When we talk about alternative business models for music, one that always is discussed is live performances. Like it or not, this is a very big (and growing at a rapid rate) part of the market. We've never argued that live performance is the only alternative business model (though some pretend we've said that), but it's hard to deny that it is an area of opportunity for many artists. Now, many people -- quite rightly -- point out that the aggregate data on touring doesn't tell the whole story. Big acts with massive tours can take in lots and lots of money, while it can be quite difficult for acts that don't have that level of support. We've heard the story plenty of times of bands going on tour in a crappy old van, only to show up in places and play for 5 people who don't care, having spent much more on gas to get to the venue than they make from the door. This absolutely happens. And it sucks for bands. But there's no reason that needs to happen.

We've talked about alternative ways of touring, and even how artists like Jonathan Coulton used tools like Eventful to have fans prove there was enough demand at a location before he'd perform there. We've also talked about how there were a growing number of tools that can make touring/live efforts more effective and less likely to lose money. And one of those tools is Songkick, which already helps alert people to concerts they may be interested in, with evidence that services like that, alone, help drive more people to shows. But now Songkick is expanding even more, with a new effort called Detour -- which has some similarities with Eventful. Songkick talks about how they were able to "crowdfund" getting musician Tycho from his home in San Francisco to London for the first time to perform, by gathering up a ton of his fans to prove that there was demand.

Tycho's manager had been worried about doing any sort of European tour, because it's expensive to get there, and if the fanbase wasn't there, you're making a huge bet. Enter Songkick Detour:

We chatted to Tycho and his team and it seemed like they’d need to sell a few hundred tickets to make it feasible to come to London, so we created a simple website, Detour to allow Tycho fans to pledge. What happened next was pretty insane! We emailed the fans on Songkick who were tracking Tycho, and over 100 of them pledged money for a ticket. Gideon was pretty thrilled to see how many other people shared his passion for Tycho. But 100 or so wasn’t enough to get the show confirmed so the Songkickers took it into their own hands & started to contact friends and music fans who were either into Tycho or should be! Within a short while we hit our target and the gig was on! Wow.

Boom. But it didn't end there. As Ian Hogarth notes in the post, because the show was crowdfunded, it also changed the nature of it. Just as we've seen with other crowdfunding efforts, it gives supporters some sort of effective feeling of ownership and thus making the event successful isn't just about going to a cool show, but about really being a part of a success story. And that can take things to another level:

To be honest at that point I didn’t think things could get much cooler. To see fans rise up to help their favourite artist go and tour in a new country was overwhelming. The sense of community and excitement was really special. But then I went to the concert itself and realised the real power of this concept. Everyone at that show was there because they made the gig happen and the atmosphere reflected that. It was beyond intimate and the connection between the band and the fans that started online carried into the gig itself. One of the fans that came made this lovely video of the show and you can get a feel for how special the atmosphere was. Tycho was so appreciative of the fans that made it happen, and brought over some beautiful signed posters for the event which he gave to some of the first fans who pledged.

No one has ever claimed that there's a magic bullet for success in the music business (or any business). But the status quo does not need to be the way things stay. There are all sorts of opportunities to make live music better, more efficient and more enjoyable for everyone. And it seems like this little effort from Songkick is a nice step in that direction.

Creating artificial diamonds could lead to some really interesting semiconductor materials -- or even some insanely hard touchscreen displays (no more scratches!). Fortunately, synthesizing diamond-like materials is getting cheaper and easier, but at the same time, we've also discovered significantly large diamond deposits. But will diamonds still be included in engagement rings when the market prices plummet? Aluminum used to be the most expensive metal in the world... but it's no longer as highly regarded as it once was. Here are just a few links on one of our favorite allotropes of carbon.

• Forget OxiClean. The "power of diamonds" can help clean away tough stains in every laundry load. Nanodiamond particles in laundry detergents can dislodge dirt from fabrics without using hot water -- saving energy and adding some sparkle. [url]
• There's a recently de-classified deposit of impact diamonds in Russia -- and it's so big that it's estimated that this resource could serve the world's diamond needs for 3,000 years. These impact diamonds are twice as hard as traditional gemstones because they're formed when a carbon-rich meteor collides with the earth and the resulting explosion creates this unique material. [url]
• Diamonds aren't as rare as most people think they are -- if you're willing (or able) to travel a few thousand light years, you can find a whole planet made of diamond. A carbon-rich planet that is probably crystalline (and hence diamond-like) orbits the pulsar J1719-1438, and it's the most dense planet seen so far. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Just as the Justice Department is celebrating its "success" in the Megaupload case, a court was rejecting one of the DOJ's more ridiculous arguments in an offshoot case, involving Megaupload user Kyle Goodwin, who just wants his data back, but can't get it because the DOJ shot first and doesn't want to answer any questions later in court. The DOJ has been trying to deny Goodwin his day in court against them, attempting to say that Goodwin should sue Megaupload itself or the hosting company Carpathia, rather than the US government, who actually took down the site.

The court, however, isn't buying it, and has said that a full hearing will be held. This doesn't necessarily mean that Goodwin will win in the end, but it's definitely a step in the right direction -- and represents yet another failure to add to the long list of failures in the DOJ's supposed "success" story.

During the revolutions in the Arab World since December 2010, standing government's fates were determined partly by the ability of their people to communicate via online tools and mobile phones. Whenever an uprising started in a new territory, dictators and government officials scrambled to halt the ability for protestors to communicate in many different ways. Other governments looked on fearfully at how their colleagues were coping or failing to address the challenge posed by the internet, hoping to maybe learn a best-practice or two in digital repression.

The US Government and European Union were quick to respond with all sorts of plans to help the people fighting for reform. In speech after speech, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced large funds to be made available for online dissidents, resulting in projects such as the Digital Defenders Partnership. The EU responded with its own plan: a No Disconnect Strategy. Both approaches share the idea of supplying activists and bloggers with the tools to circumvent repression by governments. Another common feature is to engage US and EU companies to support the internet freedom efforts and to discourage the sale of surveillance technology to foreign villains. These initiatives may well end up in a cat-and-mouse game, though, where equipment or code developed to increase online freedom of dissidents only prompts cornered governments to react in more aggressive ways to silence dissent.

Unfortunately, these well-meant efforts are viewed skeptically (and with little credibility) by many, considering that efforts against Wikileaks continue to intensify, people are increasingly under threat of being disconnected, citizens are being illegally arrested and more and more public funds are being spent on such unreasonable restraints at home.

To get an overview of these developments in the world, it is worth reading the recent Freedom On The Net 2012 report by Freedom House, a watchdog dedicated to freedom and democracy in the world. The report studies the reactions of 47 nations to challenges posed by the internet and is written by more than 50 researchers, based in the countries that were analyzed. It has been reported widely that – out of these countries – Estonia and the US score the best in the internet freedom rankings.

On the flipside, though, the researchers spotted some alarming trends beyond mere blocking of information, hacking into email accounts or wiretapping communications, which the US and EU initiatives are designed to overcome. For example:

This year’s findings indicate that restrictions on internet freedom in many countries have continued to grow, though the methods of control are slowly evolving and becoming less visible.

While still naming and shaming countries that block and filter information to limit free expression (we’re looking at you, Bahrain, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Syria, Thailand, and Uzbekistan), the report outlines several the following worrying trends:

1. Criminalizing undesirable speech with new laws and subsequent arrests of internet users are popular old school ways of cracking down on those who cause a threat to your power. Especially when the competences gained by new cyber security laws are used against citizens, dissidents can be found more easily and can be detained as terrorists. The report highlights some terrible individual cases, such as:

A Pakistani man was sentenced to death in 2011 for sending an allegedly blasphemous text message via his mobile phone.

A 61-year-old man (in Thailand, red.) was sentenced to 20 years in prison after he allegedly sent four mobile phone text messages that were deemed to have insulted the monarchy; several months into his sentence he died in prison due to illness.

Online services hosting user-generated content are also under increased pressure in these countries. Where the US and EU exempt intermediaries for the speech of their users (see the failed attempts of the US government asking Google to remove the Innocence of Muslims clip), repressive countries simply place the burden of liability on internet companies. Of course, risk averseness ensues and companies are policing their own networks, deleting anything that may be considered undesirable to the dictator. Control by fear at its finest.

2. Propaganda and information manipulation are still alive and well in 2012. Of the countries analyzed in the report, a staggering 14 employ thousands of professional internet commentators to manipulate online discussions. We've covered some of China's efforts. Cuba alone employs 1,000 bloggers. Some more mind blowing examples from the report:

China’s paid pro-government commentators, known informally as the “50 Cent Party,” are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands, while an Iranian official claimed in mid-2011 that 40 companies had received over $56 million to produce pro-government digital content.

3. Instead of digitally blocking information, 19 of the surveyed countries engaged in physical attacks on those who publish undesirable information. Journalists have had to deal with intimidation and aggression since the dawn of their profession. However, Freedom House reports a new trend:

In a newly emerging phenomenon, bloggers and citizen journalists in a number of countries were specifically targeted by security forces while reporting from the field during periods of unrest or armed conflict. In Kazakhstan, a blogger was reportedly assaulted by police who held a pistol to his head after he uploaded video footage to YouTube that showed local residents protesting a government crackdown.

Of course, this is no different from targeting film crews who report from the field. However, it now seems that whipping out your smartphone during periods of unrest may cause security forces to hold a gun against your head.

4. Surveillance has been constantly increasing over the last two years. The report states:

In the more repressive and technically sophisticated environments, authorities engage in bulk monitoring of information flows, often through a centralized point. Intelligence agencies then gain direct access to users’ communications across a range of platforms—mobile phone conversations, text messages, e-mail, browsing history, Voice over IP discussions, instant messaging, and others. [...] In Belarus, Bahrain, Ethiopia, and elsewhere, activists found that their e-mails, text messages, or Skype communications were presented to them during interrogations or used as evidence in politicized trials.

The current US and EU initiatives to promote freedom on the internet seem capable of limiting the effects of surveillance. This could possibly also reduce the number of dissidents who are criminalized for their speech online, as they are more difficult to trace. However, there is little the West can do to stop dictators from classifying undesirable speech as illegal information and introducing harsh criminal sanctions. This is even more true when the West is setting the wrong example by advocating policies such as SOPA/PIPA and ACTA, where far reaching information control was proposed. Admittedly, the type of information targeted is of a different nature, but employing certain technologies to control information gives their use credibility in the information society.

Some of the US and EU projects are only just getting started, but the first steps, strong rhetoric and intention may also play an important role to undermine dictators' ambitions for information control. Care should be taken, however, that the well meant initiatives do not result in increased physical aggression towards anyone capable of organizing or reporting on uprisings. A cornered foe will fight to the death, so efforts supporting internet freedom should also be combined with diplomacy at the government level and finding a way together. Member of the European Parliament (and my former boss), Marietje Schaake, has drafted a call for a full Digital Freedom Strategy in the EU Foreign Policy, which addresses these issues in detail. Much still needs to be done and understood to ensure next year’s report doesn’t announce further innovations in unnoticeable surveillance and more aggression towards bloggers.

See the update at the end

We've already written about how WIPO caved to US pressure (along with a few other countries) in delaying a decision on whether or not the Pirate Parties International group can act as an observer at WIPO meetings. However, in the KEI report that revealed that decision, there was also a separate story worth highlighting as well: the news that the US is pushing for WIPO to hold an intellectual property maximalist day, but has no interest in hearing what public interest groups have to say.

In another development, the US said it is asked that WIPO set aside a regular day for corporate right holder groups. One member of the US delegate said they wanted a "Davos type" format, with CEOs of leading companies interacting with government delegates and WIPO officials. When asked, have you proposed similar event for consumer, public health and development groups, the answer was no. The US said its proposal at WIPO for the right-holders day had a lot of support. It also comes at the same time that the pharmaceutical and processed food industries are seeking more direct roles in the governance of the World Health Organization (WHO), under a "WIPO Reform" negotiation.

This is, of course, not particularly surprising, though it is troubling. Considering, again, that we're told that the purpose of these laws is to benefit the public, even as these companies often pretend it's really just about benefiting them, it would seem that any such event should have a very high level of participation by the public itself, including various public interest groups.

Update: Some good additional info from Nick Ashton-Hart who was in the room when this was proposed, and who says that it's not as bad as the original report suggested. Instead, he points out that the request did not come from industry sources, and isn't about big rightsholders, but about actually getting real innovators and inventors to come and tell WIPO officials what they do -- which could actually be useful. I'm still concerned about how this would be set up in reality, but perhaps it's not as bad as it sounded from the original report.

About a year ago, the Philippines pushed through a completely unneeded anti-counterfeiting bill at the behest of the WIPO (itself working at the behest of the US government). Despite the evidence that counterfeiting isn't a big problem, the bill was pushed through and defended with a bit of doublespeak by the Philippines IP office, who claimed that the bill had nothing to do with various corporate interests applying pressure... except for the ones that have "lost a lot of profits due to piracy." To quote Glyn Moody: "Indeed." [Wryly raised eyebrow emoticon]

The Filipino government has now moved past that, enacting a so-called Cybercrime Prevention Act that goes well beyond dealing with hackers and fraudsters. As Mike pointed out earlier, the new law contained some very broad wording that outlawed "cybersex," subjecting violators to some very harsh punishments (up to six years in jail and fines up to $25,000). That, in and of itself, would be worrying. But the law goes even further, recasting former civil offenses as criminal acts. As Patrick Villavicencio at InterAksyon points out, the legislation bears a lot of resemblance to the failed SOPA/PIPA bills, aiming at taking down filesharing rather than protecting citizens from online attacks.

“What SOPA and PIPA aimed to do, the Cybercrime Law has done,” Acero said, referring to the objective of the two bills to curb the rampant sharing and downloading of movie and music content online, as lobbied by firms in Hollywood.

Under Section 6 of the law, all crimes “defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws” can be punishable under the Act if they are committed with, using, and through a computer system.

Among the country’s special laws, the Intellectual Property Code penalizes, among others, illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted content.
University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini, meanwhile, said that because of Section 6, the law essentially made all crimes a form of cybercrime when committed through a computer or Internet system.

Rather than infringement being a civil issue or a minor crime at best, the additional wording drags this activity under the heading "cybercrime," allowing law enforcement to collect real-time traffic data on filesharers. It also contains a "takedown clause" which gives the Department of Justice "sweeping powers to issue a block or restrict order against websites." This puts the power in the hands of content producers, allowing them to have a site blocked or taken down simply by filing a request with the DOJ. One needs only look at the average legacy industry "rogue site" list to see how this provision could result in the muting of several legitimate sites.

Beyond this aspect lay some very disturbing new limits on speech. GMA News has a wrap-up of ten of the most chilling new limitations on expression, most of which stem from some very generous additions to libel laws.

Your tweet about the barangay captain who loves San Miguel more than his job? That could be classified as libel, which is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person..." Take note of the part where it says "real or imaginary." You're damned if you're lying and you're damned if you're telling the truth.

That's just a small part of it. People can no longer "blacken the memory of one who is dead," no matter how terrible a person they were. It also does away with the requirement of criminal intent for cybercrimes. Instead, simply performing anything defined as a criminal act, no matter your intentions, could get you arrested.

Then there's this bit of nastiness:

In an InterAksyon.com article written by Patrick Villavicencio, University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini said that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the so-called "victims" and their lawyers "could argue in court that old libelous posts [that are] still live today can be charged with online libel." The report further quoted Disini, who explained, "Kasi pwede nilang sabihin na (Because it could mean) by keeping it there today, you’re still publishing it now. So if you’re still publishing it after the law took effect, then you’re liable for its publication today."

There's nothing like having previously legal activity "grandfathered in" by new laws. Not only will Filipinos need to be very careful what they say going forward, they're also going to take a long look at anything they've said in the past. Not only that, but they're going to need to be very careful with their responses to anything others say that veers towards libel.

Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully encouraging the spread of libelous content shall be charged for abetting libel. That means the act of clicking the "Like" button of Facebook or retweeting posts on Twitter may be tagged as unlawful as well.

What else? "Ironic, suggestive or metaphorical language" can be considered libelous. And the penalties are incredibly harsh. Online libel can be punished with a prison term of 12 years and a ₱1,000,000 fine, far harsher than the penalties for offline libel.

Between the free speech limitations and the sweeping powers being granted to content creators and law enforcement, the new law is bad news all around. The DOJ will be meeting with stakeholders in October to ensure that the IRR (implementation of rules and regulations) "will not stifle basic human rights, not the least of which is internet users' freedom of speech and expression."

Well, we'll see how that goes. Most "stakeholder" meetings seem to be long on listening to concerns but short on actually addressing them.

Nearly six years ago, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Nick Carr's suggestion that Web 2.0 was all about "digital sharecropping", in which online service providers are somehow "exploiting" users to take the fruits of their labors. I would hope that, with six years of hindsight, people would still remember what a completely nonsensical argument this is -- based as it is on the economically clueless suggestion that the only possible benefit someone could get from using an online service is money. Of course that's not true. The reason that so many people use something like YouTube isn't because they're being exploited, but because it enables something wonderful and powerful for free. Prior to YouTube, if you wanted to put up a video, you had to install complex or expensive server software, pay a ton for bandwidth... oh yeah, and hope that whoever wanted to watch the video had the proper software to view it. YouTube took all of that away, and made it all free (and even added easy ways to monetize it). If that's exploitation, sign me up to be exploited. Similarly, look at a platform like Twitter, which has enabled amazingly powerful real time communications that has connected me with people worldwide in ways never before possible. That's not exploitation. It's called providing something of value.

So it's a shame to see the IEEE basically rehash Carr's silly argument as if it were still relevant, setting up a strawman about how "Web 2.0" (really, is anyone still using that term?) was all about empowerment, but the reality is that (*gasp*) there are companies involved. And some of them... (wait for it...) make money!

But the road to Utopia all too often ends up detouring through the business district, and Web 2.0 has been no exception. By offering the means of production free to their users, other leviathan sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, have generated enormous amounts of content at almost no expense. Even better, this content is a gold mine for targeted advertising.

Over in Utopia, the “workers” who generated all those articles, photos, tweets, and videos would get a cut of the profits they helped to generate. In the business district, however, users retain their amateur status, while the companies they labor for rake in billions. Worse, contributors don’t even own the content they create. The smallest of the small print in the terms of use, which you must agree to in order to get an account, states that the company can use your content as it sees fit.

Beyond the fact that this is a common misreading of the terms of service of most of the sites he's talking about (which merely request a license to make sure that their hosting of the content you put up is legit), author Paul McFedries completely ignores the tremendous value that people get for using those platforms... almost all of which is given out for free. While economic value is often measured in dollar terms, that doesn't mean that people don't get value if actual dollars aren't exchanged. The people using these platforms aren't being exploited -- they use them because they really, really value them.

Anthony De Rosa, a product manager at Reuters, calls this digital feudalism and laments that we “are being played for suckers to feed the beast, to create content that ends up creating value for others.”

And this is equally misguided. All sorts of things people do create value for others. Almost no economic activity is entirely contained so that only the person doing the initial activity retains 100% of the benefits. Concepts like externalities and spillovers exist in economics for a very good reason -- and part of the problem is people who don't understand that creating excess value that benefits others is actually a core reason we have economic growth in the first place. Creating value for others is of tremendous economic value. The problem is that people ignore the fact that those doing the creating are getting back more than enough value directly or they wouldn't be doing the activity in the first place.

It's a shame that we're still having these discussions today, after we've had many more years of experience with all of these valuable services to recognize that it's not exploitation to get a tremendously useful service for free, while also increasing value for others. It's actually how we innovate and grow the economy itself.

As we've been covering for years, there has been a series of legal issues going on around Google's efforts to scan books and make them indexable/searchable. It appears that one of the earliest legal efforts against Google, from the Association of American Publishers (AAP), over the "Google Library" projects has now been settled:

The settlement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders. US publishers can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project. Those deciding not to remove their works will have the option to receive a digital copy for their use.

Apart from the settlement, US publishers can continue to make individual agreements with Google for use of their other digitally-scanned works.

This is not a repeat of the very different and problematic original Google Books settlement that was rejected -- as that tried to create a much larger "deal" that went way beyond what the case covered. This time around, the settlement doesn't require court approval, because it doesn't go beyond the specific parties in the lawsuit. While this lawsuit went on for seven years, this settlement more or less seems to be a suggestion that (a) publishers have finally realized that having Google scan all their books and make them easier to find is actually good for them and (b) the few publishers who are still unable to grasp this are still allowed to shoot themselves in the foot and opt-out of the project. Of course, this isn't any different than what Google was offering publishers all along. Basically, this settlement is AAP admitting that the entire lawsuit was a waste of time and money.

While it may have been interesting to have seen how the court would have ruled in this case, on the whole this settlement makes sense for both parties -- just as Google's original offer to publishers did. It lets the project move forward seriously, and the few clueless publishers who don't get it can (still) take themselves out of one of the best tools for finding their books, proving why they're bad at modern publishing. When your opponent in a lawsuit agrees to settle it in a way that lets you do basically everything you've wanted to do from the beginning, and the only condition is that clueless plaintiffs can hurt themselves... you pretty much have to agree to it. The only amazing thing is that it took the AAP seven years of litigation to effectively admit that they're fine with what Google offered them from the start.

As could probably be expected after its quick trip through the Congress, Panama's 510 Bill became law last Friday, granting its Copyright Office unprecedented power to pursue filesharers directly. But this is only one of several problems with the 510 Bill. The bill goes further than any US law, extending copyright protection to buffer copies and content stored in cache.

Transient copies, such as buffer copies on a computer’s random access memory (RAM), are necessary for a host of streaming services that carry content over the internet to end users. Recognizing a right to exclude such copies, in addition to the ultimate right to distribute the content itself, adds another layer of licensing requirements that can block innovative services (like Netflix or Pandora) from being offered. Many other trade agreements and national and regional laws contain explicit exceptions for “transient” or “incidental” copies necessary for technological or other communications. But the Panama Free Trade Agreement contains nothing of the kind, and neither does Panama’s law. By extending protection to temporary electronic storage, with no clear exception for transient electronic copies – the Panama bill fails to give internet service providers and other businesses the legal certainty they need to enter and maintain operations in Panama’s market.

The law also severely limits fair use, moving from an open-ended clause to a "closed list" system which narrowly defines fair use limitations and exceptions. The US has an open system, much to the chagrin of various content industries. Moving other nations to this more restrictive standard first will make it easier to bring ourselves in line with several other nations sometime down the road.

Users' rights are also being narrowly defined, erasing any trace of "balance" in Panama's copyright law. Between the severely limited fair use, the extension of protection to cover nearly every file that moves through a user's computer during normal internet usage and the government's ability to pursue filesharers with the burden of proof falling to the citizens, the public is left with nearly nothing.

Compare this legislation with Portugal's response to filesharing: a "hands off" approach to non-commercial infringement and the recognition that an IP address isn't necessarily a person. I would imagine that Panama's copyright office won't be interested in making that distinction, not when bonuses are at stake.

Is there a huge cultural difference in play here or is it just varying levels of pressure from content controllers (used to differentiate from content "creators," not all of whom espouse the same view as the industry "representatives")? Up until recently, Spain's view on filesharing was roughly the same as Portugal's, a viewpoint that seemed to draw extra attention (read: "pressure") from the US government and its associated trade organizations.

As the EFF notes, many Latin American countries used to have more progressive copyright laws, but recently passed legislation has changed much of that. The previous laws drew the attention of the US government, either landing these "non-conforming" countries on the infamous Special 301 list or threatening their participation in bilateral free trade agreements. Further pressure is being exerted by the highly secretive TPP whose negotiations seem to consist of shutting the public out and telling other nations how to run their own countries, IP-wise, while excluding them from negotiations.

Colombia pushed through incredibly extreme copyright legislation ahead of a visit from President Obama, ignoring an outraged public which had staged SOPA-style protests during the law's debut months earlier. Spain, like Portugal, also considered filesharing legal, until the US stepped in and rewrote its copyright laws after smacking it around with an appearance on the Special 301 report. Switzerland pushed back against outrageous Hollywood-backed claims about filesharing and is now on The List. Canada recently went through some copyright reform of its own, but apparently not to the liking of the entertainment industry, which has suggested it will simply overwrite the parts it doesn't like with the TPP.

The end result is the US government using protectionist policies to force cultural change on other countries, shifting legislative viewpoints to match up with corporate demands which routinely exceed the severity of our existing laws. In essence, "your culture is wrong." Should the US government be in the business (and it is very much a business) of applying "our" moral standard on other countries, especially when non-conformance is subject to threats implicit and explicit?

It's been stated here before that infringement is not a moral issue, but those pushing for harsher legislation and more enforcement abroad certainly believe it is. Making countries subject to compliance with an arbitrary moral standard (written by certain industries) as a prerequisite for entering an advantageous trade agreement doesn't create copyright converts. Instead, it creates the IP equivalent of "rice Christians" who allow the US to rewrite their IP laws in order to prevent being locked out of beneficial agreements by one of the most prosperous nations in the world. The end result is coerced compliance that runs roughshod over existing IP laws at the expense of their own constituents.

Applying a new moral standard via the institution of new laws that only benefit the industries being catered to sounds a lot like an advantaged group using its governmental patrons to conform the world to its preferred standards. The government of perhaps the most powerful nation in the world at your fingertips is the sort of thing that no industry, no matter how "beleaguered," should ever have at its disposal.

The end result is an entertainment industry occupation by proxy. The limitations enacted in order to enter a free trade agreement put these countries at a severe disadvantage by crippling local tech industries. Opening trade means very little when innovation is thwarted by legislative overreach.

Free trade agreements have great potential to unleash new competition in markets, producing better products and services at lower prices. This assumes, however, that these agreements actually lower barriers to trade.

Unfortunately, due to misaligned priorities and poor drafting, the U.S. Government’s framework for free trade agreements has neglected aspects of U.S. law that are instrumental to a flourishing Internet sector, and in doing so has erected new barriers to tech exports.

The trend of expanding liability and constraining the balancing provisions of copyright law also manifested recently in Colombia. Also responding to a recently enacted Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Colombia hurriedly passed a controversial copyright revision this spring which similarly left little flexibility for technology innovation. The upshot of the copyright law revisions in these countries is to erode certainty and discourage investment by online services, e-commerce platforms, device manufacturers, and ISPs. This is not lowering barriers to market access.

It would be a mistake to understand this as solely an issue affecting U.S. exports, however. In fact, it is a more serious issue for our trading partners, because while U.S. firms may look to more fertile export markets, Colombian and Panamanian firms must survive at home before they can reasonably expand abroad.

An economy stifled by restrictive additions to existing IP laws puts the continuing development in the hands of American special interests who don't actually care whether or not a country thrives as long as their own interests are protected. Sabotaging innovation to protect legacy business models is nothing more than imperialism redefined. The entertainment industry, speaking through the government, is now an occupation force, one that uses "free trade" as a cover for top down dominance of the native population by removing protections, erecting barriers and excluding the affected constituents from the legislative process.

We just wrote about some of the more questionable bits of Chris Dodd's appearance in San Francisco this week, with part of our complaint even being the venue. As impressive as the Commonwealth Club is in bringing in big name speakers, it's not a venue that actually attracts the people Dodd needs to talk to. The average age there was probably close to double my age and the non-press attendees seemed more interested in his take on the Presidential election than copyright policy. Dodd has now penned (well, probably some flunky wrote it for him) an opinion piece for Politico, in which he tries to claim that his visit to SF was about working together with the tech industry. Of course, the tech industry, for the most part, wasn't at the event. That's because most of them were a few blocks south of there, in the various incubators in SOMA working hard on new and innovative services.

Reading Dodd's column, it's pretty clear where the problem lies. He still thinks of the movie business and its relationship to the public as a one way thing: they deliver content that the public consumes. He's right to point out that the public is the ultimate boss for the entertainment industry, but he frames them, incorrectly, as consumers, rather than something more:

If there is one key point I hope the audience left with, it’s this: Despite what the media and the advocates on the extremes would have you believe, the content and technology communities are not adversaries, we’re partners. Our companies call them audiences and tech companies call them users, but giving consumers the best possible experience is our shared goal. In the end, we all report to the same people: consumers.

We both share a commitment to innovation. Developing fresh and interesting content, and new platforms for seamlessly delivering that content to audiences, is the lifeblood of both of our industries. That’s why Hollywood is partnering with Silicon Valley and others — from YouTube to Facebook to Netflix to Roku — to deliver our great content to screens of all sizes. In fact, every one of the studios that I represent at the Motion Picture Association of America has a distribution deal with Google. Partnerships with these tech companies are only growing. There are currently more than 350 unique, licensed online services that provide motion picture content to viewers around the world, including more than 60 in the U.S. alone.

Notice the language here. The public's job is only to consume what the MPAA delivers. It's all about distribution, in one direction only. There is no attempt to actually further listen to what the public says (in fact, Dodd has famously dismissed the concerns of the public, calling them thieves for wishing for better and easier access to content that they can share and build upon). There is no attempt to understand the public. It's all about shoving content to them in one direction.

But that's not how the media landscape works any more -- and this is a big part of the problem. Above all else, the internet is a communications platform, in that the conversation is multi-directional. Yes, part of that can be broadcast content, but the public wants to do much more. They want to discuss and share and have experiences with each other. And their concern over the MPAA's constant overreaching on things like copyright law are that the end result will actually prevent them from communicating and sharing.

If he were actually concerned about the public, he wouldn't just talk about shoving content to them, he'd be talking about understanding what they want, and that would mean actually talking to the public on the internet, where they live.

Take UltraViolet, for example. UltraViolet is technology that allows customers to purchase content in one form — digital or physical — and then watch it on any of their devices. UltraViolet is the result of a coordinated effort between dozens of content and tech companies — because all of these companies understand that it is in the best interest of their customers to ensure that people do not have to buy multiple forms of movies or shows.

Indeed, he spoke about UltraViolet over and over again at the event. But UltraViolet is really the shining example of the MPAA's wrong approach. It's an attempt not to deliver what the public really wants -- but to have the MPAA and some tech companies try to build a service that fits what Hollywood wants, while pretending to give the public some more control. It's just a new form of DRM. The fact that it's received mostly scathing reviews says it all. This wasn't designed with input from the public. It was yet another attempt to tell the public what it should like.

The tech community will be integral to helping solve this problem. It’s going to require cooperation and voluntary best practices from all interested parties. We saw some of that earlier this summer when Google altered its algorithm to de-emphasize pirated content. That was an important step because it recognizes the problem, and it recognizes Google’s ability to do something about it. It was not a silver bullet, and there’s much more to be done — but it was a good acknowledgment from Google that content theft is a problem and one that can be tackled.

Yes, the tech industry is important, but not nearly as important as the public. And Dodd has made little to no effort to actually hear from them. Just the fact that he thinks Google's decision to pervert its search results is an example of the kind of innovation that's needed, again shows how misguided his approach is. He thinks that the "innovation" is about limiting consumers and holding back technology. It's about protectionism, not about opening up new opportunities and new markets. It's not about enabling what the technology can do, but holding it back.

That's not innovation. That's not what the public wants. It's protectionism for an industry that doesn't want to adapt.

Back in 2010, we wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder talking up how excited he was to create a special "IP Task Force" within the Justice Department. It was, effectively, an admission that he was happy to play Hollywood's business model protection officer on the public dime. Since then, of course, the DOJ has been involved in a fairly stunning set of disastrous attempts to "enforce" IP law -- including seizing and censoring two separate sites for over a year without real due process or evidence. Then there's the questionable attempt to deport a UK student for creating a web forum.

And, of course, the master of all screwups, the Megaupload case. Given all the info that's been released so far, you'd think that the DOJ would have a slam dunk against Megaupload -- but instead, the case has been a complete disaster for the DOJ, as every week we seem to hear about another error made in going after the company. Given how poorly the DOJ has come out in that case so far, you would think that Attorney General Holder wouldn't be highlighting it as a key example of a "success story" for his role as Hollywood's favorite inside man.

And yet... in a speech in which he talks about handing out cash to local police forces to become local versions of Hollywood's private police force, he uses Megaupload as a shining example of the success of this "Intellectual Property Theft Enforcement Program." Of course, you'd think that the top lawyer in the country would know better than to falsely call infringement theft, but apparently Holder's very good at taking Hollywood's talking points without bothering to understand the actual law. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had to "give up" in the Rojadirecta and Dajaz1 cases, after it became abundantly clear that the DOJ was about to lose big time, and could face serious problems for its actions. Instead... he just cheers on the various abuses and failings in the Megaupload case as if they were successful:

In this year alone, we have prosecuted a number of significant IP cases. For example, in January – in one of the largest criminal copyright cases in U.S. history – the Department indicted two corporations and seven individuals with operating an international organized criminal enterprise responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works, through Megaupload.com and other related sites.

Indicted, yes. But pretty much everything after the indictment has been an unmitigated disaster. There was the illegal raid on Kim Dotcom's home, which used the wrong documentation. There was the illegal taking of evidence out of New Zealand without permission. There was the illegally obtained intelligence info on Dotcom's location. There was the ridiculous SWAT-ification of the raid team, which New Zealand officials now admit was both overkill and a mistake. Basically, pretty much every action by the DOJ in the case has been a disaster. And this is what Holder is cheering on as he hands out money for local cops to do more of the same? Really?

There was a report a few weeks back noting that WIPO had been in favor (pdf) of allowing the Pirate Party International to be designated as an accredited "observer" to WIPO meetings (which would allow them to participate as an non-governmental organization, but without voting powers). However, it appears that the official decision on this has now been delayed because of objections from Swiss, French and US (who else?) officials:

This morning, under agenda item 6, the WIPO General Assemblies decided to defer a decision until 2013 on the application for accreditation by Pirate Parties International. I was told that the US, Switzerland the France raised objections in the informal consultations, and that some other European countries wanted to raise objections, but found it awkward given the recent success of domestic Pirate Parties in national elections. The USA said it asked for a hold on the decision until WIPO could decide if it wanted to accept political parties as WIPO observers. One delegate said European countries were concerned that the Pirate Parties would take "political action" back home when they disagreed with positions taken by the official delegates at the WIPO meetings.

While it is a legitimate question as to whether or not political parties should count as NGOs, the whole thing still feels pretty questionable. As Jamie Love notes, it just makes WIPO look like it's afraid of the Pirate Party.

KEI's view is that the decision to block the Pirate Parties International application made WIPO look even more captured by right holders than it actually is. To the extent that intellectual property rights issues become seen as political rather than simply technical matters, it may be possible to have broader, deeper and more useful debates on the purpose and performance of the intellectual property rights system. Why? Because many of the technical staff at the government levels are caught up in a system where responsiveness to right-holder interests is key to promotions or job retention, and the robust revolving door with industry creates incentives to be anti-consumer.

In other words, another blown opportunity to try to move things forward, rather than staring longingly at the past.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Pirate Parties International appears to meet all the criteria, and thus it is completely ridiculous to delay their observer status:

“If the NGO’s application falls within a plain wording of the rules and regulations defining what NGOs may be accredited, then the application should be granted,” he said. “From our perspective, what harm can there be for the secretariat of a political party to be an observer at WIPO? If anything, it seems to us this will lead to a better understanding by that secretariat of the international dimension of IP public policy, which is no bad thing.”

The whole thing seems like a typical negative reaction to the party simply because of its name, without any recognition of what it actually stands for, driven by pressure from the US. WIPO looking like a US stooge yet again? Not a huge surprise.

It's no secret that one of the significant problems with copyright law today are the ridiculous statutory damages, set by Congress, which have absolutely no reasonable connection to the "harm" being done. The idea that you could owe $150,000 for sharing a single song should be horrific to just about everyone (though, of course, the maximalists always have crazy ways to justify such insane and punitive damages). However, over in the UK, one thing they're trying to tackle is changing the equation for "small scale" copyright disputes. Specifically, they've set up the equivalent of a small claims court for copyright issues, which makes the process much cheaper and faster.

"Small firms, whose intellectual property has been infringed, will have today a simpler and easier way to take their cases forward, by writing direct to the judge and setting out the issues," Business Minister Michael Fallon said in a statement. "Lower legal costs will make it easier for entrepreneurs to protect their creative ideas where they had previously struggled to access justice in what could often be an expensive progress. A smarter and cheaper process is good for business and helping businesses make the most of their intellectual property is good for the economy."

I question how effective this will be, but at least it is a different approach. If nothing else, it will be worthwhile for the sake of seeing how well (if at all) it works. I don't see how this really solves any of the big problems with massive damages. All it really does is make it easier for there to be more copyright lawsuits, though with limited benefits for those who file. It seems like the kind of system that's going to see a lot of attempted abuse. We already see so much abuse of the existing copyright system, so are we sure it's a good idea to make it even easier for some to file lawsuits -- even with the limited punishment?