remaining characters would be missing as well (Remove the Avengers, FF and X-Men from the Marvel Universe, and what are you really left with?) – Would Disney really care about a company whose flagship characters are Luke Cage and Captain Marvel, or care enough to not think about offloading the stripped publisher to someone else?
All of this assumes, of course, that – were they to gain the rights to all of the characters and concepts they’re asking for – the Kirbys wouldn’t just license them back to Disney/Marvel for some likely-to-be-undisclosed sum, which is admittedly a massive assumption; no matter how bitter the legal arguments may get, it would be within both parties’ best interests to not completely burn bridges or destroy the possibility of working together at a later date. I mean, aside from DC/Warners, who else would have the ability (read: money) to offer the Kirbys as good an offer as Marvel/Disney, and from Marvel’s point of view, they get to keep old material in print and not require a Crisis-style continuity reboot or some similarly inventive workaround. It’s these two last points that makes me think that it’s unlikely that this subject will get resolved in any way other than a generous settlement before it ends up in court – It’s in both parties’ ultimate best interests, after all – as much as the vulture in me longs for a long and bloody legal battle full of disclosures and stunning revelations.
But, just imagine – What do you think would happen if Marvel didn’t have the Kirby creations to play with?"
http://www.spinoffonline.com/2010/05/30/what-would-happen-to-marvel-if-the-kirbys-won/
China's Plagiarism Problem; Forbes, 5/26/10
Peter Friedman, Forbes; China's Plagiarism Problem:
"Plagiarism and the lack of academic integrity it engenders are intricately connected to the larger debate about intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and the government's promoted idea of a harmonious society to support stability. Western countries, either unilaterally or through the WTO, continually threaten to impose sanctions against China for piracy of products ranging from movies and computer software to semiconductors. IPR are hard to enforce from without, and only gain traction when there is an indigenous respect for such rights.
Running counter to IPR enforcement is the idea of community, which is very strong in China. Harmony is a historically important value in Chinese society, vigorously marketed by the Communist government to encourage stability. A strong sense of community promotes both stability and harmony, but subsumes the individual. The powerful force of community that envelopes the individual begets the idea that all parts of the community can be used by the members of that community any way that they see fit, including ideas. In this paradigm it would be absurd for an individual to lay claim to an idea and receive credit from other individuals for that idea when the community is supposed to be paramount to the individual. IPR cut across the idea of community and the ownership of ideas because they create a competitive marketplace of individual ideas, which could ultimately undermine the stability and harmony of the community.
This explanation may seem abstract, but taking this explanation and applying it to a university classroom illuminates why plagiarism will remain a serious problem for China."
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/26/china-cheating-innovation-markets-economy-plagiarism.html
"Plagiarism and the lack of academic integrity it engenders are intricately connected to the larger debate about intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and the government's promoted idea of a harmonious society to support stability. Western countries, either unilaterally or through the WTO, continually threaten to impose sanctions against China for piracy of products ranging from movies and computer software to semiconductors. IPR are hard to enforce from without, and only gain traction when there is an indigenous respect for such rights.
Running counter to IPR enforcement is the idea of community, which is very strong in China. Harmony is a historically important value in Chinese society, vigorously marketed by the Communist government to encourage stability. A strong sense of community promotes both stability and harmony, but subsumes the individual. The powerful force of community that envelopes the individual begets the idea that all parts of the community can be used by the members of that community any way that they see fit, including ideas. In this paradigm it would be absurd for an individual to lay claim to an idea and receive credit from other individuals for that idea when the community is supposed to be paramount to the individual. IPR cut across the idea of community and the ownership of ideas because they create a competitive marketplace of individual ideas, which could ultimately undermine the stability and harmony of the community.
This explanation may seem abstract, but taking this explanation and applying it to a university classroom illuminates why plagiarism will remain a serious problem for China."
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/26/china-cheating-innovation-markets-economy-plagiarism.html
Saturday, May 29, 2010
WIPO Proposals Would Open Cross-Border Access To Materials For Print Disabled; Intellectual Property Watch, 5/28/10
Kaitlin Mara, Intellectual Property Watch; WIPO Proposals Would Open Cross-Border Access To Materials For Print Disabled:
"Negotiators trying to find a solution for the world’s print disabled, who have said copyright law is limiting their access to an already meagre supply of reading material in usable formats, began discussing a possible UN recommendation this week. But the print disabled and their strongest supporters have said such a recommendation – which would not be legally binding – would fall short of meeting their needs.
The critical issue is the ability to trade accessibly formatted books across country borders, which is currently restricted by copyright law. The World Blind Union drafted a treaty text, which was submitted a year ago to the World Intellectual Property Organization by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay.
The United States this week submitted draft proposal for a consensus instrument [pdf] to WIPO, where these discussions are being held. This instrument has a list of recommendations for governments on national laws to aid the import and export of accessible books.
The US delegation told Intellectual Property Watch that their consensus instrument was intended to be a “faster” solution, and is not mutually exclusive with – and indeed could be a step towards – the treaty that has been called for.
At the last meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in December 2009, some delegations – notably the European Union – refused to discuss a possible treaty, saying more facts were needed (IPW, WIPO, 22 December 2009).
At the December meeting, it was decided to hold an open consultation on the issues – the 27 May meeting – before the next SCCR meeting, scheduled for 21-24 June. Also, on 28 May, WIPO is discussing aspects of a proposed treaty to protect audiovisual performances.
But the governments behind the treaty proposal and civil society representatives of the print-disabled community expressed their doubts about the US’s intermediary solution.
“Our initial reaction… is that [the US proposal] falls short of our objectives, at least in a vital element – the format – for it is not a legally binding instrument,” Brazil, on behalf of these countries, said in a statement, available hereStatement Brazil VIP [doc]. They added they needed more time to fully analyse it.
The US proposal fails in several ways, Brazil said. Among them: it does not create a legal obligation for countries to make exceptions, meaning if either an exporting or importing country lacks an exception, the transfer cannot be made; it discriminates against different kinds of media and does not seem to cover works shared online, it does not address the potential need to circumvent technological protection measures or contractual restrictions on needed exceptions, and doesn’t express the specific needs of developing countries.
“This is far from what we need,” Chris Friend, chair of the World Blind Union Global Right to Read Campaign told Intellectual Property Watch, saying it would just lead to “more procrastination” rather than more speed.
Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay also submitted this week a proposed timetable, available here[pdf], for the adoption of a treaty for the visually-impaired that would see its completion in the spring of 2012.
If speed is desired, members might support this timetable proposal, said Dan Pescod, vice chair of the Right to Read Campaign.
Voluntary processes are unacceptable, said Jace Nair, the National Executive Director of the South African National Council for the Blind. “We have been depending on a voluntary process from rights holders for decades… it hasn’t helped.”
Pescod added that the World Blind Union respects the needs of rights holders and the copyright system, but added a “similar level of seriousness” is needed “to address this issue.” If rights holder’s needs are immediately moved to a treaty, why when it comes to disabled people’s needs are we not able to talk about the same thing, he asked. There is not an ACTA-style [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] recommendation; it is a treaty, he said."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/28/wipo-proposals-would-open-cross-border-access-for-print-disabled/
"Negotiators trying to find a solution for the world’s print disabled, who have said copyright law is limiting their access to an already meagre supply of reading material in usable formats, began discussing a possible UN recommendation this week. But the print disabled and their strongest supporters have said such a recommendation – which would not be legally binding – would fall short of meeting their needs.
The critical issue is the ability to trade accessibly formatted books across country borders, which is currently restricted by copyright law. The World Blind Union drafted a treaty text, which was submitted a year ago to the World Intellectual Property Organization by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay.
The United States this week submitted draft proposal for a consensus instrument [pdf] to WIPO, where these discussions are being held. This instrument has a list of recommendations for governments on national laws to aid the import and export of accessible books.
The US delegation told Intellectual Property Watch that their consensus instrument was intended to be a “faster” solution, and is not mutually exclusive with – and indeed could be a step towards – the treaty that has been called for.
At the last meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in December 2009, some delegations – notably the European Union – refused to discuss a possible treaty, saying more facts were needed (IPW, WIPO, 22 December 2009).
At the December meeting, it was decided to hold an open consultation on the issues – the 27 May meeting – before the next SCCR meeting, scheduled for 21-24 June. Also, on 28 May, WIPO is discussing aspects of a proposed treaty to protect audiovisual performances.
But the governments behind the treaty proposal and civil society representatives of the print-disabled community expressed their doubts about the US’s intermediary solution.
“Our initial reaction… is that [the US proposal] falls short of our objectives, at least in a vital element – the format – for it is not a legally binding instrument,” Brazil, on behalf of these countries, said in a statement, available hereStatement Brazil VIP [doc]. They added they needed more time to fully analyse it.
The US proposal fails in several ways, Brazil said. Among them: it does not create a legal obligation for countries to make exceptions, meaning if either an exporting or importing country lacks an exception, the transfer cannot be made; it discriminates against different kinds of media and does not seem to cover works shared online, it does not address the potential need to circumvent technological protection measures or contractual restrictions on needed exceptions, and doesn’t express the specific needs of developing countries.
“This is far from what we need,” Chris Friend, chair of the World Blind Union Global Right to Read Campaign told Intellectual Property Watch, saying it would just lead to “more procrastination” rather than more speed.
Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay also submitted this week a proposed timetable, available here[pdf], for the adoption of a treaty for the visually-impaired that would see its completion in the spring of 2012.
If speed is desired, members might support this timetable proposal, said Dan Pescod, vice chair of the Right to Read Campaign.
Voluntary processes are unacceptable, said Jace Nair, the National Executive Director of the South African National Council for the Blind. “We have been depending on a voluntary process from rights holders for decades… it hasn’t helped.”
Pescod added that the World Blind Union respects the needs of rights holders and the copyright system, but added a “similar level of seriousness” is needed “to address this issue.” If rights holder’s needs are immediately moved to a treaty, why when it comes to disabled people’s needs are we not able to talk about the same thing, he asked. There is not an ACTA-style [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] recommendation; it is a treaty, he said."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/28/wipo-proposals-would-open-cross-border-access-for-print-disabled/
ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important; TechDirt, 5/28/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important:
"Michael Scott points us to one of the best summaries I've seen of the state of the music business today -- published in the ABA Journal. It's an incredibly balanced piece, that really does carefully present both sides of the story on a variety of issues, and presents actual evidence, which suggests the RIAA is blowing smoke on a lot of its claims. The piece kicks off by highlighting that the music industry appears to be thriving, and then noting that it's not the same as the recording industry, which has been struggling.
Much of the piece does present the RIAA's viewpoint on things, such as the idea that the legal strategy the labels have taken has been a "success." However, it follows it up by questioning what kind of success it has been when more people are file sharing and more services are available for those who want to file share. From there it segues into a discussion on "three strikes" and ACTA, which includes the jaw-dropping claim from an RIAA general counsel that "three strikes" was "never even put on the table."
I've heard from numerous ISP folks who say that's not true at all. However, the article does a good job (gently) ripping apart the RIAA's claims, with evidence to the contrary, and does a beautiful job digging deep into ACTA to show how the text might not explicitly require three strikes, but is worded in such a way as to make it hard to qualify for safe harbors without implementing three strikes.
The latter part of the article then focuses on how the music industry really is booming, and how more people are making music, and there are lots of opportunities for musicians to do well these days, even without relying on copyright law. The arguments made (and the people and studies quoted) won't be new to regular Techdirt readers, but it really is a very strong piece, targeted at lawyers (many of whom may not have realized some of these details). For example:
If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn't really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians I certainly don't agree with everything in the article, and there are a few statements from the RIAA folks that could have been challenged more directly. But, on the whole, it's definitely one of the better articles I've seen looking at the music industry from the perspective of the legal profession that doesn't automatically drop into the "but we must protect copyrights!" argument from the outset."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/0347199599.shtml
"Michael Scott points us to one of the best summaries I've seen of the state of the music business today -- published in the ABA Journal. It's an incredibly balanced piece, that really does carefully present both sides of the story on a variety of issues, and presents actual evidence, which suggests the RIAA is blowing smoke on a lot of its claims. The piece kicks off by highlighting that the music industry appears to be thriving, and then noting that it's not the same as the recording industry, which has been struggling.
Much of the piece does present the RIAA's viewpoint on things, such as the idea that the legal strategy the labels have taken has been a "success." However, it follows it up by questioning what kind of success it has been when more people are file sharing and more services are available for those who want to file share. From there it segues into a discussion on "three strikes" and ACTA, which includes the jaw-dropping claim from an RIAA general counsel that "three strikes" was "never even put on the table."
I've heard from numerous ISP folks who say that's not true at all. However, the article does a good job (gently) ripping apart the RIAA's claims, with evidence to the contrary, and does a beautiful job digging deep into ACTA to show how the text might not explicitly require three strikes, but is worded in such a way as to make it hard to qualify for safe harbors without implementing three strikes.
The latter part of the article then focuses on how the music industry really is booming, and how more people are making music, and there are lots of opportunities for musicians to do well these days, even without relying on copyright law. The arguments made (and the people and studies quoted) won't be new to regular Techdirt readers, but it really is a very strong piece, targeted at lawyers (many of whom may not have realized some of these details). For example:
If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn't really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians I certainly don't agree with everything in the article, and there are a few statements from the RIAA folks that could have been challenged more directly. But, on the whole, it's definitely one of the better articles I've seen looking at the music industry from the perspective of the legal profession that doesn't automatically drop into the "but we must protect copyrights!" argument from the outset."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/0347199599.shtml
Digital Economy Act: ISPs told to start collecting filesharers' data next year; (London) Guardian, 5/28/10
Richard Wray, (London) Guardian; Digital Economy Act: ISPs told to start collecting filesharers' data next year: Ofcom releases draft code on regime of warnings to illegal filesharers, labelled 'bureaucratic dog's breakfast' by TalkTalk:
"The UK's largest internet service providers will start collecting the details of customers who unlawfully download films, music and TV programmes early next year, in order to send them warning letters under a code of practice proposed today by the media regulator Ofcom.
The draft Ofcom code was immediately denounced by the UK's second largest ISP as a "bureaucratic dog's breakfast".
Any internet user who receives three letters in the space of 12 months faces having their personal details handed over to the owner of the copyrighted material so they can be sued.
The draft code of practice, which Ofcom was ordered to draw up by the controversial Digital Economy Act, was immediately attacked by TalkTalk, the UK's second largest ISP.
"Ofcom's draft code of practice is a valiant attempt to implement the Digital Economy Act's proposals, but we think it has the potential to turn into a bureaucratic dog's breakfast," said a TalkTalk spokesman. "As the code stands, millions of customers would be at risk of being falsely accused of copyright infringement, being falsely put on to an 'offenders' register' and so potentially taken to court. There is little in the draft code about protecting customers from receiving misleading or bullying letters."
TalkTalk is also worried about the lack of consideration of data protection issues and there is little in the draft code about how the regulator will ensure customers can access fair and just appeals. "The draft code exempts smaller ISPs and mobile operators, which seems arbitrary and could lead to market distortion," the spokesman added. "Finally, the way Ofcom has designed the rules may kill off public Wi-Fi networks."
Consumer and citizens' rights groups, meanwhile, called for the fair treatment of customers accused of copyright infringement using filesharing networks.
"Consumers face considerable confusion while Ofcom tries to work out how to implement new laws under the Digital Economy Act," said Robert Hammond, head of post and digital communications at Consumer Focus. "The aim should be to encourage suspected copyright infringers to use legal alternatives and achieving this rests on the process of notification being seen by consumers as fair and helpful."
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group warned that "letters being sent out could cause a lot of worry and fear". "People may feel they are under surveillance," Killock said.
"This is another extremely rushed process, forced by the Digital Economy Act's absurd timetables. There are huge unanswered questions, not least whether innocent people will have to pay to appeal," he added.
The code of practice applies to ISPs with over 400,000 customers, meaning that it will initially apply to BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and the Post Office, who together control 96% of the market. Ofcom, however, will review unlawful filesharing activity on a quarterly basis and can extend the code to cover smaller ISPs and the mobile phone companies if it spreads.
Those quarterly reports will also be used to see whether the letter writing campaign is leading to a reduction in illegal filesharing. If after a year it does not appear that the code is having any effect on the use of such services as peer-to-peer networks, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, can demand the introduction of so-called technical measures including severing the broadband connections of persistent offenders.
Sending letters to warn persistent unlawful file-sharers that they face the threat of court action has been tested in the UK before, but the code is designed to automate and standardize the process across all the major ISPs.
The code, contained in a 74-page consultation document, sets out the evidence which the music and film companies must collect about individual infringements of their copyright when making a copyright infringement report to an ISP. Content companies must make their requests to ISPs within 10 working days of them gathering the information about a breach of copyright. It then covers how the ISP must then use that information to identify the specific customer involved and send them a letter warning them that their activities have been noticed and they are laying themselves open to court action. The letter will also name the copyright owner and give details of how they can appeal against the ruling that they have infringed copyright.
The code allows for three notification letters – each at least a month apart – to be sent to a user, before their details are placed on a copyright infringement list. All three letters must be sent with a 12 month period, as ISPs are required to delete any notifications after a year.
The copyright infringement list, which has anonymous details of individual users, can then be requested by the copyright owner and used to launch a court action to get the user's name and address in order to sue them. The three letters can be generated by copyright infringement reports from three different copyright owners. All three can then request access to the copyright infringement list held on that user, to be received within five days – though they will only see details of how that individual infringed their copyright.
The draft code, which Ofcom is consulting on until 30 July, is one of three consultations the regulator is launching as a result of the Digital Economy Act. In July it will look at how the code will be enforced before looking at how the costs of the scheme will be shared in September.
The regulator also has to set up an independent appeals body and decide how the costs of appeals should be apportioned. In its consultation document Ofcom said a successful appellant may get compensation and costs. It added "the costs of the appeals body, and the possibility that a subscriber may have to pay a fee, was raised in the government's consultation on the cost sharing arrangements" but then makes no suggestion that subscribers should pay if their appeal fails.
On the issue of costs, TalkTalk said that "copyright owners are the only ones that will benefit from this system, so unless the government decides that these companies should fully reimburse ISPs' costs, broadband customers will in effect be forced to subsidise the profits of large music and film companies".
Ofcom hopes to have the code, which needs European Commission clearance, in place by 8 January and is accepting responses to this consultation until 30 July.
In response to the draft code, the Communications Consumer Panel, Consumer Focus, Which?, Citizens Advice and the Open Rights Group have banded together to produce a set of principles they believe will ensure that the new rules on online copyright infringement properly protect consumers.
Their principles include that there should be sound evidence of wrongdoing before any action is taken against a consumer; that comprehensive and consistent information needs to be provided to all suspected repeat infringers and this should be written in plain English; that consumers must have the right to defend themselves; and that there is an independent and transparent appeals process is essential, at no cost to the customer."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/28/digital-economy-act-isps-data
"The UK's largest internet service providers will start collecting the details of customers who unlawfully download films, music and TV programmes early next year, in order to send them warning letters under a code of practice proposed today by the media regulator Ofcom.
The draft Ofcom code was immediately denounced by the UK's second largest ISP as a "bureaucratic dog's breakfast".
Any internet user who receives three letters in the space of 12 months faces having their personal details handed over to the owner of the copyrighted material so they can be sued.
The draft code of practice, which Ofcom was ordered to draw up by the controversial Digital Economy Act, was immediately attacked by TalkTalk, the UK's second largest ISP.
"Ofcom's draft code of practice is a valiant attempt to implement the Digital Economy Act's proposals, but we think it has the potential to turn into a bureaucratic dog's breakfast," said a TalkTalk spokesman. "As the code stands, millions of customers would be at risk of being falsely accused of copyright infringement, being falsely put on to an 'offenders' register' and so potentially taken to court. There is little in the draft code about protecting customers from receiving misleading or bullying letters."
TalkTalk is also worried about the lack of consideration of data protection issues and there is little in the draft code about how the regulator will ensure customers can access fair and just appeals. "The draft code exempts smaller ISPs and mobile operators, which seems arbitrary and could lead to market distortion," the spokesman added. "Finally, the way Ofcom has designed the rules may kill off public Wi-Fi networks."
Consumer and citizens' rights groups, meanwhile, called for the fair treatment of customers accused of copyright infringement using filesharing networks.
"Consumers face considerable confusion while Ofcom tries to work out how to implement new laws under the Digital Economy Act," said Robert Hammond, head of post and digital communications at Consumer Focus. "The aim should be to encourage suspected copyright infringers to use legal alternatives and achieving this rests on the process of notification being seen by consumers as fair and helpful."
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group warned that "letters being sent out could cause a lot of worry and fear". "People may feel they are under surveillance," Killock said.
"This is another extremely rushed process, forced by the Digital Economy Act's absurd timetables. There are huge unanswered questions, not least whether innocent people will have to pay to appeal," he added.
The code of practice applies to ISPs with over 400,000 customers, meaning that it will initially apply to BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and the Post Office, who together control 96% of the market. Ofcom, however, will review unlawful filesharing activity on a quarterly basis and can extend the code to cover smaller ISPs and the mobile phone companies if it spreads.
Those quarterly reports will also be used to see whether the letter writing campaign is leading to a reduction in illegal filesharing. If after a year it does not appear that the code is having any effect on the use of such services as peer-to-peer networks, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, can demand the introduction of so-called technical measures including severing the broadband connections of persistent offenders.
Sending letters to warn persistent unlawful file-sharers that they face the threat of court action has been tested in the UK before, but the code is designed to automate and standardize the process across all the major ISPs.
The code, contained in a 74-page consultation document, sets out the evidence which the music and film companies must collect about individual infringements of their copyright when making a copyright infringement report to an ISP. Content companies must make their requests to ISPs within 10 working days of them gathering the information about a breach of copyright. It then covers how the ISP must then use that information to identify the specific customer involved and send them a letter warning them that their activities have been noticed and they are laying themselves open to court action. The letter will also name the copyright owner and give details of how they can appeal against the ruling that they have infringed copyright.
The code allows for three notification letters – each at least a month apart – to be sent to a user, before their details are placed on a copyright infringement list. All three letters must be sent with a 12 month period, as ISPs are required to delete any notifications after a year.
The copyright infringement list, which has anonymous details of individual users, can then be requested by the copyright owner and used to launch a court action to get the user's name and address in order to sue them. The three letters can be generated by copyright infringement reports from three different copyright owners. All three can then request access to the copyright infringement list held on that user, to be received within five days – though they will only see details of how that individual infringed their copyright.
The draft code, which Ofcom is consulting on until 30 July, is one of three consultations the regulator is launching as a result of the Digital Economy Act. In July it will look at how the code will be enforced before looking at how the costs of the scheme will be shared in September.
The regulator also has to set up an independent appeals body and decide how the costs of appeals should be apportioned. In its consultation document Ofcom said a successful appellant may get compensation and costs. It added "the costs of the appeals body, and the possibility that a subscriber may have to pay a fee, was raised in the government's consultation on the cost sharing arrangements" but then makes no suggestion that subscribers should pay if their appeal fails.
On the issue of costs, TalkTalk said that "copyright owners are the only ones that will benefit from this system, so unless the government decides that these companies should fully reimburse ISPs' costs, broadband customers will in effect be forced to subsidise the profits of large music and film companies".
Ofcom hopes to have the code, which needs European Commission clearance, in place by 8 January and is accepting responses to this consultation until 30 July.
In response to the draft code, the Communications Consumer Panel, Consumer Focus, Which?, Citizens Advice and the Open Rights Group have banded together to produce a set of principles they believe will ensure that the new rules on online copyright infringement properly protect consumers.
Their principles include that there should be sound evidence of wrongdoing before any action is taken against a consumer; that comprehensive and consistent information needs to be provided to all suspected repeat infringers and this should be written in plain English; that consumers must have the right to defend themselves; and that there is an independent and transparent appeals process is essential, at no cost to the customer."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/28/digital-economy-act-isps-data
Win a brand new Nikon D5000 camera worth over £400; (London) Guardian, 5/28/10
(London) Guardian; Win a brand new Nikon D5000 camera worth over £400: Each month, Camera club gives a Guardian photographer – and you – a monthly assignment to complete. We want you to pick your favourite image from your assignment shoot and email it to us. The best of the bunch will win a Nikon D5000 DSLR:
"7. The closing date and time of the Competition is 11.59pm on Thursday 24 June 2010. Entries received after that date and time will not be considered.
8. You own the copyright to your Competition entry as its author.
9. By submitting an entry to the Competition, You give GNM:
a. permission for your entry to be published on guardian.co.uk and grant GNM a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence to republish your Competition entry in electronic format and hard copy for purposes connected with the Competition; and
b. the right to use your name and town or city of residence for the sole purpose of identifying You as the author of your entry and/or as a winner of the Competition.
GNM will use reasonable efforts to assert the entrant's moral rights in the photograph. However GNM may cut, edit, crop or arrange the entry as it sees fit.
10. Your entry must be your own work, must not be copied, must not contain any third-party materials and/or content that you do not have permission to use and must not otherwise be obscene, defamatory or in breach of any applicable legislation or regulations. If we have reason to believe your entry is not your own work or otherwise breaches this paragraph 10, then we may not consider it. You warrant and undertake that photos submitted will not infringe intellectual property, privacy or any other rights of any third party. You must ensure that any person or persons whose image is used in an entry has given valid consent for the use of their image or has waived any rights they may have in the image submitted. Where such person is under 16, the consent of that person's parent or guardian must be obtained. Failure to adequately demonstrate such consent to the satisfaction of GNM may result in the entrant's disqualification and forfeiture of any prize."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/30/win-a-brand-new-nikon-d5000-camera
"7. The closing date and time of the Competition is 11.59pm on Thursday 24 June 2010. Entries received after that date and time will not be considered.
8. You own the copyright to your Competition entry as its author.
9. By submitting an entry to the Competition, You give GNM:
a. permission for your entry to be published on guardian.co.uk and grant GNM a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence to republish your Competition entry in electronic format and hard copy for purposes connected with the Competition; and
b. the right to use your name and town or city of residence for the sole purpose of identifying You as the author of your entry and/or as a winner of the Competition.
GNM will use reasonable efforts to assert the entrant's moral rights in the photograph. However GNM may cut, edit, crop or arrange the entry as it sees fit.
10. Your entry must be your own work, must not be copied, must not contain any third-party materials and/or content that you do not have permission to use and must not otherwise be obscene, defamatory or in breach of any applicable legislation or regulations. If we have reason to believe your entry is not your own work or otherwise breaches this paragraph 10, then we may not consider it. You warrant and undertake that photos submitted will not infringe intellectual property, privacy or any other rights of any third party. You must ensure that any person or persons whose image is used in an entry has given valid consent for the use of their image or has waived any rights they may have in the image submitted. Where such person is under 16, the consent of that person's parent or guardian must be obtained. Failure to adequately demonstrate such consent to the satisfaction of GNM may result in the entrant's disqualification and forfeiture of any prize."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/30/win-a-brand-new-nikon-d5000-camera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)