Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution

from the that's-bad dept

We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start seizing computers directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work. At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support. Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was given access to and allowed to keep computers from a criminal investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing. The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges. It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party. They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit. However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.

Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees. A reader alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that police have every right to retain seized computers, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges. The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified. It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI: If Lawsuits Aren't Working In Denmark, We'll Seize Computers To Get Evidence

from the um,-wow dept

We just wrote about how the Danish anti-piracy group was dropping its lawsuits against individual file sharers after realizing that Danish law made it almost impossible for the industry to win those cases. However, as pointed out by brokep, the international wing of the recording industry, the IFPI, wasted little time in trying to spin the news in its favor (Google translation of the original). The IFPI insists that the lawsuits won't stop, but just that the anti-piracy organization was realizing it needed more detailed evidence -- and this means that it will now start seizing computers to get evidence. Now, the Google translation trips up over the word "beslagslaeggelse," but multiple Danish speakers have confirmed that the word means "seize" or "confiscate." Of course, that raises some questions about why a private organization representing record labels has any right to seize computers of individuals. I think they were better off when they just admitted they were going to give up on the counterproductive legal strategy.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Telenor Doesn't Need To Block The Pirate Bay

from the onwards dept

I'm heading over to Norway in the next few days to give a talk at the Nordic Music Week event, and it's nice to see that the courts in that country seem to recognize how silly the IFPI's demands that major ISP Telenor block access to The Pirate Bay are. Telenor was smart enough to fight back, and the courts have now said that Telenor is not liable for what its users do, and should not have to block access to a site like The Pirate Bay. From TorrentFreak on the ruling:

The court ruled that Telenor is not contributing to any infringements of copyright law when its subscribers use The Pirate Bay, and therefore there is no legal basis for forcing the ISP to block access to the site.... In making its decision, the court also had to examine the repercussions if it ruled that Telenor and other ISPs had to block access to certain websites. This, it said, is usually the responsibility of the authorities and handing this task to private companies would be "unnatural."

Good to see a court recognize that the entertainment industry doesn't own the internet, and shouldn't be the one to determine what is and what is not legal online.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI: The Pirate Party Shouldn't Be Allowed To Hold Its Positions

from the fascinating dept

I haven't been posting about the formation of local versions of The Pirate Party (a name I still hate) in places like the UK and Finland because I actually don't think it's that big a deal. However, Ville Valtasaari writes in and alerts us to the response of the IFPI to the formation of the party in Finland, which, oddly, seems to suggest that the IFPI doesn't think The Pirate Party should be allowed support its own positions at all:

"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content."

Apparently freedom of political expression isn't high on the list of things the old recording industry likes. I have no problem with the IFPI saying that they disagree with the reasons for The Pirate Party's platform, but that's not what's being said here. The IFPI is claiming that no political party should be allowed to support such positions. Of course, the quote also totally misunderstands the party's position, but that's not much of a surprise.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI Using Disputed Pirate Bay Verdict To Claim Web Hosting Companies Are Liable

from the stretch-the-truth-much? dept

After the entertainment industry partially won its Supreme Court decision against Grokster, it didn't take long at all for the RIAA to start claiming the ruling said stuff it didn't. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruling said that a site could be found liable if it induced infringement by encouraging such uses. This was already quite surprising to many because the idea of an "inducement" standard for copyright is not found in the law (in fact, some in Congress had introduced an "INDUCE Act" to try to put it into the law -- suggesting that even Congress didn't think copyright law includes an inducement standard). However, the RIAA falsely started claiming that the Supreme Court ruling made all sorts of file sharing apps -- even those that did not encourage unauthorized copying -- guilty of infringing copyrights.

So, it should come as little surprise that the RIAA's international wing, the IFPI, appears to be doing the exact same thing with the recent Pirate Bay ruling (which, of course, is still being appealed and is highly disputed due to conflicts of interest with the judge in the case). The IFPI is apparently going around to web hosting firms who host other torrent trackers, and claiming that The Pirate Bay ruling makes them potentially criminally liable if they don't take down the tracker sites. But, of course, The Pirate Bay ruling was specific to the facts in that case, which are somewhat different from a random web host hosting a website for someone. Still, it just goes to show the lengths that the industry will go to in order to twist any legal ruling to try to shut down sites it doesn't like.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Massive Layoffs Hit The RIAA: Maybe Focus On Building Business Rather Than Suing Customers Next Time?

from the just-a-thought dept

Details have been spilling out over the last few days that the RIAA has been making pretty massive cuts to staff. We already knew that EMI was cutting back on its support of the RIAA/IFPI, and it seems that with the rest of the RIAA's major label supporters also having economic troubles, the writing is on the wall that the RIAA is about to go through a major transformation. I'm sure some will somehow "blame piracy" for this turn of events, but it's hard to see how that's even remotely the issue. The real issue is that the RIAA has basically managed to run one of the dumbest, most self-defeating strategies over the last decade. Rather than helping major record labels adjust to the changing market, it continually, repeatedly and publicly destroyed its own reputation and the reputation of the labels -- each time shrinking their potential market by blaming the very people they should have been working to turn into customers. They may claim that they "had" to take this strategy because it's what the labels wanted (and, indeed, that was Hilary Rosen's excuse), but that's ridiculous. It was evident to pretty much anyone who took the time to understand the issues back in the mid- to late-90s, that the internet represented an opportunity to those who embraced it. The RIAA's decision to fight progress and its own customers at every turn has been nothing short of a complete disaster. That the group is now being gutted is the inevitable result of a poor strategy that could have easily been avoided.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Norwegian Education Minister Wants To Legalize File Sharing; While IFPI Demands Norwegian Pirate Bay Block

from the clashing-viewpoints dept

The trial of The Pirate Bay continues in neighboring Sweden, but Norway is having a bit of a battle concerning file sharing as well. Apparently, the IFPI has demanded that one of the country's largest ISPs block all access to The Pirate Bay or face a lawsuit. However, the country's Minister of Education, Bard Vegar Solhjell, has said that non-commercial file sharing should be legal, and the recording industry needs to learn to adapt:

"All previous technology advances have led to fears that the older format would die. But TV did not kill radio, the Web did not kill the book, and the download is not going to kill music. "

He said he and his party intend to look for ways to legalize non-commercial file sharing, noting that he thinks both consumers and musicians would benefit from such a solution.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can A Link, By Itself, Be Copyright Infringement?

from the someone-please-explain dept

A report in Billboard Magazine mentions that the IFPI and the MPA (the global versions of the RIAA and the MPAA respectively) have successfully been able to get ISPs in Mexico to take down 35 blogs which they say contributed to music and movie piracy. Specifically, they charge that the blogs had thousands of "infringing links." Of course, that leads to a rather obvious question: what the hell is an "infringing link"? Is it a link to infringing content? If so, then Google and pretty much any search engine is equally guilty. Simply linking to something, by itself, is not and should not be considered infringement.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jailtime Seems A Bit Harsh For Online Music Store Owners Who Didn't Get All The Right Licenses

from the why-not-just-make-them-pay-up? dept

Most readers here probably know the story of Allofmp3.com -- a Russian website that signed a licensing deal with a Russian music licensing group ROMS. The site was immensely popular because (a) it sold un-DRM'd files (back before that was common) and (b) sold music incredibly cheaply. The recording industry should have taken this as a lesson in how to create a super popular online music store -- but instead it freaked out, and nearly created an international diplomatic incident in threatening Russia with economic sanctions unless it shut the site down. The problem was that since it had the ROMS license, it was legal in Russia. In fact, Allofmp3.com even tried to pay the record labels some money -- which they refused. The record labels, of course, insisted that the ROMS license wasn't sufficient, but no Russian court ever agreed. Eventually the site was shut down, though it lives on at MP3Sparks. However, it's lost a lot of steam because the site has been blocked from accepting most common forms of payment.

Law Professor Michael Scott points us to the news of what appears to be a similar offering in Italy -- except that, in this case, the operators of the site have been sent to jail. The only news that I can find on this is from the IFPI site -- which is obviously a bit biased, but it does look like the owners of the site did get a license from the Italian Authors' Society (SIAE), which they believed was sufficient. A lower court agreed, but the appeals court has sided with the record labels.

But here's the kicker: the operators of the site have now been sent to jail for criminal copyright infringement. Already I have problems with most criminal copyright infringement cases -- because, by any reasonable standard, copyright is a civil dispute -- it's an issue between two businesses. In this case, it's even more egregious because it seems clear that the site wasn't just some random guy selling MP3s he had no right to, but had clearly tried to obtain the correct licenses. However, these days, when to do just about anything with music you need to get numerous different licenses (Peter Jenner, back at MidemNet, claimed that you needed 33 different permissions to do pretty much anything with music in Europe, though others disagreed), it seems fairly ridiculous to throw someone in jail for not being able to figure out every single party that has to sign off on something -- especially when you were lead to believe that you had what you needed via the Authors' Society.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Irish ISP Accused Of Copyright Violations Agrees To Implement Three Strikes

from the settle-me-this dept

Last year, the IFPI sued Irish ISP Eircom for copyright infringement. This was quite a leap. While the IFPI, RIAA and other such organizations had been pushing ISPs to filter file sharing or cut off file sharers via a three strikes approach, this was the first time that an ISP was being sued for being actually liable for the infringement as well. The "evidence" appeared to be some internal emails where Eircom employees joked about piracy. That seemed like a stretch... but rather than go through a full lawsuit, it appears Eircom has settled. Reader eoinmonty points us to the news that Eircom has agreed to implement a three strikes policy as a part of the settlement. Interesting that this comes just days after the neighboring UK announced that it will not require three strikes policies from UK ISPs. Of course, now the IFPI and the record labels have a framework: sue ISPs, and then push them to implement three strikes as a part of the settlement.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Record Labels Make The Case That Irish ISP Is Guilty Of Copyright Infringement

from the inducing-a-joke dept

A few different readers sent in the latest on the lawsuit that the major record labels have filed against Irish ISP Eircom. While the adversarial relationship between ISPs and the recording industry has been discussed for years, this is the first case in which the labels are directly suing an ISP for copyright infringement. Their argument, similar to the "inducement" rule that the US courts made up (it's not actually in any US law) is that Eircom was actively encouraging piracy. In the case, they used internal emails from Eircom execs where some execs jokingly talked about how piracy was good for musicians because it would reduce money for rock stars to spend on cocaine. Apparently, obviously joking comments are being used to establish intent these days. Either way, this seems like a weak case for the record labels. Plenty of people encourage piracy. It's not going to go away if all those people shut up. The industry needs to stop freaking out over the fact that piracy happens, and start focusing on actual solutions in the market.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI Says 95% of Music Downloads Are Illegal

from the but-then-they-would,-wouldn't-they dept

The IFPI, the international equivalent of the RIAA, has put out new stats claiming that only 5 percent of all music downloads in 2008 were legal. The group estimated that 40 billion tracks were shared illegally last year, or an average of almost 30 songs for every internet user worldwide. The IFPI says it arrived at that estimate by "collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period," so it's not really clear just how accurate it is -- and of course, the higher the figure, the better, as far as the IFPI's efforts to get governments to be their copyright police are concerned. The IFPI says that global music revenues fell by 7% last year, blaming the drop on falling CD sales, which a 25% increase in digital sales couldn't overcome. The IFPI says piracy is the biggest challenge it faces; given the stats, the real challenge seems to be record labels' inability to move past its legacy business model and adapt to consumers' changing desires.

It's hard to give much credence to the IFPI report, given the way it plays with statistics. For instance, in the press release for the report, the IFPI tries to pin the blame on piracy for a downturn in the "local music sectors" of France and Spain. It backs this up by saying that new French and Spanish artists accounted for a smaller percentage of album releases in 2008 than they had before. What about established French and Spanish artists? And does a lack of new local artists have more to do with downloading, or problems with labels in how they do business, and find and promote new talent? Furthermore, when the album is declining in popularity compared to singles, and new artists more likely to take advantage of this by targeting the singles market, is this even a legitimate metric for this purpose? These IFPI stats should be taken with a large grain of salt, and their intended purpose -- to further the group's goal to get governments and ISPs to prop up record labels' outmoded business models -- should be considered.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Danish High Court Says ISPs Must Be Internet Policemen; Have To Block The Pirate Bay

from the keep-on-blocking dept

Earlier this year, we noted, with surprise, that a Danish court had ordered Tele2, a large ISP, to block all access to The Pirate Bay website. This followed an earlier ruling requiring Tele2 to block access to AllofMp3.com. It's never been clear why an ISP should take on the responsibility of blocking access to a site, and Tele2 appealed the ruling. Unfortunately, it looks as though the company has lost. The Danish High Court has apparently sided with the IFPI, and says that, indeed, Tele2 must block The Pirate Bay. Of course, this is unlikely to matter. Whenever these blocks are ordered, there are always ways around them, and the attention from the blocks tends to alert more people to the site's existence.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Belgian Court Realizes That ISPs Shouldn't Be Forced To Block File Sharing

from the about-time dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about a Belgian court requiring an ISP to block all file sharing, and saying that after six months to implement a filtering solution, the ISP would be fined 2,500 euros per day that file sharing still occurred on its network. The court had been convinced by the IFPI that blocking all file sharing was as simple as installing the filtering software from the entertainment industry darling, Audible Magic. Of course, as has been seen over and over again, Audible Magic's "magic bullet" solution isn't particularly good, and certainly does very little to stop file sharing. Apparently, Belgian ISPs have finally been able to convince the judge of that fact, and he's reversed the original ruling, saying that the ISP in question is no longer subject to the fine. Apparently, even the recording industry lawyers had to admit that they misled the court over the efficacy of Audible Magic's filtering software.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Danish Man Fined For Sharing Music, But At Around $2/Song

from the seems-a-bit-more-reasonable dept

It looks like the IFPI has won a lawsuit against a guy in Denmark, who was accused of sharing over 13,000 songs. From the brief description on TorrentFreak, it sounds like there was plenty of evidence pinning this directly to the guy (though, it's not clear if there's evidence that he actually shared the files, or simply made them available). Either way, what's more interesting is that the court has fined him approximately $24,400, or a bit less than $2 per song. As the article notes, the court estimated actual losses from the file sharing, and then used a "doubling up" method. So it sounds like the court said each file cost a little less than a dollar and the fine was double that. While the whole issue of suing people for file sharing still seems a bit absurd, you have to admit that approximately $2/song seems a lot more reasonable than the $750 to $150,000 per song that the RIAA pushes for in the US (and in the Jammie Thomas case it actually got $9250). Even so, the guy in Denmark is thinking about appealing the "doubling up" aspect, believing that even that fine is too high, as there's no evidence that his file sharing resulted in any reduction in sales for the recording industry.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Did Italian ISPs Redirect Pirate Bay Traffic To IFPI Site?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

We've already talked about how Italy's plan to have ISPs block all access to The Pirate Bay has failed by getting more people to visit the site. However, TorrentFreak points out another oddity in this whole ordeal. For the sites that did redirect The Pirate Bay, they pointed people to an IFPI-owned website. That seems highly questionable. Why should ISPs direct traffic intended for one private site to another private site -- allowing that second private organization to collect IP address info from folks intending to go to The Pirate Bay? If they really had to block the site, why not point them to a gov't explanation or, at the very least, a neutral site. Handing The Pirate Bay's traffic over to music industry lobbyists makes very little sense.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI Admits It Screwed Up; Claims Mistakes Happen

from the yes...-but... dept

Last week, we noted how the IFPI had sent a nastygram to a music blogger, forcing him to take down a song -- even though the musicians behind the song wanted it posted. After the band contacted the IFPI, someone from the IFPI sent an apology to the site in a way that doesn't suggest it's really all that sorry:

IFPI was contacted by a member of the label who confirmed you were given permission to post the file on your site.

We were unaware of this agreement but now that it has been notified to us please feel free to upload the file.

Due to the volume of infringing content we find online there will be instances where legitimate files are picked up as infringing. We hope this matter shows that once we have the correct information we do not want to stop the promotion of music online.

In other words, "mistakes happen," and the responsibility isn't ours for making the mistake -- but it falls on the individual bloggers who may or may not be able to alert the musician in question and get them to call our legal dogs off. Of course, most laws concerning takedown notices require the folks issuing the takedown to properly express the wishes of the copyright holder. It would appear that the IFPI did not do that in this case, and an after-the-fact apology seems rather weak, given the weight that a legal threat from the IFPI could hold to an individual blogger without a legal team behind him.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI Forces Music Offline, Even Though Copyright Holder Wanted It Shared

from the all-about-the-musicians,-huh? dept

When challenged on what they're doing, organizations like the RIAA and the IFPI will often claim that they're just trying to help musicians. That's obviously untrue, as they represent the record labels -- who have a long history of an antagonistic relationship with the musicians they work with. We're seeing more and more cases where this conflict is being made quite clear as the RIAA and IFPI attacks fan actions that the musicians in question would prefer be left alone. Reader Xavier sends in this example of a music blogger who received a cease and desist from the IFPI that not only contained numerous mistakes, but was disputed by the musician himself.

When the blogger received the cease-and-desist (which named the wrong song, but pointed to a specific URL on his blog), he sent the band a note via their MySpace page, to which the lead singer of the group responded:

"You definitely have my blessing as one of the 4 holders of the copyrights to that specific recording. I actually think this is bogus. Anyways thanks for posting that on your site. It was lovely to see it out there doing the rounds. We didnt take it to radio so your helping with the pollenation of the nation."

Of course, the blogger was (rightfully) worried that the IFPI might have his hosting company take down the site and/or charge him with a lawsuit, so he took down the song anyway. Nice to see the IFPI looking out for the best interests of the musicians, huh?

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DJ Arrested For Selling Pre-Release Promo CDs On eBay

from the ridiculous dept

Just days after a US court ruled that selling promo CDs sent out by the recording industry is perfectly legal, Techdirt reader cram writes in to let us know of a DJ and music reviewer in London who was arrested for doing exactly the same thing. The only difference in this case was that the guy was selling the CDs before they had been released. Still, this seems positively ridiculous. As we had just noted, while some places do treat pre-release leaks differently, UK law does not. Furthermore, he's being charged with theft and money laundering. He was turned in by the IFPI, which apparently thinks that jailing the folks who promote your product is a good thing. What's not entirely clear from the article is whether this guy was sent these CDs by the labels in the first place. However, it does sound like he got them as part of his role as a DJ and reviewer, since the IFPI even mentions that "people who have access to pre-release music by virtue of their job," should watch out. If he really was "stealing" them, that's one thing -- but if the industry was sending them to him to promote the CDs, then hopefully the UK courts will react similarly to the US courts and quickly throw this out. Once they've sent him the CDs, they're his. They're no longer the record label's. That he was arrested for selling something willingly given to him to promote seems ridiculous.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI Witness Used To Work For IFPI -- Is That Such A Big Deal?

from the it's-not-that-crazy dept

I think that anyone who reads Techdirt on a regular basis would recognize that we're pretty harsh on the entertainment industry and the way it goes about its business. Yet, there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that we should obviously slam the entertainment industry for every move it makes -- and if not, we're somehow wrong. That's simply untrue. While, yes, it is easy to trash the incredibly dumb things the industry does all of the time, that doesn't mean you should automatically jump to conclusions about the entire industry. Last week, in writing about how a lead investigator on the case against The Pirate Bay had taken a job with Warner Brothers after the investigation concluded, I suggested this wasn't as ridiculous or "shocking" as some made it out to be. As long as there was no additional evidence of questionable activities, switching jobs isn't that surprising. The industry has a long history of hiring former police investigators and prosecutors for its anti-piracy activity. That, alone, shouldn't be considered strange or questionable -- but a lot of folks immediately assumed that something nefarious was up. In fact, one commenter even accused me of being on the take from Warner. Given just how frequently I've totally trashed Warner Music's activities (in just the last year alone), including the faux epiphany of boss Edgar Bronfman, this seems rather laughable.

However, it is important to recognize that not everything is a conspiracy theory, and not every move the industry makes is as ridiculous as it's made out to be by critics. Totally overreacting to these things doesn't help the case of those of us trying to help educate the industry on why their strategy of suing fans and blaming piracy for their own inability to adapt and grow is a problem. So, while I'm sure I'll get beaten up over it again, the latest report that an expert witness in the Danish lawsuit against The Pirate Bay used to work at the IFPI still doesn't seem particularly shocking or troublesome. TorrentFreak, who normally has excellent coverage, continually paints this news as "shocking." However, I just don't see it. It's not surprising that a guy who used to work on IFPI investigations would go on to work at an anti-piracy company. And, just because he does so, it doesn't mean that he's obviously biased on their side (I certainly don't think fondly of all of my ex-employers). The simple fact is that any expert witness has a bias. They're hired to help support one side of the case. So, of course he's going to present the IFPI's case in the best light. That's what he's paid to do -- and the court should take that into account. The fact that he used to work for the IFPI seems rather meaningless.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..