Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates:
Between $50 million and $60 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.
"Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $60 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $60 billion.
The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.
As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.
As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).
The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.
The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $60 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement."
Monday, December 7, 2009
How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law:
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/1/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala:
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
Google books court battle could be page-turner; Chicago Tribune, 12/7/09
Alex Pham, Chicago Tribune; Google books court battle could be page-turner:
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List; Wired, 12/4/09
Kim Zetter, Wired; Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List:
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]; New York Times, 12/6/09
Deborah Solomon, New York Times; Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]:
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle; TechDirt, 12/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle:
"I've discussed in the past why I'm not thrilled about the use of the word "piracy," even as it has become rather standard for describing unauthorized file sharing. It's inaccurate, and is used by the entertainment industry to paint a picture of pure evil, where a more nuanced and accurate view might help. At the same time, with the rise of "The Pirate Party" in various countries, a group of folks have tried to take the word back -- but I still wonder if the name limits the party's upside, even as it may have enabled some of the initial attention (and vote-getting ability)."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/2347377193.shtml
"I've discussed in the past why I'm not thrilled about the use of the word "piracy," even as it has become rather standard for describing unauthorized file sharing. It's inaccurate, and is used by the entertainment industry to paint a picture of pure evil, where a more nuanced and accurate view might help. At the same time, with the rise of "The Pirate Party" in various countries, a group of folks have tried to take the word back -- but I still wonder if the name limits the party's upside, even as it may have enabled some of the initial attention (and vote-getting ability)."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/2347377193.shtml
Let Them Sing... About Copyright?; TechDirt, 12/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Let Them Sing... About Copyright?:
"Shocklee points us to an awesome little app that lets you type in whatever lyrics (or, well, words) you want, hit play, and whatever you type will be sung for you, using clips from various famous songs. It's a really fun little app (though, I was amused that they have no clip for the word "lyrics" despite the service being all about lyrics) and can get pretty addictive. In fact, if you want to hear this entire post sung outloud via this system, just click here (please note, this will take a really long time to load, but it's totally worth it). However, like with many other cool music projects, I'm left wondering whether or not some would consider this to be copyright infringement. All of the clips are tiny -- one word, or in many cases, less than a full word, but they do seem to come from various popular and well-known songs."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/1146267209.shtml
"Shocklee points us to an awesome little app that lets you type in whatever lyrics (or, well, words) you want, hit play, and whatever you type will be sung for you, using clips from various famous songs. It's a really fun little app (though, I was amused that they have no clip for the word "lyrics" despite the service being all about lyrics) and can get pretty addictive. In fact, if you want to hear this entire post sung outloud via this system, just click here (please note, this will take a really long time to load, but it's totally worth it). However, like with many other cool music projects, I'm left wondering whether or not some would consider this to be copyright infringement. All of the clips are tiny -- one word, or in many cases, less than a full word, but they do seem to come from various popular and well-known songs."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/1146267209.shtml
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Google draws flak over online 'crumbs'; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/4/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Google draws flak over online 'crumbs':
"Search engine giant Google came in peace to a gathering of world newspaper editors and executives in India, but was soon embroiled in a battle over internet copyright.
``Please don't shoot. I am unarmed,'' Google senior vice president David Drummond told participants at the World Newspaper Congress on Thursday, where his company has been vilified as a parasite sucking the life blood from mainstream journalism.
Addressing the final session of the three-day congress in the southern city of Hyderabad, Drummond, who is also Google's chief legal counsel, sought to counter the charges of ``stealing'' stories from online newspaper websites and not sharing advertising revenue.
``Talk of us as 'vampires' and 'kleptomaniacs' is wide of the mark,'' said Drummond, who argued that Google had taken various steps to address newspaper industry concerns that its content was being exploited online.
On Tuesday, Google announced it would let publishers set a limit on the number of articles people can read for free through its search engine, and the following day it launched a ``news-specific crawler'' that lets online media automatically keep stories, photos or video out of its index.
But Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) dismissed such measures as ``handouts and crumbs'' and said his members would only be satisfied with Google's ``unambiguous acceptance'' of copyright principles.
``Copyright is not an intellectual abstract. It is the law,'' O'Reilly said during an on-stage debate with Drummond.
Google's popular news aggregator website Google News has drawn fire from a number of newspaper owners for linking to their articles without payment.
The Internet search and advertising heavyweight counters that it is providing newspapers a free service by driving readers to their websites - an argument dismissed by O'Reilly.
``We are told: 'Don't complain. Aren't we bringing you the traffic?'. But I can't take traffic to my bank manager,'' he said."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/google-draws-flak-over-online-crumbs-20091204-k971.html
"Search engine giant Google came in peace to a gathering of world newspaper editors and executives in India, but was soon embroiled in a battle over internet copyright.
``Please don't shoot. I am unarmed,'' Google senior vice president David Drummond told participants at the World Newspaper Congress on Thursday, where his company has been vilified as a parasite sucking the life blood from mainstream journalism.
Addressing the final session of the three-day congress in the southern city of Hyderabad, Drummond, who is also Google's chief legal counsel, sought to counter the charges of ``stealing'' stories from online newspaper websites and not sharing advertising revenue.
``Talk of us as 'vampires' and 'kleptomaniacs' is wide of the mark,'' said Drummond, who argued that Google had taken various steps to address newspaper industry concerns that its content was being exploited online.
On Tuesday, Google announced it would let publishers set a limit on the number of articles people can read for free through its search engine, and the following day it launched a ``news-specific crawler'' that lets online media automatically keep stories, photos or video out of its index.
But Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) dismissed such measures as ``handouts and crumbs'' and said his members would only be satisfied with Google's ``unambiguous acceptance'' of copyright principles.
``Copyright is not an intellectual abstract. It is the law,'' O'Reilly said during an on-stage debate with Drummond.
Google's popular news aggregator website Google News has drawn fire from a number of newspaper owners for linking to their articles without payment.
The Internet search and advertising heavyweight counters that it is providing newspapers a free service by driving readers to their websites - an argument dismissed by O'Reilly.
``We are told: 'Don't complain. Aren't we bringing you the traffic?'. But I can't take traffic to my bank manager,'' he said."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/google-draws-flak-over-online-crumbs-20091204-k971.html
Microsoft starts antipiracy initiatives in 70 countries; Ars Technica, 12/3/09
Emil Protalinski, Ars Technica; Microsoft starts antipiracy initiatives in 70 countries:
In addition to enforcement and engineering improvements to fight piracy, Microsoft has started pushing education initiatives in 70 countries.
"Microsoft has simultaneously launched education initiatives in more than 70 countries to help protect consumers and increase awareness of the risks of counterfeit software. Named Microsoft Consumer Action Day, the push includes an intellectual property rights education program in schools across China, an originals club for software resellers in Germany, a risk-of-counterfeit training course for the consumer protection authority in Mexico, a children's online safety program in Greece, and a study of piracy's impact on small and midsize businesses in Argentina. Details about these efforts are available at Microsoft.com/HowToTell and (800) RU-LEGIT (785-3448)."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/microsoft-starts-antipiracy-initiatives-in-70-countries.ars
In addition to enforcement and engineering improvements to fight piracy, Microsoft has started pushing education initiatives in 70 countries.
"Microsoft has simultaneously launched education initiatives in more than 70 countries to help protect consumers and increase awareness of the risks of counterfeit software. Named Microsoft Consumer Action Day, the push includes an intellectual property rights education program in schools across China, an originals club for software resellers in Germany, a risk-of-counterfeit training course for the consumer protection authority in Mexico, a children's online safety program in Greece, and a study of piracy's impact on small and midsize businesses in Argentina. Details about these efforts are available at Microsoft.com/HowToTell and (800) RU-LEGIT (785-3448)."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/microsoft-starts-antipiracy-initiatives-in-70-countries.ars
Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact; Reuters, 12/2/09
Reuters; Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact:
"A federal judge has rejected Amazon.com Inc's request that he withdraw preliminary approval of a settlement between Google Inc and groups of authors and publishers to digitize millions of books.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said he planned to conduct a "thorough fairness analysis" of the settlement at a February 18, 2010 hearing and Amazon could argue its case then."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5B15KY20091202
"A federal judge has rejected Amazon.com Inc's request that he withdraw preliminary approval of a settlement between Google Inc and groups of authors and publishers to digitize millions of books.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said he planned to conduct a "thorough fairness analysis" of the settlement at a February 18, 2010 hearing and Amazon could argue its case then."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5B15KY20091202
Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech; Guardian, 12/2/09
Mercedes Bunz, Guardian; Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech:
Huffington Post founder says aggregation is 'part of the web's DNA' and tells old media organisations to 'get real'
"Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington has accused Rupert Murdoch of confusing aggregation with misappropriation following his Federal Trade Commission speech claiming "There's no such thing as a free news story".
Huffington began in a humorous vein: "First of all, I would like to quote my great grandmother who likes to say: 'Never bet on a company that takes itself out of Google.'"
Then she introduced the audience to the three topics of her speech: "One, desperate times lead to desperate metaphors; two, desperate times lead to desperate revenue models; three, desperate times desperately call for better journalism."
She added: "I've talked about how the future of journalism will be a hybrid future where traditional media players embrace the ways of new media (including transparency, interactivity, and immediacy) and new media companies adopt the best practices of old media (including fairness, accuracy, and high-impact investigative journalism)...
After these statements she finished her attack saying: "And now they want to call 'Time out!' and start questioning 'fair use' – have you heard that? – as well as praising the first amendment. Basically they are attacking new media for being, well, new and transformational and there to stay. Get real you guys, the world has changed.""
Huffington Post founder says aggregation is 'part of the web's DNA' and tells old media organisations to 'get real'
"Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington has accused Rupert Murdoch of confusing aggregation with misappropriation following his Federal Trade Commission speech claiming "There's no such thing as a free news story".
Huffington began in a humorous vein: "First of all, I would like to quote my great grandmother who likes to say: 'Never bet on a company that takes itself out of Google.'"
Then she introduced the audience to the three topics of her speech: "One, desperate times lead to desperate metaphors; two, desperate times lead to desperate revenue models; three, desperate times desperately call for better journalism."
She added: "I've talked about how the future of journalism will be a hybrid future where traditional media players embrace the ways of new media (including transparency, interactivity, and immediacy) and new media companies adopt the best practices of old media (including fairness, accuracy, and high-impact investigative journalism)...
After these statements she finished her attack saying: "And now they want to call 'Time out!' and start questioning 'fair use' – have you heard that? – as well as praising the first amendment. Basically they are attacking new media for being, well, new and transformational and there to stay. Get real you guys, the world has changed.""
Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government; TechDirt, 12/2/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government:
"We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1152477163.shtml
"We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1152477163.shtml
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
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
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
James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University
James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University, "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law":
Date: 12/2/2009
Start Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Rush Building, Room 014
Joint lecture: "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann
The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Earle Mack School of Law will co-sponsor the lecture "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 014, Rush Building (30 N. 33rd Street).Mr. Grimmelmann will review the history of the Google Books project, lawsuit, and proposed settlement, then discuss the questions it raises for information policy and the rule of law. These touch on issues of copyright, antitrust, privacy, free speech, and civil procedure, and are connected to bigger themes in public policy. He is an Associate Professor at New York Law School and a member of its Institute for Information Law and Policy.
Background: http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize/programhttp://thepublicindex.org/
http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/home/about/calendar/details/?event=1569
Date: 12/2/2009
Start Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Rush Building, Room 014
Joint lecture: "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann
The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Earle Mack School of Law will co-sponsor the lecture "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 014, Rush Building (30 N. 33rd Street).Mr. Grimmelmann will review the history of the Google Books project, lawsuit, and proposed settlement, then discuss the questions it raises for information policy and the rule of law. These touch on issues of copyright, antitrust, privacy, free speech, and civil procedure, and are connected to bigger themes in public policy. He is an Associate Professor at New York Law School and a member of its Institute for Information Law and Policy.
Background: http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize/programhttp://thepublicindex.org/
http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/home/about/calendar/details/?event=1569
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws; Ars Technica, 11/30/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws:
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
Sunday, November 29, 2009
[Op Ed] Copyright piracy has made it expensive to produce our films; Sunday Monitor (Uganda), 11/22/09
[Op Ed] Alec van Gelder, Sunday Monitor (Uganda); Copyright piracy has made it expensive to produce our films:
"Africa’s creative industries could be great success stories but they are held back by weak copyright protection. While the wealthiest Western creators often shout loudest, it is the poorest African entrepreneurs who suffer most. In some important ways, copyright piracy makes it more expensive to make a typical African film than a Hollywood blockbuster.
Piracy makes it harder for film-makers and musicians in developing countries to recover their costs than for their counterparts in Hollywood or Nashville. Where piracy is high (up to 90 per cent in much of West Africa), a musician or movie producer has precious little time to recover the original investment before the rip-offs move in and make it impossible to compete. No African country has piracy levels below about 25 per cent of the market."
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/oped/Copyright_piracy_has_made_it_expensive_to_produce_our_films_94900.shtml
"Africa’s creative industries could be great success stories but they are held back by weak copyright protection. While the wealthiest Western creators often shout loudest, it is the poorest African entrepreneurs who suffer most. In some important ways, copyright piracy makes it more expensive to make a typical African film than a Hollywood blockbuster.
Piracy makes it harder for film-makers and musicians in developing countries to recover their costs than for their counterparts in Hollywood or Nashville. Where piracy is high (up to 90 per cent in much of West Africa), a musician or movie producer has precious little time to recover the original investment before the rip-offs move in and make it impossible to compete. No African country has piracy levels below about 25 per cent of the market."
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/oped/Copyright_piracy_has_made_it_expensive_to_produce_our_films_94900.shtml
Online movie free-for-all; Chicago Sun-Times, 11/22/09
Kara Spak, Chicago Sun-Times; Online movie free-for-all:
"This weekend, you could pay $10 to see the cinematic vampire love story "New Moon," stand in line for overpriced snacks with your new tween buddies and then jostle for a seat in a crowded theater.
Or you could pop some microwave popcorn, open your laptop and log on to a Web site with the supremely blatant name watchnew moononline.org, which was active 12 hours after the movie premiered in Chicago theaters.
Watchnewmoononline.org is but one place "New Moon" is popping up for free online. And it's not just movies and current season premium cable shows that anyone who knows how to search the Web can find.
On Nov. 14, 1.25 million pay-per-view buys of the Miguel Cotto vs. Manny Pacquiao fight were purchased for $54.95 each, the highest-performing boxing pay-per-view event this year, according to HBO.
The fight generated $70 million in revenue, as well as a prime opportunity for cheapskates to watch the streaming video live for free.
On fight day, some combination of Google searches for the words Pacquiao, Cotto, online, live stream and free made seven of the 40 spots on Google's Hot Trends list, which tracks the fastest-rising searches on a given day.
The entertainment industry is waging a mighty battle against online piracy, or the illegal distribution of copyrighted content online.
But copyright law hasn't evolved as quickly as the Internet. And a new generation that has grown up online doesn't see the harm in watching the latest theatrical releases on their home computers, a practice the Motion Picture Association of America estimated cost the industry $18.2 billion in 2005, the latest figure available.
"I don't think it's wrong," said 21-year-old online movie-watcher Ahmad Al-Ashqar of south suburban Palos Heights. "I'm sure the movie industry is doing a lot of harm to us, taking our money."
Al-Ashqar, a senior at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said he doesn't have spare cash for a night out at the movies.
"I'd rather just watch it at home," he said. "It's easier and cheaper."
'Complicated question'
Elizabeth Kaltman, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said in no uncertain terms that watching a current theatrical release online is theft.
"Nobody who isn't a criminal would walk into Blockbuster or Wal-Mart or Best Buy, wherever they're selling or renting DVDs, take it off the shelf, put it under their arm and not pay for it," she said. "For a generation that has grown up with the Internet . . . there is a perception that because it is there, it's available and it's free, I can take it."
The law, with regard to watching online movies, is a little more vague.
"It is certainly illegal to put online copyrighted content like a telecast of a fight or a motion picture without authorization," said Steve Englund, a copyright attorney at Jenner & Block who has worked with new media. "It is a little more complicated question whether it is illegal to watch it when someone else has put it online."
Mickie Piatt, law professor and interim director of the Intellectual Property Law program at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that while watching new-release movies or pay-per-view fights for free online may not be illegal, it is enabling the illegal distribution of the content.
"There's a lot of tensions going on in the copyright world," she said. "Because of the Internet, people feel they should have access to a lot of things."
Federal law sets up steep fines for copyright infringement. There's also the possibility of damages from civil lawsuits. And those who distribute illegal content online could be prosecuted.
"There are some criminal penalties, but those have not been used as much," Piatt said.
It's costly and difficult to track individual viewers, so the movie industry is trying to strike at the source of these downloads: the camera-wielding pirate who is recording in a movie theater.
Brittany Parlour, 20, a UIC junior who lives in Little Italy, said she watched movies including "Stepbrothers" and "This Christmas" online when they were new releases in theater. She thought it might be illegal, but that's not the only reason she stopped watching movies online.
"I was really annoyed," she said of the often poor quality of the pirated films.
Kaltman said more than 90 percent of current theatrical releases that wind up online come from a person in a theater with a camera. Every movie released by a studio contains a watermark, she said.
"Through forensic analysis, we can determine where the theft took place -- what state, what theater, what auditorium," she said.
The MPAA has field offices around the country to track and stop illegal recording, she said. "We also have, along with the enforcement activities, litigation activities which involve trying to get stuff off the Internet once it's up," she said.
The entertainment industry is working on getting high-quality content to viewers online legally, through sites such as hulu.com, which features current television episodes, Piatt said.
She predicted further changes to help consumers get what they want, when they want it, but also to protect copyrights.
"The music industry hasn't quite figured out how to do this, and neither has the movie industry or event industry," she said. "We have this real tension that exists in the business model that really comes from an era of being able to control the distribution of things instead of the distribution of information.""
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1898326,CST-NWS-online22s1.article
"This weekend, you could pay $10 to see the cinematic vampire love story "New Moon," stand in line for overpriced snacks with your new tween buddies and then jostle for a seat in a crowded theater.
Or you could pop some microwave popcorn, open your laptop and log on to a Web site with the supremely blatant name watchnew moononline.org, which was active 12 hours after the movie premiered in Chicago theaters.
Watchnewmoononline.org is but one place "New Moon" is popping up for free online. And it's not just movies and current season premium cable shows that anyone who knows how to search the Web can find.
On Nov. 14, 1.25 million pay-per-view buys of the Miguel Cotto vs. Manny Pacquiao fight were purchased for $54.95 each, the highest-performing boxing pay-per-view event this year, according to HBO.
The fight generated $70 million in revenue, as well as a prime opportunity for cheapskates to watch the streaming video live for free.
On fight day, some combination of Google searches for the words Pacquiao, Cotto, online, live stream and free made seven of the 40 spots on Google's Hot Trends list, which tracks the fastest-rising searches on a given day.
The entertainment industry is waging a mighty battle against online piracy, or the illegal distribution of copyrighted content online.
But copyright law hasn't evolved as quickly as the Internet. And a new generation that has grown up online doesn't see the harm in watching the latest theatrical releases on their home computers, a practice the Motion Picture Association of America estimated cost the industry $18.2 billion in 2005, the latest figure available.
"I don't think it's wrong," said 21-year-old online movie-watcher Ahmad Al-Ashqar of south suburban Palos Heights. "I'm sure the movie industry is doing a lot of harm to us, taking our money."
Al-Ashqar, a senior at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said he doesn't have spare cash for a night out at the movies.
"I'd rather just watch it at home," he said. "It's easier and cheaper."
'Complicated question'
Elizabeth Kaltman, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said in no uncertain terms that watching a current theatrical release online is theft.
"Nobody who isn't a criminal would walk into Blockbuster or Wal-Mart or Best Buy, wherever they're selling or renting DVDs, take it off the shelf, put it under their arm and not pay for it," she said. "For a generation that has grown up with the Internet . . . there is a perception that because it is there, it's available and it's free, I can take it."
The law, with regard to watching online movies, is a little more vague.
"It is certainly illegal to put online copyrighted content like a telecast of a fight or a motion picture without authorization," said Steve Englund, a copyright attorney at Jenner & Block who has worked with new media. "It is a little more complicated question whether it is illegal to watch it when someone else has put it online."
Mickie Piatt, law professor and interim director of the Intellectual Property Law program at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that while watching new-release movies or pay-per-view fights for free online may not be illegal, it is enabling the illegal distribution of the content.
"There's a lot of tensions going on in the copyright world," she said. "Because of the Internet, people feel they should have access to a lot of things."
Federal law sets up steep fines for copyright infringement. There's also the possibility of damages from civil lawsuits. And those who distribute illegal content online could be prosecuted.
"There are some criminal penalties, but those have not been used as much," Piatt said.
It's costly and difficult to track individual viewers, so the movie industry is trying to strike at the source of these downloads: the camera-wielding pirate who is recording in a movie theater.
Brittany Parlour, 20, a UIC junior who lives in Little Italy, said she watched movies including "Stepbrothers" and "This Christmas" online when they were new releases in theater. She thought it might be illegal, but that's not the only reason she stopped watching movies online.
"I was really annoyed," she said of the often poor quality of the pirated films.
Kaltman said more than 90 percent of current theatrical releases that wind up online come from a person in a theater with a camera. Every movie released by a studio contains a watermark, she said.
"Through forensic analysis, we can determine where the theft took place -- what state, what theater, what auditorium," she said.
The MPAA has field offices around the country to track and stop illegal recording, she said. "We also have, along with the enforcement activities, litigation activities which involve trying to get stuff off the Internet once it's up," she said.
The entertainment industry is working on getting high-quality content to viewers online legally, through sites such as hulu.com, which features current television episodes, Piatt said.
She predicted further changes to help consumers get what they want, when they want it, but also to protect copyrights.
"The music industry hasn't quite figured out how to do this, and neither has the movie industry or event industry," she said. "We have this real tension that exists in the business model that really comes from an era of being able to control the distribution of things instead of the distribution of information.""
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1898326,CST-NWS-online22s1.article
Pub fined £8,000 for customer's illicit downloads, ZDNet reports; Guardian, 11/27/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Pub fined £8,000 for customer's illicit downloads, ZDNet reports:
A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud
"A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud.
Graham Cove, MD of The Cloud, told ZDNet UK that the case, brought in the civil courts, is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
A legal expert told ZDNet UK that if the Digital Economy bill, proposed by the government last week, passes in its present form then the problem for hotspot providers could get worse, because under its rules the owner of the copyrighted material would simply target the internet address of the hotspot and look no further. In this case, that would be the pub.
Cove declined to name the pub involved in the case because the pub chain that owns is it is a client of The Cloud's, has not given its permission. Its clients include Fullers, Greene King, Marsdens, Scottish & Newcastle, Mitchell & Butlers and Punch Taverns.
Although copyright owners have brought infringement cases against individuals before in the UK, this case is believed to be the first where the operator of a hotspot - where people can buy or get free access to a high-speed wireless internet connection - has been successfully sued.
Professor Lilian Edwards, of the school of law at the University of Sheffield, told ZDNet UK that businesses operating a hotspot for customers or visitors would be "not responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law".
However the business would not be at risk of being cut off under the "three strikes" rule in the Digital Economy bill: it would have an exemption on the basis that it is not a "subscriber"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/27/pub-file-sharing-cloud-fine
A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud
"A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud.
Graham Cove, MD of The Cloud, told ZDNet UK that the case, brought in the civil courts, is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
A legal expert told ZDNet UK that if the Digital Economy bill, proposed by the government last week, passes in its present form then the problem for hotspot providers could get worse, because under its rules the owner of the copyrighted material would simply target the internet address of the hotspot and look no further. In this case, that would be the pub.
Cove declined to name the pub involved in the case because the pub chain that owns is it is a client of The Cloud's, has not given its permission. Its clients include Fullers, Greene King, Marsdens, Scottish & Newcastle, Mitchell & Butlers and Punch Taverns.
Although copyright owners have brought infringement cases against individuals before in the UK, this case is believed to be the first where the operator of a hotspot - where people can buy or get free access to a high-speed wireless internet connection - has been successfully sued.
Professor Lilian Edwards, of the school of law at the University of Sheffield, told ZDNet UK that businesses operating a hotspot for customers or visitors would be "not responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law".
However the business would not be at risk of being cut off under the "three strikes" rule in the Digital Economy bill: it would have an exemption on the basis that it is not a "subscriber"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/27/pub-file-sharing-cloud-fine
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Google's book-scanning deal is not sealed yet; LA Times, 11/28/09
Alex Pham, LA Times; Google's book-scanning deal is not sealed yet:
A revised settlement satisfies some objections, but questions over copyright and antitrust laws remain.
"By giving his blessing, Chin in essence restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections. Foes include Google rivals Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp., as well as nonprofit groups such as Consumer Watchdog and the Internet Archive.Both sides are set to square off before Chin at a Feb. 28 hearing in New York.
The hearing has already been postponed twice -- derailed first in June by authors who said they needed more time to review the complex agreement, and again in October after the Department of Justice weighed in with concerns over antitrust issues and whether authors were given sufficient notice of the settlement."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-books28-2009nov28,0,4869293.story
Friday, November 27, 2009
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Authorities target book piracy in raids across the country; LA Times, 11/18/09
Alexandra Sandels, LA Times; UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Authorities target book piracy in raids across the country:
"Fearing that the United Arab Emirates might turn into a haven for intellectual property scofflaws, authorities are implementing tough new measures to keep pirated book traders at bay.
Over the last months, the UAE's Ministry of Economy along with police forces in Dubai and Sharjah and the Arabian Anti-Piracy Alliance have carried out a series of raids suspected of book piracy across the country.
The task force is said to have so far busted three major traders and locked them up on charges of violating copyright law. Several book shops were shut down in the raids, while others were let off with fines, read a news release published by local media.
The raids turned out to be fruitful. A wide variety of pirated books were apparently retrieved in the operation...
International publishers have expressed delight over the UAE's determination to take on their archenemies.
"It is vitally important to combat book piracy in all its forms and we are delighted by the authorities' commitment to enforcing the UAE's copyright laws. Piracy undermines authors' livelihood, placing the future of high quality content under threat. Publishers add further value in bringing that content to market and if they cannot be rewarded for their role, they too will cease to exist,” said Emma House, international director of the Publishers Assn. in the U.K.
The drive to curtail book piracy is part of a larger campaign launched by the UAE’s Ministry of Economy earlier this month that aims to spur public awareness of intellectual property rights such as trademarks and patents, and industrial designs. The campaign is considered a first of its kind in the region and is reportedly advertised on various media outlets in English and Arabic. "
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/11/united-arab-emirates-authorities-target-book-piracy-in-raids-across-the-country.html
"Fearing that the United Arab Emirates might turn into a haven for intellectual property scofflaws, authorities are implementing tough new measures to keep pirated book traders at bay.
Over the last months, the UAE's Ministry of Economy along with police forces in Dubai and Sharjah and the Arabian Anti-Piracy Alliance have carried out a series of raids suspected of book piracy across the country.
The task force is said to have so far busted three major traders and locked them up on charges of violating copyright law. Several book shops were shut down in the raids, while others were let off with fines, read a news release published by local media.
The raids turned out to be fruitful. A wide variety of pirated books were apparently retrieved in the operation...
International publishers have expressed delight over the UAE's determination to take on their archenemies.
"It is vitally important to combat book piracy in all its forms and we are delighted by the authorities' commitment to enforcing the UAE's copyright laws. Piracy undermines authors' livelihood, placing the future of high quality content under threat. Publishers add further value in bringing that content to market and if they cannot be rewarded for their role, they too will cease to exist,” said Emma House, international director of the Publishers Assn. in the U.K.
The drive to curtail book piracy is part of a larger campaign launched by the UAE’s Ministry of Economy earlier this month that aims to spur public awareness of intellectual property rights such as trademarks and patents, and industrial designs. The campaign is considered a first of its kind in the region and is reportedly advertised on various media outlets in English and Arabic. "
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/11/united-arab-emirates-authorities-target-book-piracy-in-raids-across-the-country.html
Fox CEO wants US to join France on Internet piracy; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/24/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Fox CEO wants US to join France on Internet piracy:
"The chief executive of Fox Filmed Entertainment said Monday the U.S. should join France in cutting off the Internet connection of users who repeatedly download copyright-protected films.
CEO Jim Gianopulos said Internet piracy is the single biggest threat to the film industry worldwide, and independent films are the hardest hit.
"The bad news is that the Internet is big, and it's anonymous," Gianopulos told a news conference in Athens.
But he said Internet service providers can track down subscribers whose IP address the unique number assigned to every computer that connects to the Internet has been spotted downloading films illegally and issue warnings.
Gianopulos said punishing repeat offenders would help create "a level playing field" for filmmakers.
"If we can do that, it would be a big victory against piracy," he said, cautioning that taking away the small percentage of profit many films make threatens the industry.
Gianopulos said that it is equally important to inform young people about the problem of piracy.
"It is important to show them that there is a connection between what they're doing and theft, and what they're doing and people's jobs," Gianopulos said. He was in Greece for a lecture, and talks with Greek film industry professionals.
France has already created what it says is the first government agency to track and punish online pirates.
The European Parliament initially opposed efforts by European Union governments to cut off a user's Internet connection without a court order but the two sides reached a compromise this month and EU lawmakers and governments agreed on new rights for Internet.
Film and record labels have heavily lobbied the 27-nation bloc, demanding better enforcement of copyright rules to protect profits that are shrinking in the face of online file-sharing, in which people swap music files without paying."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/fox-ceo-wants-us-to-join-france-on-internet-piracy-20091124-j3cv.html
"The chief executive of Fox Filmed Entertainment said Monday the U.S. should join France in cutting off the Internet connection of users who repeatedly download copyright-protected films.
CEO Jim Gianopulos said Internet piracy is the single biggest threat to the film industry worldwide, and independent films are the hardest hit.
"The bad news is that the Internet is big, and it's anonymous," Gianopulos told a news conference in Athens.
But he said Internet service providers can track down subscribers whose IP address the unique number assigned to every computer that connects to the Internet has been spotted downloading films illegally and issue warnings.
Gianopulos said punishing repeat offenders would help create "a level playing field" for filmmakers.
"If we can do that, it would be a big victory against piracy," he said, cautioning that taking away the small percentage of profit many films make threatens the industry.
Gianopulos said that it is equally important to inform young people about the problem of piracy.
"It is important to show them that there is a connection between what they're doing and theft, and what they're doing and people's jobs," Gianopulos said. He was in Greece for a lecture, and talks with Greek film industry professionals.
France has already created what it says is the first government agency to track and punish online pirates.
The European Parliament initially opposed efforts by European Union governments to cut off a user's Internet connection without a court order but the two sides reached a compromise this month and EU lawmakers and governments agreed on new rights for Internet.
Film and record labels have heavily lobbied the 27-nation bloc, demanding better enforcement of copyright rules to protect profits that are shrinking in the face of online file-sharing, in which people swap music files without paying."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/fox-ceo-wants-us-to-join-france-on-internet-piracy-20091124-j3cv.html
780,000 pirated DVDs shredded in police raids; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/25/09
Sydney Morning Herald; 780,000 pirated DVDs shredded in police raids:
"Several hundred thousand pirated DVDs seized in police raids across NSW have been destroyed, in a move the state government says will put a dent in associated criminal activity.
Following years of work by NSW Police and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, some 780,000 pirated DVDs were "shredded" in Sydney on Tuesday, said a spokeswoman for Police Minister Michael Daley.
"People don't seem to realise the seriousness of copyright crime and that criminals use movie piracy to fund a range of criminal activity in our communities," Mr Daley said in a statement.
"During film piracy enforcement, police have uncovered links between film piracy and a range of other serious criminal activity including drugs, weapons, fraud and the supply of child pornography."
Raids in which the DVDs were seized also saw a number of people criminally charged.
Also seized were 315 DVD burners set up to mass produce pirated discs, with the potential to create 7.9 million illegal DVDs each year.
At the time of seizure, pirated DVDs of new release films were being sold for about $10 at suburban Sydney retail outlets."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/780000-pirated-dvds-shredded-in-police-raids-20091125-jrg1.html
"Several hundred thousand pirated DVDs seized in police raids across NSW have been destroyed, in a move the state government says will put a dent in associated criminal activity.
Following years of work by NSW Police and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, some 780,000 pirated DVDs were "shredded" in Sydney on Tuesday, said a spokeswoman for Police Minister Michael Daley.
"People don't seem to realise the seriousness of copyright crime and that criminals use movie piracy to fund a range of criminal activity in our communities," Mr Daley said in a statement.
"During film piracy enforcement, police have uncovered links between film piracy and a range of other serious criminal activity including drugs, weapons, fraud and the supply of child pornography."
Raids in which the DVDs were seized also saw a number of people criminally charged.
Also seized were 315 DVD burners set up to mass produce pirated discs, with the potential to create 7.9 million illegal DVDs each year.
At the time of seizure, pirated DVDs of new release films were being sold for about $10 at suburban Sydney retail outlets."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/780000-pirated-dvds-shredded-in-police-raids-20091125-jrg1.html
EU assembly adopts Internet, phone user rights; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/26/09
Robert Wielaard, Sydney Morning Herald; EU assembly adopts Internet, phone user rights:
"The European Parliament has endorsed new telecom rules that would give phone and Internet users more rights and allow them to appeal to national courts if they are cut off for illegal file-sharing.
The rules endorsed Tuesday are part of a broad telecommunications package that also aims to boost competition for Internet and phone services.
A new EU-wide telecoms authority also would be set up to ensure fair competition.
The EU's 27 nations must now implement the law by June 2011.
For consumers, the most visible part of the law are the new rights they get to switch cell phone or fixed line operators within one working day and to challenge disconnections, even if they are illegally sharing copyright-protected movies or music."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-assembly-adopts-internet-phone-user-rights-20091126-js49.html
"The European Parliament has endorsed new telecom rules that would give phone and Internet users more rights and allow them to appeal to national courts if they are cut off for illegal file-sharing.
The rules endorsed Tuesday are part of a broad telecommunications package that also aims to boost competition for Internet and phone services.
A new EU-wide telecoms authority also would be set up to ensure fair competition.
The EU's 27 nations must now implement the law by June 2011.
For consumers, the most visible part of the law are the new rights they get to switch cell phone or fixed line operators within one working day and to challenge disconnections, even if they are illegally sharing copyright-protected movies or music."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-assembly-adopts-internet-phone-user-rights-20091126-js49.html
Why does Mandelson favour the Analogue Economy over the Digital?; Guardian, 11/26/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Why does Mandelson favour the Analogue Economy over the Digital?:
Britons' love for filesharing is here to stay – and Peter Mandelson had better get used to it
"There's a lot to hate about Peter Mandelson's controversial Digital Economy Bill, but there's one provision that perfectly captures the absolute, reality-denying absurdity of the whole enterprise. That titbit is the provision that holds the Bill's most drastic measures in reserve, only to be used if Britain's illegal filesharing doesn't drop off by 70% within a year of the main part of the Bill coming into force.
The idea that, at some time in the future, the volume of unauthorised copying will somehow drop off at all (let alone by an astounding 70%), is, frankly, barking. For that to happen, Britain's general capacity for copying would have to decline faster than the increase in the British desire to make unauthorised copies.
Where does Britain's capacity to copy spring from?
First, from the increase in the speed of computers: faster computers can copy faster and better."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/digital-economy-file-sharing-mandelson
Britons' love for filesharing is here to stay – and Peter Mandelson had better get used to it
"There's a lot to hate about Peter Mandelson's controversial Digital Economy Bill, but there's one provision that perfectly captures the absolute, reality-denying absurdity of the whole enterprise. That titbit is the provision that holds the Bill's most drastic measures in reserve, only to be used if Britain's illegal filesharing doesn't drop off by 70% within a year of the main part of the Bill coming into force.
The idea that, at some time in the future, the volume of unauthorised copying will somehow drop off at all (let alone by an astounding 70%), is, frankly, barking. For that to happen, Britain's general capacity for copying would have to decline faster than the increase in the British desire to make unauthorised copies.
Where does Britain's capacity to copy spring from?
First, from the increase in the speed of computers: faster computers can copy faster and better."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/digital-economy-file-sharing-mandelson
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Pirates find easy new pickings in open waters of e-book publishing; London Times, 11/21/09
Mike Harvey, London Times; Pirates find easy new pickings in open waters of e-book publishing:
"Digital pirates, who for years have tormented the music and film industries, have found a new source of plunder in e-book publishing.
With the words “dan brown lost symbol torrent” and a few clicks, anyone can download the American author’s latest bestseller free via any of hundreds of web links.
This Christmas, e-book reading devices such as Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s Reader will be among the most popular gadgets. But there are fears that as consumers get used to reading digital books they will look for a free download rather than pay.
In the US, where the Kindle has been available for two years, digital book piracy is booming. The web has enabled thousands of sites to distribute pirated book content free. American publishers are estimated to have lost more than $600 million (£363 million) last year to piracy...
British publishers are taking action to stop the pirates. The Publishers Association has released a web tool that allows publishers to log the details of an infringement of copyright. It then sends a demand to the offending website for the link to be removed. The portal has been alerted to more than 4,000 cases of online piracy by more than 40 publishers and has succeeded in taking down 2,638 illegal copies of books.
Alicia Wise, digital consultant to the association, said: “There are a lot of holes in the dyke. We are surprised by the scale and spectrum of authors that are being pirated. We need to get to grips quickly with practical ways of tackling copyright infringement.”
Book publishers are determined to prevent their business from being undermined in the same way as the music and film industries have. The relatively small digital file sizes for e-books provide an added incentive for filesharers. A film can be up to 1.5GB whereas the typical e-book is no more than 3MB, making it much easier to download...
Until recently publishers thought that books were relatively safe because it was so labour intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. But they have discovered thousands of cases of piracy on hosting websites such as Rapidshare. Users can upload any file and then share it by posting the link on blogs, forums or in e-mails with their friends.
Ms Wise said that publishers needed to come up with better ways for readers to buy digital books. “We are at a delicate moment. We have a chance to get our distribution models right against a difficult backdrop of piracy. We have to encourage book lovers to make ethical choices. We would hope that people who love books would make supportive decisions about how they acquire them.”"
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6925926.ece
"Digital pirates, who for years have tormented the music and film industries, have found a new source of plunder in e-book publishing.
With the words “dan brown lost symbol torrent” and a few clicks, anyone can download the American author’s latest bestseller free via any of hundreds of web links.
This Christmas, e-book reading devices such as Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s Reader will be among the most popular gadgets. But there are fears that as consumers get used to reading digital books they will look for a free download rather than pay.
In the US, where the Kindle has been available for two years, digital book piracy is booming. The web has enabled thousands of sites to distribute pirated book content free. American publishers are estimated to have lost more than $600 million (£363 million) last year to piracy...
British publishers are taking action to stop the pirates. The Publishers Association has released a web tool that allows publishers to log the details of an infringement of copyright. It then sends a demand to the offending website for the link to be removed. The portal has been alerted to more than 4,000 cases of online piracy by more than 40 publishers and has succeeded in taking down 2,638 illegal copies of books.
Alicia Wise, digital consultant to the association, said: “There are a lot of holes in the dyke. We are surprised by the scale and spectrum of authors that are being pirated. We need to get to grips quickly with practical ways of tackling copyright infringement.”
Book publishers are determined to prevent their business from being undermined in the same way as the music and film industries have. The relatively small digital file sizes for e-books provide an added incentive for filesharers. A film can be up to 1.5GB whereas the typical e-book is no more than 3MB, making it much easier to download...
Until recently publishers thought that books were relatively safe because it was so labour intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. But they have discovered thousands of cases of piracy on hosting websites such as Rapidshare. Users can upload any file and then share it by posting the link on blogs, forums or in e-mails with their friends.
Ms Wise said that publishers needed to come up with better ways for readers to buy digital books. “We are at a delicate moment. We have a chance to get our distribution models right against a difficult backdrop of piracy. We have to encourage book lovers to make ethical choices. We would hope that people who love books would make supportive decisions about how they acquire them.”"
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6925926.ece
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Don't Disconnect Us petition surges after Stephen Fry endorsement; Guardian, 11/25/09
Mercedes Bunz, Guardian; Don't Disconnect Us petition surges after Stephen Fry endorsement:
"Don't Disconnect Us petition, asking the government to drop its proposed measure allowing the disconnection of illegal filesharers, has accumulated 22,793 signatures as of 9am today. After Stephen Fry used Twitter to express his lack of confidence in this law and tweeted a link to it, thousands of people signed the petition. Among the 4,550 petitions on the No 10 website, it is currently number six.
A spokesman for the internet service provider TalkTalk, whose Andrew Heaney set up the petition, said: "The Don't Disconnect Us campaign has been given new momentum by Stephen Fry's tweets which have seen signatories on the Downing Street website go from over 1,000 to 18,000 in just a few days."
Fry, who has over a million followers now, had posted on Monday: "I'll keep at this till a million sign! We mustn't let Mandy do this WRONG thing. Please sign & RT: http://is.gd/50gQK #webwar #threestrike". He reminded his followers the next day.
The comedian Alan Davies and the science-fiction author Neil Gaiman have also signed the petition and added their weight to the campaign.
While the website of the campaign makes clear that "copyright infringement through filesharing is illegal and the government is right to tackle the issue", the petition asks the prime minister "to abolish the proposed law that will see alleged illegal filesharers disconnected from their broadband connections, without a fair trial."
Instead of punishing it proposes to deal with the illegal filesharer in the proper way, in a court of law. "This guilty until proven innocent approach violates basic human rights."
It also warns that "illegal filesharers will simply hack into other peoples WiFi networks to do their dirty work. This will result in innocent people being disconnected from the internet."
If you want to sign the connection, go here."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2009/nov/25/digital-media-stephenfry
"Don't Disconnect Us petition, asking the government to drop its proposed measure allowing the disconnection of illegal filesharers, has accumulated 22,793 signatures as of 9am today. After Stephen Fry used Twitter to express his lack of confidence in this law and tweeted a link to it, thousands of people signed the petition. Among the 4,550 petitions on the No 10 website, it is currently number six.
A spokesman for the internet service provider TalkTalk, whose Andrew Heaney set up the petition, said: "The Don't Disconnect Us campaign has been given new momentum by Stephen Fry's tweets which have seen signatories on the Downing Street website go from over 1,000 to 18,000 in just a few days."
Fry, who has over a million followers now, had posted on Monday: "I'll keep at this till a million sign! We mustn't let Mandy do this WRONG thing. Please sign & RT: http://is.gd/50gQK #webwar #threestrike". He reminded his followers the next day.
The comedian Alan Davies and the science-fiction author Neil Gaiman have also signed the petition and added their weight to the campaign.
While the website of the campaign makes clear that "copyright infringement through filesharing is illegal and the government is right to tackle the issue", the petition asks the prime minister "to abolish the proposed law that will see alleged illegal filesharers disconnected from their broadband connections, without a fair trial."
Instead of punishing it proposes to deal with the illegal filesharer in the proper way, in a court of law. "This guilty until proven innocent approach violates basic human rights."
It also warns that "illegal filesharers will simply hack into other peoples WiFi networks to do their dirty work. This will result in innocent people being disconnected from the internet."
If you want to sign the connection, go here."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2009/nov/25/digital-media-stephenfry
Google bringing fee-based e-book service to Japan: report; Market Watch, 11/25/09
Market Watch; Google bringing fee-based e-book service to Japan: report:
Google Inc. plans to launch a fee-based service in Japan next year that will allow users to read complete books on their computers at a price, according to a report Wednesday.
"Upon the launch of its service, Google Japan aims to stock an online library of up to 10,000 books. It is already in talks with smaller publishers to sell their works on Google Edition, the report said.
But many leading publishers, such as Shueisha Inc. and Shogakukan Inc., remain wary. Their opposition stems from Google's book search, which has raised copyright issues, the Japanese newspaper reported."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-japan-to-start-paid-e-book-service-report-2009-11-25
Google Inc. plans to launch a fee-based service in Japan next year that will allow users to read complete books on their computers at a price, according to a report Wednesday.
"Upon the launch of its service, Google Japan aims to stock an online library of up to 10,000 books. It is already in talks with smaller publishers to sell their works on Google Edition, the report said.
But many leading publishers, such as Shueisha Inc. and Shogakukan Inc., remain wary. Their opposition stems from Google's book search, which has raised copyright issues, the Japanese newspaper reported."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-japan-to-start-paid-e-book-service-report-2009-11-25
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Swedes start buying music; are anti-P2P laws working?; Ars Technica, 11/24/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Swedes start buying music; are anti-P2P laws working?:
Digital music sales in piracy-loving Sweden have soared this year. The music industry says that it's all about tough new laws and court prosecutions, but some major labels are seeing worldwide increases.
"Is Sweden, the only country to have sent a member of the Pirate Party to the European Parliament, finally giving up its swashbuckling ways?
When Sweden's IPRED anti-piracy law went into effect earlier this year, Internet traffic across the country plummeted overnight—a sign that P2P users, fearing exposure at last, were abandoning their existing copyright infringement tools. The Pirate Bay defendants were found guilty by a Swedish court earlier this year, and the site's ISP are now under assault by the music and movie industries.
The music business insists that the measure are working. Music's major labels say that sales of digital downloads are up 18 percent in the first nine months of 2009 in Sweden.
Ludvig Werner, head of the trade group IFPI Sweden, told the UK's Guardian newspaper that it didn't matter if people still wanted to pirate; the point was, they were doing less of it. "It's like speeding, put up cameras and people will start to ease off the gas pedal. Even if it doesn't change the attitudes, they find legal alternatives because they don't want to get caught," said Werner.
Dueling explanations
As with most statistics in the Copyright Wars, these are hard to evaluate. Digital music sales are up, but has copyright infringement also dropped?"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/swedes-start-buying-music-are-anti-p2p-laws-working.ars
Digital music sales in piracy-loving Sweden have soared this year. The music industry says that it's all about tough new laws and court prosecutions, but some major labels are seeing worldwide increases.
"Is Sweden, the only country to have sent a member of the Pirate Party to the European Parliament, finally giving up its swashbuckling ways?
When Sweden's IPRED anti-piracy law went into effect earlier this year, Internet traffic across the country plummeted overnight—a sign that P2P users, fearing exposure at last, were abandoning their existing copyright infringement tools. The Pirate Bay defendants were found guilty by a Swedish court earlier this year, and the site's ISP are now under assault by the music and movie industries.
The music business insists that the measure are working. Music's major labels say that sales of digital downloads are up 18 percent in the first nine months of 2009 in Sweden.
Ludvig Werner, head of the trade group IFPI Sweden, told the UK's Guardian newspaper that it didn't matter if people still wanted to pirate; the point was, they were doing less of it. "It's like speeding, put up cameras and people will start to ease off the gas pedal. Even if it doesn't change the attitudes, they find legal alternatives because they don't want to get caught," said Werner.
Dueling explanations
As with most statistics in the Copyright Wars, these are hard to evaluate. Digital music sales are up, but has copyright infringement also dropped?"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/swedes-start-buying-music-are-anti-p2p-laws-working.ars
Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy; Tech Dirt, 11/24/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy:
"Well, you just knew this was going to happen eventually. Suddenly publishers are starting to freak out over "ebook piracy," claiming (totally inaccurately) that they've lost $600 million to it. Of course, as some are noting the real problem isn't "piracy" but the industry's response to it".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/0256097067.shtml
"Well, you just knew this was going to happen eventually. Suddenly publishers are starting to freak out over "ebook piracy," claiming (totally inaccurately) that they've lost $600 million to it. Of course, as some are noting the real problem isn't "piracy" but the industry's response to it".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/0256097067.shtml
The Computer Stole My Homework -- and Sold It Through an Essay Mill; Wired Campus, 11/23/09
Ben Terris, Wired Campus; The Computer Stole My Homework -- and Sold It Through an Essay:
"Without her knowing it, a paper that Melinda Riebolt co-wrote while getting her M.B.A. was stolen and put up for sale. And, according to an article that USA Today reported last week, that same scenario has played out many times before.
The article discusses how some essay mills -- Web sites that provide written works for students -- surreptitiously steal work and then sell it for others to pass off as their own.
For the first time, however, those who find unauthorized postings of their work online may have a way to seek legal retribution. The article says a class-action lawsuit filed in 2006 is making its way through the courts, and one judge in Illinois has found a provider liable on six counts, including fraud and copyright infringement. That site is called RC2C Inc. and hosts at least nine sites that sell term papers.
Essay mills often provide their own written works."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Computer-Stole-My-Homework/8961/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
"Without her knowing it, a paper that Melinda Riebolt co-wrote while getting her M.B.A. was stolen and put up for sale. And, according to an article that USA Today reported last week, that same scenario has played out many times before.
The article discusses how some essay mills -- Web sites that provide written works for students -- surreptitiously steal work and then sell it for others to pass off as their own.
For the first time, however, those who find unauthorized postings of their work online may have a way to seek legal retribution. The article says a class-action lawsuit filed in 2006 is making its way through the courts, and one judge in Illinois has found a provider liable on six counts, including fraud and copyright infringement. That site is called RC2C Inc. and hosts at least nine sites that sell term papers.
Essay mills often provide their own written works."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Computer-Stole-My-Homework/8961/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
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
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
Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy; Tech Dirt, 11/23/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy:
"Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1541197061.shtml
"Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1541197061.shtml
China backs writers in fight against Google Books; AFP, 11/24/09
AFP; China backs writers in fight against Google Books:
"China said Google has probably breached copyright laws by scanning Chinese books for its online library and supported writers to "defend their rights", state media reported Tuesday.
"I personally think Google is probably involved in copyright infringement," said Wang Ziqiang, a director-general of the National Copyright Administration, according to the Beijing News.
"We support Chinese writers, the China Written Works Copyright Society and the Chinese Writers' Association to defend their rights based on the law and facts."
Wang added that he had "failed to find any solid evidence" to support Google's claim that its scanning and browsing service was legal.
His comments came after the two Chinese writers' groups accused Google of scanning the works of members without authorisation and have demanded it pay compensation "as soon as possible".
According to the copyright society, at least 17,922 books by 570 Chinese authors have been added to Google Books, the US Internet giant's controversial project to digitise millions of books and post them online.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, Google sent a representative to meet the Chinese copyright last Friday, but the outcome of the discussions has not been released."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHpYMlTlt7gOJQB4NnDBqTUzzRWQ
"China said Google has probably breached copyright laws by scanning Chinese books for its online library and supported writers to "defend their rights", state media reported Tuesday.
"I personally think Google is probably involved in copyright infringement," said Wang Ziqiang, a director-general of the National Copyright Administration, according to the Beijing News.
"We support Chinese writers, the China Written Works Copyright Society and the Chinese Writers' Association to defend their rights based on the law and facts."
Wang added that he had "failed to find any solid evidence" to support Google's claim that its scanning and browsing service was legal.
His comments came after the two Chinese writers' groups accused Google of scanning the works of members without authorisation and have demanded it pay compensation "as soon as possible".
According to the copyright society, at least 17,922 books by 570 Chinese authors have been added to Google Books, the US Internet giant's controversial project to digitise millions of books and post them online.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, Google sent a representative to meet the Chinese copyright last Friday, but the outcome of the discussions has not been released."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHpYMlTlt7gOJQB4NnDBqTUzzRWQ
Monday, November 23, 2009
Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment; Huffington Post, 11/23/09
Huffington Post; Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/google-books-settlement-k_n_361393.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/google-books-settlement-k_n_361393.html
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.; Boing Boing, 11/20/09
Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.:
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
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
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
Google Books Row Explained; stuff.co.nz, 11/23/09
Claire Mcentee, Dominion Post, via stuff.co.nz; Google Books Row Explained:
"Kiwi authors and publishers could still strike a deal with Google to sell digital copies of books, but say any arrangement with the internet search giant will be on their terms.
New Zealand has been left out of a proposed deal that will see Google scan and sell digital versions of out-of-print copyright protected books to people in the United States and give authors and publishers a cut of the proceeds."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3086310/Google-books-row-explained
"Kiwi authors and publishers could still strike a deal with Google to sell digital copies of books, but say any arrangement with the internet search giant will be on their terms.
New Zealand has been left out of a proposed deal that will see Google scan and sell digital versions of out-of-print copyright protected books to people in the United States and give authors and publishers a cut of the proceeds."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3086310/Google-books-row-explained
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/
"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/
Bradshaw takes the gloves off; Guardian, 11/23/09
James Robinson, Guardian; Bradshaw takes the gloves off:
"On the eve of the bill determining Britain's digital future, Ben Bradshaw attacks the Tory leader's 'pact' with the Murdochs and defends the BBC, if not its Trust, from its 'circling enemies'. He speaks to James Robinson"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/ben-bradshaw-digital-economy-bill
"On the eve of the bill determining Britain's digital future, Ben Bradshaw attacks the Tory leader's 'pact' with the Murdochs and defends the BBC, if not its Trust, from its 'circling enemies'. He speaks to James Robinson"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/ben-bradshaw-digital-economy-bill
Call it by its name – this is theft; Guardian, 11/23/09
Richard Scudamore, Guardian; Call it by its name – this is theft:
The Digital Economy bill must pass safely or the creative industries will start to die
"Part of the strength of the British economy recently has been its ability to adapt as the world, and what consumers expect, have changed. Its flexibility, resilience and mixed nature should stand us in good stead as we, and the rest of the world, exit recession.
Nowhere should this be more so than in the UK's creative economy. We are leaders in film, music, publishing, TV production and sports rights – British popular culture, sport and production values are viewed as among the best in the world. This creative sector now accounts for more than 8% of our GDP and puts us in a good position to take advantage of the ever-increasing "new economy" – and of emerging markets as the takeup of technology advances.
There are threats as well as opportunities, not least the challenges presented by online copyright infringement, more commonly known as piracy. I prefer to call it by its real name – digital theft.
The reality is that unauthorised peer-to-peer filesharing, among other forms of illegal streaming, presents a very real threat. These burgeoning industries are based on a high-investment model, driving consumer demand – or in the Premier League's case, fan demand – by providing what the public want: a quality product. In football, this entails acquiring, or developing, the best possible talent and playing the matches in arguably the finest club stadiums in the world. The whole industry benefits.
It's the same with film or music – the investment model only works if you are giving consumers what they want. The very fact we are providing great content is the main reason people want to try to take it for nothing – if it wasn't very good, I doubt it would be of interest. There is not much of a market for the live streaming of the matches played on Sundays on Hackney Marshes.
There is much debate about how the creative industries should be reacting to digital theft – developing business models, educating their consumers, seeking regulatory intervention and legislative protection. That is why we have come together to form the Creative Coalition; we recognise that inevitably the answer is a mixture of all of these.
The digital economy bill demonstrates that the government is aware of the importance of these industries. It also sets out how the different areas of the creative economy can work together to tackle digital theft. The graduated response to repeat offenders, sharing the cost of enforcement and setting out responsibilities will be just as useful to the ISPs as the content providers.
The bill is a start, but it needs to stay in good shape as it progresses because digital theft is reaching epidemic proportions and shows no signs of abating. Currently, it is estimated that more than 6 million people illegally fileshare regularly, and the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here. This is a statistic that should fill us with little pride.
Without the safe passage of the bill – requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity – the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.
• Richard Scudamore is the chief executive of the Premier League and a member of the Creative Coalition"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/nov/23/creativ-coaltion-digital-bill
The Digital Economy bill must pass safely or the creative industries will start to die
"Part of the strength of the British economy recently has been its ability to adapt as the world, and what consumers expect, have changed. Its flexibility, resilience and mixed nature should stand us in good stead as we, and the rest of the world, exit recession.
Nowhere should this be more so than in the UK's creative economy. We are leaders in film, music, publishing, TV production and sports rights – British popular culture, sport and production values are viewed as among the best in the world. This creative sector now accounts for more than 8% of our GDP and puts us in a good position to take advantage of the ever-increasing "new economy" – and of emerging markets as the takeup of technology advances.
There are threats as well as opportunities, not least the challenges presented by online copyright infringement, more commonly known as piracy. I prefer to call it by its real name – digital theft.
The reality is that unauthorised peer-to-peer filesharing, among other forms of illegal streaming, presents a very real threat. These burgeoning industries are based on a high-investment model, driving consumer demand – or in the Premier League's case, fan demand – by providing what the public want: a quality product. In football, this entails acquiring, or developing, the best possible talent and playing the matches in arguably the finest club stadiums in the world. The whole industry benefits.
It's the same with film or music – the investment model only works if you are giving consumers what they want. The very fact we are providing great content is the main reason people want to try to take it for nothing – if it wasn't very good, I doubt it would be of interest. There is not much of a market for the live streaming of the matches played on Sundays on Hackney Marshes.
There is much debate about how the creative industries should be reacting to digital theft – developing business models, educating their consumers, seeking regulatory intervention and legislative protection. That is why we have come together to form the Creative Coalition; we recognise that inevitably the answer is a mixture of all of these.
The digital economy bill demonstrates that the government is aware of the importance of these industries. It also sets out how the different areas of the creative economy can work together to tackle digital theft. The graduated response to repeat offenders, sharing the cost of enforcement and setting out responsibilities will be just as useful to the ISPs as the content providers.
The bill is a start, but it needs to stay in good shape as it progresses because digital theft is reaching epidemic proportions and shows no signs of abating. Currently, it is estimated that more than 6 million people illegally fileshare regularly, and the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here. This is a statistic that should fill us with little pride.
Without the safe passage of the bill – requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity – the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.
• Richard Scudamore is the chief executive of the Premier League and a member of the Creative Coalition"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/nov/23/creativ-coaltion-digital-bill
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
"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
Hollywood wants to outsource copyright enforcement: iiNet ; Australian, 11/20/09
Andrew Colley, Australian; Hollywood wants to outsource copyright enforcement: iiNet:
IINET yesterday accused Hollywood studios of trying to "outsource" its copyright enforcement to internet firms as it continued to battle in the Federal Court against claims it authorised illegal file-sharing on its network.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-accuses-hollywood-of-outsourcing-copyright-enforcement/story-e6frgakx-1225800094356
IINET yesterday accused Hollywood studios of trying to "outsource" its copyright enforcement to internet firms as it continued to battle in the Federal Court against claims it authorised illegal file-sharing on its network.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-accuses-hollywood-of-outsourcing-copyright-enforcement/story-e6frgakx-1225800094356
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Suit Accuses Hartford Courant of Plagiarism; New York Times, 11/20/09
Richard Perez-Pena, New York Times; Suit Accuses Hartford Courant of Plagiarism:
"The Journal Inquirer of Manchester, Conn., has sued The Courant, the state’s largest paper, saying that it copied The Journal Inquirer’s work in articles published last summer, a time when The Courant was also, in a subsequent admission, lifting material from several other northern Connecticut newspapers.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Connecticut Superior Court in Hartford, cites 11 Courant articles it says were largely taken from The Journal Inquirer in August and September, and The Journal Inquirer has cited other examples taken from other papers.
Plagiarism has cropped up as an occasional transgression at many publications, but it is rarely exposed as a regular practice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/business/media/20paper.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hartford%20courant&st=cse
"The Journal Inquirer of Manchester, Conn., has sued The Courant, the state’s largest paper, saying that it copied The Journal Inquirer’s work in articles published last summer, a time when The Courant was also, in a subsequent admission, lifting material from several other northern Connecticut newspapers.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Connecticut Superior Court in Hartford, cites 11 Courant articles it says were largely taken from The Journal Inquirer in August and September, and The Journal Inquirer has cited other examples taken from other papers.
Plagiarism has cropped up as an occasional transgression at many publications, but it is rarely exposed as a regular practice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/business/media/20paper.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hartford%20courant&st=cse
Hollywood tells lawmakers to back U.S. efforts in copyright trade talks; Washington Post, 11/20/09
Cecilia King, Washington Post; Hollywood tells lawmakers to back U.S. efforts in copyright trade talks:
"Hollywood urged key lawmakers Thursday to support trade negotiations that would set rules for policing copyright laws.
The Motion Picture Association of America wrote a letter to several lawmakers including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Va.) and House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, asking them to support the Obama administration's efforts in the trade talks, which are being conducted behind closed doors in Seoul. Other countries participating in the negotiations include the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea, along with European Union members.
In its letter, the MPAA said that new global rules are needed to protect films from Internet piracy. As more people illegally trade content online, the movie studios businesses suffer."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/11/hollywood_tells_lawmakers_to_k.html
"Hollywood urged key lawmakers Thursday to support trade negotiations that would set rules for policing copyright laws.
The Motion Picture Association of America wrote a letter to several lawmakers including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Va.) and House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, asking them to support the Obama administration's efforts in the trade talks, which are being conducted behind closed doors in Seoul. Other countries participating in the negotiations include the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea, along with European Union members.
In its letter, the MPAA said that new global rules are needed to protect films from Internet piracy. As more people illegally trade content online, the movie studios businesses suffer."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/11/hollywood_tells_lawmakers_to_k.html
Is the Spirit of Competition in the Soul of Yoga?; New York Times, 11/19/09
Sara Eckel, New York Times; Is the Spirit of Competition in the Soul of Yoga?:
"The ultimate goal of the Choudhurys, who emigrated from India to Los Angeles, is to have yoga qualify as an Olympic sport. “It’s far away,” Mrs. Choudhury said in an interview. “A lot of work needs to be done before we really get into it, but this is our dream.”
One big obstacle may be the yoga community itself. To many people, the idea of competition goes against the philosophy of yoga, which emphasizes self-acceptance and inner growth. Although yoga does tend to attract people who are limber, the physical poses, or asanas, are only one aspect of the practice; others include chanting, meditation and reading Sanskrit.
“The initial reaction from most people is always the same thing: competition yoga? Those things don’t belong in the same sentence,” said John Philp, a filmmaker in New York who directed a documentary film, “Yoga, Inc.,” about the commercialization of Western yoga, and wrote a book with the same title.
Also in dispute is the extent to which the Choudhurys could benefit if Bikram yoga — also known as “hot” yoga, because it is usually practiced in a room heated to 105 degrees — were to become the accepted standard for competition yoga, which already takes place in India and more than a dozen other countries.
Mrs. Choudhury says that promoting Bikram yoga is not her intention. She said she had made a determined effort to keep the brand separate from the competition — for example, by forming the two nonprofits and encouraging event organizers to hold competitions in theaters and cultural centers rather than Bikram studios. She also noted that yoga competitions were not conducted in hot rooms.
“I don’t want the Bikram name on it,” she said. “I want something that is accessible to everyone.”
Her husband has a United States copyright on a sequence of 26 postures and 2 breathing exercises, and his efforts to use the legal system to protect his copyright have caused friction in the yoga community. Some people bristle at the notion that an ancient practice aimed at health and enlightenment can be governed by copyright and trademark laws.
Mrs. Choudhury notes that her husband has not copyrighted individual postures, only a very particular sequence, which is not used in the competitions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/fashion/19fitness.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The ultimate goal of the Choudhurys, who emigrated from India to Los Angeles, is to have yoga qualify as an Olympic sport. “It’s far away,” Mrs. Choudhury said in an interview. “A lot of work needs to be done before we really get into it, but this is our dream.”
One big obstacle may be the yoga community itself. To many people, the idea of competition goes against the philosophy of yoga, which emphasizes self-acceptance and inner growth. Although yoga does tend to attract people who are limber, the physical poses, or asanas, are only one aspect of the practice; others include chanting, meditation and reading Sanskrit.
“The initial reaction from most people is always the same thing: competition yoga? Those things don’t belong in the same sentence,” said John Philp, a filmmaker in New York who directed a documentary film, “Yoga, Inc.,” about the commercialization of Western yoga, and wrote a book with the same title.
Also in dispute is the extent to which the Choudhurys could benefit if Bikram yoga — also known as “hot” yoga, because it is usually practiced in a room heated to 105 degrees — were to become the accepted standard for competition yoga, which already takes place in India and more than a dozen other countries.
Mrs. Choudhury says that promoting Bikram yoga is not her intention. She said she had made a determined effort to keep the brand separate from the competition — for example, by forming the two nonprofits and encouraging event organizers to hold competitions in theaters and cultural centers rather than Bikram studios. She also noted that yoga competitions were not conducted in hot rooms.
“I don’t want the Bikram name on it,” she said. “I want something that is accessible to everyone.”
Her husband has a United States copyright on a sequence of 26 postures and 2 breathing exercises, and his efforts to use the legal system to protect his copyright have caused friction in the yoga community. Some people bristle at the notion that an ancient practice aimed at health and enlightenment can be governed by copyright and trademark laws.
Mrs. Choudhury notes that her husband has not copyrighted individual postures, only a very particular sequence, which is not used in the competitions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/fashion/19fitness.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=copyright&st=cse
Library group offers text search to 4.6M books; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/21/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Library group offers text search to 4.6M books:
"A group of major national research libraries says users now can search the full text of 1.6 billion pages from 4.6 million digitized volumes.
Last year, the University of Michigan and 24 other research libraries launched the HathiTrust Digital Library. The consortium said Thursday it's offering full-text search capability to all digitized works. Access to non-copyright books started in 2008.
The group says it adds hundreds of thousands of volumes monthly.
Participants include the University of California system; California Digital Library; Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue universities; and the universities of Chicago, Illinois, Illinois-Chicago, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin-Madison and Virginia."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/library-group-offers-text-search-to-46m-books-20091121-ir56.html
"A group of major national research libraries says users now can search the full text of 1.6 billion pages from 4.6 million digitized volumes.
Last year, the University of Michigan and 24 other research libraries launched the HathiTrust Digital Library. The consortium said Thursday it's offering full-text search capability to all digitized works. Access to non-copyright books started in 2008.
The group says it adds hundreds of thousands of volumes monthly.
Participants include the University of California system; California Digital Library; Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue universities; and the universities of Chicago, Illinois, Illinois-Chicago, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin-Madison and Virginia."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/library-group-offers-text-search-to-46m-books-20091121-ir56.html
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
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
BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge's beatdown; Ars Technica, 11/19/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge's beatdown:
Who needs hearings? A federal judge has read enough to extend his injunction against BlueBeat.com, a site selling Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. And he has little time for the "vague" explanations of "pyscho-acoustic simulation" provided by BlueBeat's founder.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/bluebeat-beatles-tracks-gone-for-good-after-judges-beatdown.ars
Who needs hearings? A federal judge has read enough to extend his injunction against BlueBeat.com, a site selling Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. And he has little time for the "vague" explanations of "pyscho-acoustic simulation" provided by BlueBeat's founder.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/bluebeat-beatles-tracks-gone-for-good-after-judges-beatdown.ars
If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning?; Tech Dirt, 11/20/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning?:
"Danny Sullivan does a great job calling out the hypocrisy of the Associated Press yet again. The organization, which has taken a very maximalist position on copyright, where fair use gets mostly ignored, apparently had no problem scanning Sarah Palin's entire book into a computer so that reporters could search it. Of course, this is no different than what Google is doing with its book scanning program (which, again, I still believe is a clear case of fair use). Yet, since the AP seems to take such a limited view on fair use (and has a habit of accusing Google of "stealing" content), it's amusing that it's now trying to defend its actions by claiming that it was legal because it was for the sake of journalism, and the scan wasn't for public consumption. Except, of course, Google's book scanning isn't for "public consumption" of the entire work either, but so people can do a search to find the relevant tidbit of info within the book."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1528217031.shtml
"Danny Sullivan does a great job calling out the hypocrisy of the Associated Press yet again. The organization, which has taken a very maximalist position on copyright, where fair use gets mostly ignored, apparently had no problem scanning Sarah Palin's entire book into a computer so that reporters could search it. Of course, this is no different than what Google is doing with its book scanning program (which, again, I still believe is a clear case of fair use). Yet, since the AP seems to take such a limited view on fair use (and has a habit of accusing Google of "stealing" content), it's amusing that it's now trying to defend its actions by claiming that it was legal because it was for the sake of journalism, and the scan wasn't for public consumption. Except, of course, Google's book scanning isn't for "public consumption" of the entire work either, but so people can do a search to find the relevant tidbit of info within the book."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1528217031.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)