One of our biggest problems with the various "three strikes" or similar programs is the fact that they're all based entirely on accusations not convictions. You would think, in this day and age of bogus copyright claims, that people would realize why that might be a problem. Down in New Zealand, where they implemented a three strikes plan not too long ago, the local version of the RIAA (the RIANZ) has been pushing to bring "music pirates" to the copyright tribunal to pay for their supposed infringement. However, as expected, it's looking like all that's happening is the record labels are being left with egg on their face yet again.

That's because RIANZ had to hastily drop one of the cases after it became clear that the person they were accusing of file sharing... didn't even know what file sharing was. Nice job, record labels! There were multiple problems with the case:

The defendant was a student in a flatting situation and was the account holder for the flat's shared internet account. She has never used file sharing software and we had to explain to her what it was and how it worked. It seems likely that one of her flatmates had it installed.

The flat never received the first detection notice and they didn't really understand the second warning notice. She did show it to her flatmates and asked them to stop doing anything they were doing. They denied doing anything, so she checked to make sure that their wireless network was properly protected by a password in case they had been hacked. The third notice was a mess - addressed to the wrong person, Telecom eventually withdrew it and replaced it with another one.

Then came the notice from the Ministry of Justice that action was being taken against the account holder.

In other words, a complete disaster, top to bottom. And for this, the RIANZ demanded $2669.25 in penalties. How'd they get that number?

1. $1075.50 as the cost of the music.
2. $373.75 to repay the cost of the notices and tribunal fee.
3. $1250 as a deterrent.

The cost of the music was calculated as being five tracks (total number of notices) multiplied by the $2.39 cost of each track on the iTunes store. The observant may notice that this works out to $11.95 rather than $1075.50. RIANZ decided, based on some self-serving research, that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times and therefore the cost should be multipled by 90. There is no basis in the Copyright Act or Tribunal regulations for this claim.

While the student in question ended up cancelling the internet account for the entire flat -- making life difficult for everyone there -- she eventually worked with Tech Liberty New Zealand to defend her. After Tech Liberty highlighted the multiple problems with the case, RIANZ -- realizing that it had screwed up royally -- decided to just drop it.

It would be funny to look at how often they make accusations, only to walk away when they realize they're going to lose. That is, it would be funny if it didn't seriously mess with people's lives. You'd think, given how often false accusations are levied, that lawmakers would know better than to pass a law that allows for such actions to be taken based entirely on accusations without real evidence.

As Tech Liberty notes:

This case exemplifies just how unjust and unfair the law is.

If you are the account holder you will be responsible for the actions of anyone using the account. There is no way for non-technical people to monitor or control what their flatmates or other people sharing the internet connection are doing. Even IT professionals would struggle to do so with the normal tools available on a home network.

The provisions in the law allowing for an internet account to be cut off have been suspended for now. This was because it is becoming increasingly clear that an internet account is critical for engaging in modern society. However, the effect of this law was still the same - the defendant panicked at these allegations and cancelled her account, cutting off her entire flat from the internet.

The law is meant to act as a deterrent to infringing copyright, but the way it is written it is actually an incentive. "Just use a connection that doesn't have your name on the account and they'll be be the one who is penalised!" The only deterrent is to becoming an internet account holder.

If you're like me, you may have thought that France was simply a repository for cheese-eating surrender-monkeys. It turns out that's not true. They also have a wonderful court system that doesn't want to understand the digital world. That same French court system also managed to make a complete mockery of HADOPI, all while hysterically referring to their actions as "justice".

But French lawmakers now have a new target in their crosshairs: Google. Lawmakers are reportedly considering legislation that will force search engines to pay for sending French newspapers readers.

French newspaper publishers have been pushing for the law, saying it is unfair that Google receives advertising revenue from searches for news.

French Culture Minister Aurelie Filippetti also favours the idea.

This may be my favorite stance of all time. It's unfair that Google, a search engine, receives revenue on searches, i.e. their business, and it should instead go to news organizations that are not in the business of search but still receive the traffic. I am sure there's a word out there that properly describes the stupidity of this stance, but so far all the ones I'm coming up with involve the kind of language Mike keeps telling me I'm not allowed to use on Techdirt (which is [censored], by the way (oh, come on, really?)).

Google, because they don't exist in the same non-logic-ungrateful-verse, and after apparently spending some time reading our comments section and picking up on some suggestions there, is now letting France know that if they go through with the law, they'll simply exclude French media organizations from search results. In addition, in a letter to lawmakers, they added:

Google said such a law "would threaten its very existence".

Google France had said earlier that the plan "would be harmful to the internet, internet users and news websites that benefit from substantial traffic" that comes via Google's search engine. It said it redirected four billion clicks to French media pages each month.

Which leaves France with an interesting choice. Continue on with their proposed legislative silliness and forfeit all the traffic Google sends French newspapers via search results, or retreat from their position, thus proving my ignorant American stereotyping of them correct. Your move, France!

A few years ago, there was a ton of political grandstanding against Craigslist, because there was some prostitution on the site. As we noted at the time, it was pretty misguided. Craigslist cooperated with law enforcement and many law enforcement officials realized that Craigslist was an excellent tool to help them find and arrest law breakers. We pointed out that going after Craigslist instead of the actual law breakers would mean that the activity would just move somewhere else. Indeed, Craigslist finally caved to tons of public pressure and blocked any ad that might be related to prostitution... and it did nothing to stop prostitution or human trafficking. It just moved elsewhere. The same crowd that wrongfully targeted Craigslist then shifted all of their attention to Backpage.com. Even though the law has made it clear that Backpage, as a third party service provider is not liable, the grandstanding continues against Backpage. The whole thing has gotten to be so much, that Backpage's owners, Village Voice Media, have sold off the newspapers to separate them out from the site, and to avoid having the two properties connected.

The crusading against Backpage.com has become increasingly intense and increasingly misguided lately. We get press releases all the time, full of emotional, but legally false, language, all attacking Backpage.com. No one seems to even want to recognize that attacking Backpage instead of those actually responsible only makes it that much more difficult to track down the real criminals. Some law enforcement officials are not quite as misguided. As with Craigslist, we're seeing cases where Backpage.com is instrumental in putting together the case -- in this case, against someone who had set up a brothel.

And yet, the attacks on Backpage.com continue. The whole thing is stunning to me. Here's a tool that is a goldmine for the police to collect evidence against those actually responsible for prostitution and human trafficking... and the response is to try to shut it down and drive those efforts further underground, rather than actually going after and arresting those responsible. It's shocking.

We've written about judge Beryl Howell a few times before. She's the recently-appointed judge whose immediate job prior to that was as a lobbyist for the RIAA. Before that, she worked for the Judiciary Committee and was apparently a key player in drafting the DMCA. It seems pretty damn clear that she holds a strong viewpoint on the nature of copyright law and copyright infringement -- but that hasn't stopped her from taking those cases, even when her rulings appear to be exactly the opposite of nearly every other court. For example, while most courts have been throwing out copyright trolling lawsuits for improper joinder, Judge Howell had no problem with the practice and ordered various ISPs to cough up names based solely on IP addresses.

The ISPs asked her to reconsider back in April, noting how pretty much every other court has ruled otherwise. The specific case involves well known trolling firm, Prenda Law, which is connected to one of the larger jokes in the copyright trolling business: John Steele. Steele's lawsuits have been laughed out of court and he's even been told to stop filing these bogus lawsuits, where the clear purpose is to use the judicial system as a weapon to force people (innocent or guilty) to pay up.

But apparently copyright trolls have found a friend in Judge Howell, who not only is welcoming them with open arms, but seems to be using these trolling cases to further the goals of her former employer. She's released her decision on the motion to quash the subpoenas, and it's basically a 42-page screed on the evils of infringement and how ISPs should be responsible for stopping piracy (much of which has absolutely nothing to do with the case at all). The only nod towards the other side seems to be a weak acknowledgement that "the Court recognizes that other Judges on this Court have reached different conclusions with respect to the legal questions posed by the ISPs" and thus she's agreed to stay her decision until the appeals court weighs in.

But she makes sure to get her arguments in for the appeals court to read, and it certainly feels like she reverted back to "lobbyist" mode, rather than "impartial judge."

She kicks off the polemic with a grand history of the DMCA, and how the task force that was created to write the DMCA originally wanted to pin liability on ISPs for actions done by their users. And while she admits that eventually the DMCA did include such liability protection, it seems clear she would have preferred it the other way. She then highlights the important court decisions from a decade ago, against the RIAA and in favor of Verizon and Charter, that ruled that the RIAA could not demand ISPs identify users without actually filing a lawsuit against them first. This, of course, was a basic recognition of basic privacy rights, and the fact that if you are going to expose someone's private info, you ought to at least file a lawsuit against them first. But, in the world of Judge Howell, apparently this was a bad decision. She approvingly cites the dissent in one of the key cases, claiming this somehow "unraveled" the balance struck in the DMCA. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. That's a total rewrite of reality.

She also seems to suggest -- contrary to the very law she was just citing -- that ISPs have some sort of responsibility to "deter infringing activity."

Other than barebones references from two of the four movant ISPs that these subpoenas impose “a substantial administrative burden,” the ISPs fail to present any witness or other evidentiary detail to demonstrate a burden to the Court, let alone what steps the ISPs are or could be taking to deter infringing activity on their networks to reduce any burden subpoena compliance engenders.

This is a fascinating interpretation of the law. Basically, she says that if they're going to claim that copyright trolls are showing up with tens of thousands of IP addresses, demanding they all be identified, then that means they also have to show that they've taken "steps" to "deter infringing activity on their networks." In other words, if it's burdensome to the ISPs to identify users to copyright trolls, it's their own damn fault for failing to stop infringement. Seriously.

Oh, and then she flat out misrepresents the GAO's findings from a few years ago that found that all of the entertainment industry's claims about the impact of "piracy" were complete bunk. Yet, in the world of former RIAA lobbyist Judge Howell, the GAO actually came to the opposite conclusion:

The plaintiff’s estimates regarding the amount of online infringing activity and the economic harm resulting from such activity is corroborated by a recent government report. See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-10- 423, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: OBSERVATIONS ON EFFORTS TO QUANTIFY THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF COUNTERFEIT AND PIRATED GOODS 23-24 (2010) (estimating that U.S. economy annually loses $58 billion, over 370,000 jobs, and $2.6 billion in tax revenue as a result of copyright infringement over the Internet) (citing Stephen E. Siwek, THE TRUE COST OF COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY PIRACY TO THE U.S. ECONOMY, Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), IPI Center for Technology Freedom, Policy Report 189 (Oct. 2007)).

Uh, no. Go read what the GAO actually said. While the report does cite Siwek's widely discredited report of $58 billion in losses -- it does so only to say that Siwek did these studies and they claimed to show "ripple effects" beyond the immediate industry. However, most of the rest of the report highlights how those numbers, and others like them, cannot be substantiated and that most experts they spoke to found the methodology questionable. Furthermore, the report specifically calls out the reports that only try to calculate the negative impact, without even considering any possible positive impact, as being clearly misleading. That describe's Siwek's research exactly. Specifically, the GAO report noted:

Since there is an absence of data concerning these potential effects, the net effect cannot be determined with any certainty

In other words, sorry, but the Siwek claim of $58 billion is hogwash. And yet Judge Howell pretends that the GAO has blessed this number.

The ruling goes on to defend its position, but basically says that there is no burden on the ISPs and if there is one, it's their fault. It also says that there is no issue of improper joinder to consider until after everyone's identified (at which point it won't matter, since that's all the copyright trolls want, so they can then shift to demanding cash from them). The whole thing, once again, raises significant questions about why a judge who had such a vested stake in pushing for an extreme maximalist view of copyright now gets to judge cases where key decisions are made about the interpretation of copyright law.

Techdirt has dealt a great deal with how artists and companies should be connecting with their fans and customers and how an active community can increase the brand. We've also discussed the value of comments and commentors on websites and what they can mean for discussion and for business. But now, thanks to an Australian advertising watch group, we're presented with a question that intersects between the two: should a business community's comments be considered advertising?

The Australian details the story of how the Advertising Standards Bureau is releasing a report attacking Carlton & United Breweries over comments users posted to their Facebook pages. Like many companies, they have a presence on social media with which they engage their customers and ask deep, contemplating questions like "What's the next essential needed for a great Australia Day BBQ?" Personally, I would've answered with something involving marsupial-racing, but, in a turn of events nobody except everybody could have predicted, some user comments were what expert socialogists call "dick-ish." The ASB decided that these abhorrent comments qualified as the brewery's advertising:

"In a copy of the report obtained by Media, the ASB said comments left by people on the social network site constituted advertising, even though the company had not posted them.

The complaint to the ASB claimed that the Facebook page breached alcohol advertising guidelines by connecting alcohol with social or sexual prowess and promoted irresponsible drinking and excessive consumption."

Perhaps the folks at the ASB had had one too many Foster's, because in my dictionary the definition of advertising involves the company calling attention to a product or service in the hopes of gaining more customers. I'm not sure how user comments on a Facebook page fit that definition, but then again, I'm not insane. It'd be bad enough if this was some regular occurrence left completely unchecked by the brewery, but all along they had been checking the page twice a day to remove inappropriate comments. They were already self-policing, but the ASB still felt compelled to assign ownership of user comments to the brewery.

The concern, of course, is the way this is going to stifle brands jumping into social media. As we've discussed here many times in the past, the basic safe harbor protections from secondary liability are a large part of what makes the internet work. If the brewery is responsible for user comments to the degree that the ASB seems to be indicating, the liability and staff required to monitor comments won't be worth the exposure, and brands and fans alike will lose a valuable way to connect with one another.

""It would be unduly onerous on alcohol beverage producers and indeed any company participating in this medium to interpret the code as including user comments on Facebook pages as falling within the scope of 'advertising or marketing communications', since CUB does not have a reasonable degree of control over them," the company said."

And that results in the very antithesis of connecting with your fans/customers. Overly restrictive advertising regulations like this can only stifle business, all in the apparent attempt to pretend that some people aren't jerks. Let's hope that the ASB's report is struck down.

Back in June, we wrote about a challenge -- from both the Village Voice's Backpage.com and the Internet Archive to a new law in Washington State, SB 6251, that effectively criminalized online service providers based on actions by their users. We've long talked about the problems of such secondary liability efforts, and thankfully the US has section 230 of the CDA that forbids most such efforts to apply secondary liability. And, indeed, the court has now granted a preliminary injunction against the law, citing the Section 230 issues, among other things. Basically, the court sides with Backpage and the Internet Archive on every issue here, finding the state's reasoning in support of the law to be weak.

There are some important points in this ruling. First up, the court said that Section 230 applied, even though this was about a criminal law issue, rather than a civil law issue. Many (even Section 230 supporters) have argued that Section 230 only applies to civil law. The court notes that the law says it doesn't apply to federal criminal laws, but says nothing about state laws. And, as such, CDA 230 should be seen to apply to state laws, even if they're criminal:

If Congress did not want the CDA to apply in state criminal actions, it would have said so.

So, the law is already on shaky legs due to it being knocked out by Section 230. However, the court goes further to focus on how the bill violates the First Amendment as well, targeting the suppression of speech. It's a pretty detailed explanation for how laws that target speech, rather than action, have a much higher bar, and this bill does not appear to meet that higher bar. Most importantly, the court recognizes that any laws targeting speech can have severe chilling effects, even on legal speech, and that's unacceptable under the First Amendment:

The most problematic aspect of SB 6251 is not the protected speech that it regulates by its terms, but the likelihood that it will chill a substantial amount of protected speech in addition to the unprotected speech that Defendants argue the statute was meant to address

The court even notes that it could create chilling effects and potentially criminalize sites like Facebook and Twitter as well. While the state denied this possibility, the judge points out that it's entirely possible to read the law in that way, and that alone could create chilling effects from companies trying to avoid criminal liability. Finally, the court notes that the law also almost certainly violates the Commerce Clause, because it would regulate companies located entirely outside of Washington State.

In other words, the state is on very thin ice here, as the court isn't buying any of its arguments for why the statute is legal. At this point in the case, the discussion is just over whether or not an injunction is granted to block the enforcement of the law -- and that's now done. There's still much more to come in the case, but the law doesn't look likely to survive at this point, and that's a good thing. There are some real issues that the law seeks to take on (mainly dealing with prostitution and child porn), but it does so in such a broad way and with the wrong tool: criminalizing service providers. It's good that the courts are recognizing how this law is massively overbroad.

A few weeks back, we wrote about a lawsuit involving porn company Liberty Media, once again trying to make a negligence claim against the operator of a WiFi network, because someone else had downloaded infringing content on that network (and, in this case, apparently the owner of the network was aware of this). As we noted, the EFF was troubled by this line of reasoning and filed an amicus brief arguing that the negligence theory would set a dangerous precedent. The court has now ruled and rejected the negligence theory as "untenable."

The right that Liberty seeks to vindicate by its state law negligence claim – the imposition of liability on one who knowingly contributes to a direct infringement by another – already is protected by the Copyright Act under the doctrine of contributory infringement.

Liberty nevertheless argues that its negligence claim asserted here is not preempted because, as the Court understands the argument, the negligence claim rests on infringement by others whereas the Copyright Act provides a remedy only against a direct infringer. In light of the preceding discussion and the doctrine of contributory infringement – which Liberty’s memorandum ignores entirely – that position is untenable.

The court dismissed the entire complaint, but more on a technicality (the work named does not match the registered copyright). But it certainly appears from this ruling that the negligence claim (and others like it) are dead issues. Someone could, conceivably be sued for contributory infringement for how they run the network (if they actively participate), but negligence? Nope.

Over a year ago, we wrote about an attempt by a porn company, Liberty Media, to sue a bunch of people it accused of infringing on its copyright. The case had many similarities to copyright trolling lawsuits, but there was one claim in particular that we found quite troubling: the idea that not securing your WiFi was a form of negligence. The lawyer representing Liberty, Marc Randazza, is someone I know and like, and who I normally find on the good side of lots of cases (and, in fact, I've sent people his way when they've been looking for good lawyers). When news came out that someone had "settled" with the company and the vast majority of the amount the person agreed to pay was for that "negligence," we found it quite problematic and told Randazza we were planning to write about it. In response, he sent a long email to both me and Torrentfreak -- which they published as a guest opinion -- defending why an open WiFi qualifies as negligence. I wrote back a response as to why I thought he was completely wrong on this one.

And, now, a court may be deciding the same thing. The EFF has filed an amicus brief in what I believe is a related case arguing that this theory of negligence is ridiculous (Update: Randazza informs me that he's not counsel on this particular case and says that the negligence claim here is quite different and, contrary to the EFF's claim has nothing to do with open WiFi. Instead, the negligence theory put forth focused more on the fact that the guy being sued was aware of infringement on his WiFi and still allowed the user to use it -- more on that below). Here's just a snippet from the lawsuit:

LMH’s theory of liability cannot withstand even passing scrutiny. No matter how artfully pled, LMH’s claim sounds in, and is preempted by, copyright law. And as decades of copyright jurisprudence and legislation make clear, that body of law does not recognize a cause of action based on mere negligence. Accordingly, no court has ever found, or could ever find, that anyone has violated copyright law simply because another user of his or her Internet connection did so.

And that is a good thing. Every day cafes, airports, libraries, laundromats, schools and individuals operate “open” Wi-Fi routers, sharing their connection with neighbors and passers-by at no charge. Sometimes people use those connections for bad acts. Most of the time they don’t, and the world gets a valuable public service of simple, ubiquitous Internet access.

Creating a duty under tort law to prevent others from infringing copyright would drastically inhibit this activity, to the detriment of the general public and clear federal copyright and telecommunications policies promoting convenient, universal access to the Internet. Thus, manufacturing a new copyright cause of action based on negligence – which, make no mistake, is precisely what LMH asks the Court to do – would “stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

It would be nice to have a clear statement from the court on this matter, clarifying that merely having open WiFi -- as thousands upon thousands of individuals and businesses do -- is not a sign of "negligence" that automatically makes you liable for any infringement done on those networks.

Update: As I put in the update above, there is some argument over whether or not the case is even about open WiFi, but I think that the EFF's point still stands and fits the facts of the case. Even if we're talking about a situation in which a WiFi network owner knew someone was infringing on their WiFi, it is still a huge stretch to argue negligence on their behalf for allowing the usage of the network to continue, and that negligence claim could carry over to the question of open WiFi. As the EFF notes in its filing, using negligence as a theory related to copyright creates an entirely new theory of copyright liability not seen in the statute and with a significantly lower bar than existing theories of secondary liability in copyright. Thus, expanding negligence to cover liability in a copyright claim could have a massive impact beyond just the individuals in this case.

For years, we've talked about the importance of Section 230 in properly applying liability directed at the actual people who break laws, rather than the tools and services they use. Unfortunately, some people fail to make a distinction and love to blame service providers. And... once it gets into areas that make people react emotionally, things get ridiculous. For example, we've written a few times about the misguided attacks on Backpage.com, which only came about because of similar misguided attacks on Craigslist. At issue was that both sites had been used for prostitution and sex trafficking. But, rather than do the sensible thing and work with those platforms -- who both have programs to do exactly this -- to make it easier for law enforcement to find and prosecute those involved in such efforts, grandstanding politicians and activists blamed the service providers, driving the actual activities further underground. Of course, they have never had any real legal argument, and the lawsuits have fallen flat.

However, it appears that some politicians in Washington State decided to pass a state law (SB 6251) which targets service providers. It's one of those laws that it's easy for politicians to get behind without realizing what they're actually doing. They think they're "protecting the children" but they're actually making the problem significantly worse. That's because they're not setting up a better way to track down and stop those actually responsible, but rather are simply telling them to move further underground, where it will be even harder to stop them.

And, of course, in their zeal to "protect the children" the politicians who passed this bill wrote it so broadly that it can create massive problems for tons of legitimate online service providers. The Internet Archive, represented by the EFF, has filed to join a lawsuit (from Backpage) against the law, pointing out that it clearly violates Section 230 of the CDA, which providers the necessary safe harbors for service providers. The overreach of the Washington law is pretty astounding:

SB 6251 would effectively coerce, by threat of felony prosecution, online service providers to become censors of third-party users' content by threatening five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine per violation against anyone who knowingly publishes, disseminates or displays or anyone who “indirectly” “causes” the publication, dissemination, or display of content that contains an explicit or even “implicit” offer of any sexual contact for “something of value” in Washington if the content includes an image that turns out to be of a minor. Because of its expansive language (i.e., “indirectly” “causes”), the law could be applied not only to online classified ad services like Backpage.com but also to any web site that provides access to third-party content, including user comments, reviews, chats, and discussion forums, and to social networking sites, search engines, Internet service providers, and more. A law that takes such an overbroad approach is of serious concern to the Internet Archive, which aims to serve as a library for the Internet, and accordingly, houses more than 150 billion web pages archived since 1996.

The law expressly states that it is not a defense that the defendant did not know that the image was of a minor. Instead, to avoid prosecution, the defendant must obtain governmental or educational identification for the person(s) depicted in the post (notably, even if that ID does not contain a photograph). This means that service providers – no matter where headquartered or operated – may be asked to review each and every piece of third-party content accessible through their services to determine whether the content is an “implicit” ad for a commercial sex act in Washington, whether it includes a depiction of a person, and, if so, obtain and maintain a record of the person’s ID. These obligations would severely impede the practice of hosting third-party content online.

I'm sure the folks behind this law had the best of intentions. Sex trafficking of underage persons is a very real and horrific problem (even if the numbers bandied about are massively exaggerated). But the real solution is to go after the actual perpetrators, and that means working with service providers to help track them down -- not criminalizing the service providers in a way that kills off lots of legitimate activity as well.

Back in 2009, we wrote about how anti-piracy organization FACT worked closely with UK law enforcement to have the guy who operated Filesoup arrested. At the time, we noted that it wasn't at all clear what he was doing that was illegal, as the site was merely a forum. Though some people did, in fact, use that forum for the sake of infringement, that shouldn't implicate the forum host. And, in fact, after about a year and a half, the courts dropped the case, realizing that the arguments the industry kept feeding law enforcement didn't add up to anything illegal. The court noted that the charges never should have been brought in the first place. Of course, that's small comfort to the folks who ran the site and had to go through this ordeal. The site has announced that it's shutting down, and the arrests and lawsuits were a big part of what killed it.