WIPO Director General Against Draconian Anti-Piracy Punishment... But For The Wrong Reasons

from the not-quite-there-yet dept

We were a bit surprised, recently, to hear at a WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) meeting that they actually appeared to be taking more of an evidence-based approach to copyright, rather than just assuming that "more is better." And now, the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry, gave an interview where he explained why he thought that high fines and jailtime weren't the answer to piracy. He's exactly right, which is a bit surprising. But as you read the details, it sounds like he might be right for the wrong reasons -- which isn't all that surprising.

It's not that he thinks that the better approach is for companies and content creators to adjust their business models -- but that he's afraid the draconian punishment schemes are basically a PR nightmare for WIPO's continuing fruitless effort to convince people that infringement is evil:

"I don't believe we are going to win this, (to) find the solution by putting teenagers in jail," Gurry said in an interview on a visit to India. "I think that is not going to win public sympathy."

"Part of the battle here is to sensitise the public to the fact that there is a real issue involved. It is not simply a victimless crime...."

Amusingly, the whole reason the RIAA kicked off its lawsuit strategy was based on similar thinking: that it was an "education" campaign that would convince people that there was "harm" done from file sharing. Of course, it didn't work. At all. And no education campaign is going to work, because it's just the basic nature of economics. If the technology has made the product infinite, it's not a moral issue or a legal issue: it's a business model issue. The answer is to change business models, not hope and pray that you can somehow convince people that it's "bad" to do something that obviously can be done quite easily.

So, yes, Gurry is correct that draconian punishment has created a massive PR backlash that has helped make things even worse, but an education campaign isn't going to make a difference. Only a business model change can fix a business model situation -- and we're already seeing that happen just fine in many parts of the world. It's not an education campaign that will help the content industry. It's smarter business models.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA's Main Anti-Piracy Partner Appears Clueless About BitTorrent

from the fact-checking? dept

Earlier this year, the RIAA dumped its longterm anti-piracy partner MediaSentry and hired DtecNet instead. MediaSentry had lots of problems in terms of credibility, but it appears that DtecNet may be even worse. It recently came out with a report claiming that file sharing decreased massively after The Pirate Bay went down temporarily. Not surprisingly, this report is getting some press attention. The problem? The report appears to be based on a nearly comical misunderstanding of how BitTorrent works. TorrentFreak details numerous basic mistakes in the report, nearly all of which suggest the claims made by DtecNet have little, if anything, to do with reality. Considering that DtecNet is going to be leading the charge for the RIAA in any future lawsuits and various "three strikes" plans, the fact that it doesn't seem to understand how BitTorrent works suggests problems ahead.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Happened To 'If You Didn't Pay For It, It's Stealing'?

from the except-when-we-do-it dept

For years, the entertainment industry has pushed a propaganda line in its "education" programs that are used in schools: "if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

15 Years Of Anti-Piracy Commercials...

from the and-how's-that-worked-for-you... dept

John was the first of a few to send in a collection of 15 years worth of "anti-piracy commercials" that run at the beginning of films, put in place by the movie industry, who has only just realized that perhaps they should offer up a more positive message to customers who just paid good money to watch a movie, rather than accusing them all of being criminals. Most of these commercials are so over the top as to be hilarious. "The pirates are out to get you. Don't let them brand you with their mark. Piracy funds organized crime... piracy funds terrorism... and will destroy... your future enjoyment."

It makes you wonder if the folks making these commercials actually thought they'd be effective.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Swedish Antipiracy Law Goes Into Effect... Internet Traffic Drops

from the coincidence? dept

A new antipiracy law went into effect in Sweden on Wednesday, allowing copyright holders to demand the IP addresses from ISPs if a court finds that there's evidence of illegal activity -- and, as News.com notes, internet traffic took a major dip in Sweden, though it's not entirely clear if the two things are connected (though, it notes a similar dip occurred, back when The Pirate Bay was taken offline a few years ago). Not surprisingly, some audio book publishers wasted no time in trying to use the law, filing lawsuits to get information on certain file sharers. Sweden, as many of you know, has had very consumer-friendly copyright laws for quite some time. The departure from this (and the introduction of other new laws that are being pushed) has come from massive international pressure, usually starting with the American entertainment industry. It will be worth watching how the country reacts to increased and more draconian copyright rules.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft Claims Patent Holder Got A Job At Microsoft To Get Info Used In Patent Lawsuits

from the patent-espionage dept

We see all sorts of strange patent-related lawsuits around here, but this one probably qualifies for the most extreme attempt by a patent holder to come up with info for the sake of a patent lawsuit. Apparently (and this is according to Microsoft), Miki Mullor, CEO of a company called Ancora Technologies, applied for a job at Microsoft while still working for Ancora. He got the job, and then used the job to download all sorts of info unrelated to his job -- but which was helpful in allowing Ancora to sue a bunch of companies, including Dell, HP and Toshiba claiming that their use of Microsoft anti-piracy technology violated Ancora's patents on anti-piracy technology. We've seen plenty of questionable patent lawsuits... and lots of stories about corporate espionage, but not many that combined both topics. Update on 11/17/2009: The company informs us that the companies have settled.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Because There Aren't Enough Anti-Piracy Lobbying Groups...

from the we've-got-another-one! dept

There are already a ton of lobbying/industry groups out there that push "anti-piracy" campaigns. You've got the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and ESA, each covering different industry segments. Then, of course, a year ago, a bunch of entertainment industry companies got together and put together the ridiculous Copyright Alliance, whose main mission in life seems to be to spew utterly false propaganda in favor of stronger copyrights at every turn. But, apparently, that just wasn't enough. So, word came out this week of a new anti-piracy lobbying "supergroup" with the innocuous sounding name "Arts+Labs." The big difference here? Well, the entertainment companies convinced a few tech companies to join up as well: AT&T, Microsoft and Cisco. AT&T, of course, has been drifting towards filtering its network -- and Cisco wants to sell filtering equipment. Microsoft, of course, has always been vocally against "piracy" even while quietly admitting how much piracy benefits the company.

This new group will be headed by Mike McCurry -- who you may remember as the former head of the anti-net neutrality group "Hands Off the Internet" who had a slight problem in that he couldn't stop lying, and simply ignored it when people called him on it. My favorite, of course, was his claim that Google didn't pay a dime for its bandwidth, and net neutrality was all about making others pay for Google's bandwidth usage. I challenged McCurry to swap his home broadband bill with Google's (which, according to McCurry was "not a dime") to which, Hands Off responded with deafening silence -- though, the group had no problem then lying about our positions on things when it suited the group (and, again, not responding when I asked them to correct their false statements about us).

So, expect a string of similar tactics from this group.

To begin with, the group appears to be positioning "piracy" as something similar to "viruses" or "spam," suggesting an equivalency that should lead to widespread use of filtering equipment. Of course, they seem to be missing the fact that piracy isn't about others with nefarious intent trying to harm or scam you -- but about people getting content that they want. But in Mike McCurry's "up is down, down is up" world, piracy is apparently something that consumers themselves need to be protected from:

"We want consumers to have exponentially greater opportunities to access creative content in a variety of formats, and with confidence that they are safe from viruses, hackers, malware, illegal file trafficking and other net pollution that puts them at risk."

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Anti-Spyware Bill Won't Stop Spyware; But Will Bring Back Questionable Anti-Piracy Measures

from the that-doesn't-sound-good dept

Politicians have been pushing for an anti-spyware law for quite some time -- mostly because it's the sort of thing likely to draw headlines that make the politicians look good. However, it's widely acknowledged that such laws aren't at all necessary. Anti-fraud laws can mostly take care of the problem cases out there -- and the market itself seems to have actually taken care of the worst offenders in the space. Plus, with such laws (witness CAN-SPAM's failure), they tend to do little to actually stop the activity, but more to define the rules by which companies can continue to do bad things without breaking the law.

However, with the law coming up yet again, Broadband Reports points to an even scarier part of the law currently up for consideration, the Counter Spy Act, as noted by Ed Foster's Gripe Line. Basically, in the fine print, it appears to create a nice little "exception" for software companies that spy on users for the sake of checking whether they're using an authorized copy -- including the ability to let the software provider remotely shut off the computer or internet connection of those found to be using unauthorized copies. This has many folks worried that this is an attempt to backdoor in UCITA, the awful law from a while back that would allow software companies to remotely shut down computers of those found with unauthorized software.

So we've got a law that is unnecessary and wouldn't even stop the problem of spyware if it were a problem -- and opens up a backdoor to allow software companies to spy on users and remotely shut down their computers. But it may pass anyway because politicians want voters to think they voted against spyware.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Musician Claims He Was Tricked Into Appearing In Anti-Piracy Video

from the duped dept

Australian guitarist Lindsay McDougall was asked to appear in a film that he was told would be about what it was like to try surviving as a musician -- and only later realized that it was actually part of an industry-backed anti-piracy campaign. He's quite upset about it, as he claims he would never take part in an anti-piracy campaign if he'd known that's what it was:

"I have never come out against internet piracy and illegal downloading and I wouldn't do that - I would never put my name to something that is against downloading and is against piracy and stuff, it's something that I believe is a personal thing from artist to artist.... I would never be part of this big record industry funded campaign to crush illegal downloads, I'm not like [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich. I think it's bullshit, I think it's record companies crying poor and I don't agree with it....I'm from a punk rock band, it's all about getting your music out any way you can - you don't make money from the record, the record companies make the money from the record. If they can't make money these days because they haven't come onside with the way the world is going, it's their own problem."

The folks who put together the movie claim that they were clear upfront about the movie and who was making it. They also say that the movie only has a small segment that's anti-piracy -- but that's not quite accurate. The rest of the movie basically just plays up how tough it is to be a musician on a major label and how difficult it is to make money as a musician. While there are some segments about how useful the internet is, the overriding message is definitely a combination of "think of the poor musician" and "don't file share." It's definitely not a pure anti-piracy film, and it does have some balance -- but it definitely does push the anti-piracy message.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Next Generation Of Anti-Piracy Legislation Goes To School

from the beware-the-precedents-you-set dept

As discussed a few months ago by Tom Lee, misguided anti-piracy requirements for universities found their way into the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. Mostly, the nearly 800-page bill rehashes existing legislation regarding federal financial aid. However, a section titled "Campus-based Digital Theft Prevention" provides an unfortunate glimpse at what could be the new wave of legislation related to network filtering of copyrighted material inside and outside the academic domain, that’s waiting in the wings.

The bill, in its current form, outlines that eligible institutions "develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity." While advocates emphasize that the only requirement is to plan, the wording leaves the door to state mandated copyright protections in exchange for federal funding wide open... a truly backwards and illogical arrangement. In this case, congressional requirements will most likely take the form of industry-sanctioned DRM initiatives, in addition to network detection/filtering techniques laden with privacy risks and prone to the inevitable backlash of technological countermeasures.

The link between failing to draft plans and eligibility for at least some student financial aid programs is most troubling because it does not address the inherently complex nature of piracy and copyright infringement in the 21^st century. Instead it seeks to place the onus on university administrators, who are already in the midst of coming to grips with effective digital threat prevention. Introducing this type of government intervention does nothing to stimulate the desperately needed innovative solutions for the issues at hand. Also, from a policy perspective, the networks on campuses across the country differ mainly in scale from those governed by the likes of the Verizon and Comcast, meaning that a disconcerting and inappropriate model for anti-piracy legislative action is being shaped.

In the same way that universities provide an environment where some of the leading minds of the tomorrow’s society are shaped, specious legislative action that effects their rights as downloaders will impact their expectations of how privacy and civil liberties should be transposed to an increasingly digital world. It shouldn’t be left for the conspiracy theorists to suggest that this will begin the prying open of a Pandora’s Box of well-meaning public policy that falls short due to short-sighted intentions and narrow perspectives on the matters at hand.

Yet, in spite of these frightening possibilities combined with the fact that electronic piracy is fast on its way to becoming a hot-button issue, Congress doesn't appear to have any clue about the inappropriateness of these measures. That means, unfortunately, that it is unlikely they will support any sustained effort to remove the aberrant mandate. There are options that don't resemble placing economic sanctions on institutions of higher learning -- but it doesn't appear Congress is interested in pursuing them any time soon.

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

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Seeks To Patent 'Anti-Piracy' Technology. Will Steve Jobs Be Dumb Enough To Use It?

from the counterproductive dept

PCWorld alerts us to an application filed by Apple for a patent titled "Run-time code injection to perform checks." In a nutshell, it covers an operating system periodically checking running applications to determine whether they're pirated, and shutting them down if they are. Now, it should be kept in mind that the fact that Apple has filed a patent application doesn't prove that it will be used (or that it will be granted). To the contrary, companies routinely patent ideas they never intend to implement just so they will have more ammunition in future patent battles. As Microsoft discovered, systems like the one described in the patent inevitably produce false positives, and disabling a paying customer's copy of your product is much worse than allowing a non-paying customer to use it. Moreover, such tools do little to stop piracy, because inevitably someone finds a way to get around them, and news of the workaround quickly spreads around the Internet. So as a result, these kinds of "anti-piracy" programs mostly serve to annoy paying customers, who have to endure slower system performance and periodic "piracy checks" to verify that, yes, they're still paying customers. Thus far, Apple has differentiated itself from Redmond by declining to incorporate significant copy protection in its operating systems. That's given them a key marketing advantage, and I rather doubt Jobs would want to throw that advantage away in a futile attempt to stop piracy.

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

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..