While some in the copyright community feel that things like the DMCA safe harbors are bad, it's worth watching what happens in situations where they don't exist. South Korea just changed its copyright law, such that sites that don't filter for copyrighted material can potentially be liable. So, what is the response? Google is now forbidding the uploading of any music files to avoid liability and possible shut down under the law (the law is a three strikes law that doesn't just apply to users, but to sites that the users use) (found via Techmeme). Lucas Gonze does a good job laying out the damage this causes:

The problem is not the freedom to use copyrighted content. I don't know of any such freedom. The problem is the right to play.

A guitar teacher will be unable to post lessons, and a guitar student will be unable to post homework. Two musicians working together at a distance will be unable to share unfinished multitracks. An unsigned classical quartet will be unable to post samples of their work. Only the tiny few who work on commercially published recordings will still be able to be heard, and even only the small proportion of their recordings that are completed commercial works will be heard.

Most musicians are amateurs with no financial interest in copyright. The proportion of amateurs to professionals is so overwhelming that the word "musician" is a synonym for "amateur." Whenever copyright is wielded on behalf of the professionals in a way that makes it harder for amateurs to make music, it is hurting musicians.

Oh, and don't forget, the entire reason why South Korea is suddenly putting in place draconian, self-damaging, protectionist, copyright policies is because the entertainment industry went on a huge lobbying campaign claiming that South Korea was a haven for piracy, and then had the US gov't include requirements for much more stringent copyright laws in a free trade agreement -- despite the fact it was about the opposite of free trade. The entire purpose wasn't free trade, but protectionism of the US entertainment industry. Soon after that passed, we noted that it would require shutting down any service that permitted unauthorized reproduction... and we're seeing the impact of that now.

South Korea has been a leader in internet technologies. It had real broadband (both wired and wireless) to nearly every home well before almost every other country. As such, it has a thriving internet industry... but it has also had a thriving entertainment industry made up of execs who embraced the internet. Folks like JY Park, who recognizes that selling music directly is the past, but by embracing that fact, is building a media empire. But, of course, the folks back in Hollywood don't want to compete and don't want to change... so they got the US gov't to force South Korea to put in place these ridiculous copyright laws that help them and harm pretty much everyone else.

The various record labels have pushed sites like MySpace to institute aggressive filters to try to stomp out the ability of people to upload others' music -- but as with any such filters, they seem to make mistakes that aren't easily fixed. Reader Ken Blake points us to the news that indie musician Emily Bezar had her account flagged as a copyright violator after she tried to upload five or six songs from her own self-produced CD. She's emailed MySpace's support email... and seems to have heard absolutely nothing back weeks later. But, no, overly aggressive copyright enforcement doesn't hurt anyone, right?

The blogger who uploaded the latest Guns N' Roses album, Chinese Democracy, and who was then arrested has apparently agreed to a plea bargain in the case. Prosecutors had already dropped the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the plea deal probably means he'll get off without too much punishment -- but the whole thing still seems fairly ridiculous. It's not at all clear why the FBI wasted taxpayer money chasing down a fan who simply helped promote the music. In the end, it seems like GNR basically got tax-payer funded promotion for its latest album, while causing significant stress in the life of the guy who was in the middle of all of this. What a joke.

For quite some time, YouTube has allowed copyright holders to "claim" videos that contain their content. Rather than demanding a takedown, these claims allow Google to place ads on the videos and share some of the revenue with the copyright holder. That seems a lot better than random takedowns, and in fact Google's program has been very successful. So it should come as no surprise that others, including MySpace and MTV are about to offer the same deal. What's unclear, though, is why some are claiming that this is revolutionary. Seeing as YouTube has been doing it for a year, it's difficult to see how there's much to get excited about here.

Last month we wrote about how the UK law firm Davenport Lyons had sued over 100 people for supposedly file sharing a silly pinball video game. As we noted, Davenport Lyons has been accused of some questionable practices, such as sending out threatening pre-settlement letters based on extremely faulty evidence from Logistep. Various other countries in Europe have sanctioned lawyers for relying on the same evidence that Davenport Lyons uses, and both Italy and Switzerland have said that Logistep's method of identifying file sharers is illegal -- but that hasn't stopped the firm from continuing its efforts.

And now it's announcing a victory. A woman that it sued has been fined about $30,000 for file sharing that same pinball game. Apparently, UK courts have no sense of making sure the punishment fits the crime. Everyone involved notes that the woman wasn't sharing the game for commercial purposes, but wanted a few friends to be able to play it as well. For that she now needs to pay $30,000?

Oddly, Davenport Lyons used this news to announce that it was suing 100 people for sharing this game... even though it had already announced that last month. Unfortunately, the reporter for the Daily Mail in the UK only takes Davenport Lyons' side of things. The report quotes a lawyer talking about all the evils and losses from file sharing, without any quotes from those who know those numbers are bogus -- and never once questioning why it's reasonable for someone sharing a simple cheap game with a few friends to be fined $30,000. The reporter mentions Logistep, but not the troubles it's faced in other countries (or the trouble lawyers who rely on its evidence have faced). It's time reporters stopped simply parroting this story, which is based on faulty premises, faulty numbers and faulty evidence.

The UK law firm Davenport Lyons has made a name for itself in being incredibly aggressive in threatening and suing anyone that it suspects of being involved in file sharing, no matter how flimsy the evidence it has. In face, Davenport Lyons relies on the increasingly questionable evidence provided by the firm Logistep, whose evidence is so shaky that the company has been found to have broken the law in both Italy and Switzerland. And, oh yeah, another lawyer who relied on questionable Logistep evidence has been banned from practicing law in France for six months, after the Paris Bar realized that this questionable "evidence" was being used more for extortion-like "pre-settlement" letters that demand money to avoid getting taken to court.

However, that's not stopping Davenport Lyons, who has found the business to be so lucrative that it wants more people it can threaten. It's now suing over 100 people it believes shared a pinball video game. Once again, you can rest assured that this has little to do with the actual legal merits of the case, and quite a lot to do with simply trying to frighten as many people as possible into paying up on those "pre-settlement" letters. For example, there are numerous misstatements made by Davenport Lyons, including the false claim that these lawsuits are about downloading, rather than uploading. In fact, all the lawsuits are about whether or not someone uploaded the game -- but the lawyer notes: "There is no difference between stealing a DVD from a high street retailer and downloading it from a peer-to-peer network."

Of course, the lawyer is also wrong there. There is a tremendous difference between stealing a DVD from a retailer and downloading it from a P2P network: most notably that in the first case, something is missing and in the second it is not. That doesn't mean it's not infringing, but the two things are quite different. The same lawyer goes on to claim that video games can't continue being made if there is widespread file sharing -- despite evidence from some video game companies that embracing file sharing as a way to gain attention does wonders.

Reality, though, doesn't keep the money coming in. Expect plenty more lawsuits from Davenport Lyons, as the company claims that a recent legal decisions means ISPs need to start handing over names of suspected file sharers so it can send out its nastygrams in short order.

Contrary to popular opinion (partly due to a misunderstanding press that will often repeat this myth), the various lawsuits regarding file sharing have never been about an individual downloading unauthorized copyright-covered works, but in uploading or sharing them. Amusingly, there are some legal experts who point out that a clear reading of copyright law in the US actually suggests that uploading is perfectly legal, while downloading may not be. Either way, the entertainment industry has focused on going after people for uploading (specifically: distributing) unauthorized materials. And that has resulted in an ongoing legal debate over the question of whether or not simply making something available is the equivalent of distribution under the law. There have been a few court rulings on either side of this question, but the trend seems to be leaning towards the fact that making available is not the equivalent of distributions. That would be a problem for the recording industry, as it would then need to prove actual unauthorized distribution, which could be quite difficult.

That said, in one case, it may be facing an even bigger uphill battle. That's because it charged someone with distributing/uploading content, despite the fact that he'd modded his file sharing software to not allow any uploads. It's difficult to see how they can get him for even "making available" given that he set up the software in a way to not actually make anything available at all. But, of course, given how much the entertainment industry relies on flimsy evidence, it's probably no surprise that it didn't even check to see if this guy was making any files available before charging him with doing so.