<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;anti-piracy&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:21:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Leading Italian Film Producer Calls For $16 Billion Lawsuit Against Italian State For Alleged Inaction Against Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/07421922763/leading-italian-film-producer-calls-16-billion-lawsuit-against-italian-state-alleged-inaction-against-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/07421922763/leading-italian-film-producer-calls-16-billion-lawsuit-against-italian-state-alleged-inaction-against-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Last year we wrote about EMI suing the Irish government for having the temerity not to pass a  SOPA-Like censorship law.  That truly extraordinary <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/09203917388/insane-entitlement-emi-sues-irish-govt-not-passing-sopa-like-censorship-law.shtml">sense of entitlement</a> seemed to be a one-off, but <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/italian-producer-de-laurentiis-threatens-441417">The Hollywood Reporter now brings us another</a> (via <a href="https://twitter.com/lifeinsicily">@LifeinSicily</a>):

<i><blockquote>Italian producer Aurelio De Laurentiis has proposed a &euro;12.5 billion ($16 billion) class action lawsuit against the Italian state for lost revenue he says movie producers have sustained because the state has done too little to combat piracy.</blockquote></i>

The justification for that rather significant sum is the following:

<i><blockquote>"The problem of piracy is very important, and I say we should ask for &euro;12.5 billion in order to obtain at least &euro;2.5 billion [$3.2 billion], the amount we lose each year because of piracy," De Laurentiis said.</blockquote></i>

There was no explanation of where that &euro;2.5 billion figure came from.  According to estimates quoted in Techdirt's "<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising2/">The Sky is Rising 2</a>", gross box office sales for the Italian film industry were &euro;700 million in 2011, so it seems highly unlikely that it is "losing" &euro;2.5 billion each year. It may be significant that De Laurentiis is part of a dynasty of famous Italian film producers who can be justifiably proud of helping to create some of the greatest masterpieces of 20th-century Italian cinema.  Perhaps he is still hankering for those good old days when people flocked to see the latest productions from his father and uncle.
</p>
<p>
But that was then, this is now: the Internet is having a massively disruptive effect on the film industry, just as it is on many others.  That doesn't give film producers any entitlement to handouts from the Italian state for sales they claim they might have made.  And notice, too, that De Laurentiis is calling for compensation for allegedly lost <b>sales</b>, not lost profits, which might have been minimal.
</p>
<p>
It's sad that so many in the copyright world apply their creativity to thinking up reasons why they should be protected by governments from the massive changes underway throughout the world, rather than applying that creativity to coming up with new ways of making money.  They could do worse than listen to Riccardo Tozzi, president of Italy's audiovisual association, who was the co-host with De Laurentiis of the film industry symposium where the latter made his call for legal action:

<i><blockquote>Tozzi suggested a different tact: making it easier for people to legally download films, for a fee. "We should balance the threat of illegal downloads with a legal supply of films," he said. "It can be too difficult to download films legally, so there's no good alternative" to piracy.</blockquote></i>

Sounds easier than suing the Italian government....
</p>
<p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/07421922763/leading-italian-film-producer-calls-16-billion-lawsuit-against-italian-state-alleged-inaction-against-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/07421922763/leading-italian-film-producer-calls-16-billion-lawsuit-against-italian-state-alleged-inaction-against-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/07421922763/leading-italian-film-producer-calls-16-billion-lawsuit-against-italian-state-alleged-inaction-against-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck-with-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130419/07421922763</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:03:08 PST</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Group Already Demanding That Kim Dotcom's New Mega Service Be Shut Down</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/14005221769/anti-piracy-group-already-demanding-that-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-be-shut-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/14005221769/anti-piracy-group-already-demanding-that-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-be-shut-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This probably isn't a huge surprise, but with the launch of Kim Dotcom's new Mega cloud drive system, many in the entertainment industry have assumed that he must be relaunching Megaupload and a way to infringe.  However, it seems pretty clear that Mega is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/13174221730/no-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-does-not-dismantle-copyright-forever.shtml">quite different</a> and mostly resembles other well known legitimate services, like Google Drive, Dropbox and Amazon's cloud offerings.  Still that hasn't stopped some in the "anti-piracy" community from <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/dotcoms-mega-anti-piracy-group-moves-to-cut-off-finances-130121/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">trying to shut down the site already</a>:
<blockquote><i>
<p>Robert King is the lead figure behind StopFileLockers (SFL), an anti-piracy group dedicated to bringing file-hosting services to their knees by strangling their finances. Last year <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/90-days-of-killing-cyberlockers-50-dead-more-than-500-injured-121006/">King claimed</a> his group had a hand in disrupting the cash flow to hundreds of sites and actually shutting down dozens more. Now he has a very big scalp on his mind.</p>
<p>King, an Australian and adult industry player, says that StopFileLockers have just begun a &#8220;campaign to have the payment processing of all Mega resellers terminated.&#8221;</p>
</i></blockquote>
Apparently waiting for actual evidence of infringement, or even specific liability for Mega, is too much to ask.  This is silly.  While we may have doubts about how Mega is running, shutting it down without even understanding what it's about seems incredibly short-sighted.  Plenty of successful legitimate companies have been built out of those who were earlier sued for "infringement."  Isn't it worth at least making sure he's breaking the law before insisting he must have done so?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/14005221769/anti-piracy-group-already-demanding-that-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-be-shut-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/14005221769/anti-piracy-group-already-demanding-that-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-be-shut-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/14005221769/anti-piracy-group-already-demanding-that-kim-dotcoms-new-mega-service-be-shut-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130123/14005221769</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:52:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Group Already Protesting That UK's Anti-Piracy Law Doesn't Go Far Enough</title>
<dc:creator>Ben Zevenbergen</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121009/09222220663/anti-piracy-group-already-protesting-that-uks-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-go-far-enough.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121009/09222220663/anti-piracy-group-already-protesting-that-uks-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-go-far-enough.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/03043214263/many-killers-music-industry-analog-era.shtml">History</a> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/19214314291/many-killers-music-industry-digital-era.shtml">teaches</a> us that representatives of copyright holders will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/21381216423/many-killers-film-industry-volume-one.shtml">complain</a> about any new development in information or communication technology and try <a href="http://io9.com/5874655/10-technologies-that-congress-tried-to-kill-or-maim">to stop or limit</a> its use. Well, it is no surprise then that, over in the UK, the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) is <a href="http://www.fastiis.org/resources/press_details/id/1048/digital-economy-act-2010-dea-must-be-future-proofed-says-fast/">claiming</a> that existing, already far-reaching copyright enforcement measures in the not-yet implemented <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents">Digital Economy Act</a> (DEA) will be rendered useless when the new 4G mobile phone network rolls out. The <a href="http://www.broadband-expert.co.uk/4g-mobile-broadband/">4G mobile phone networks</a> has been anticipated with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9hKI6ne8">much fanfare</a> and will provide mobile broadband speeds, which are many times faster than the 3G network we have become used to in the UK. According to FAST, mobile users and operators now also need to fall within the scope of the controversial DEA.<br />
<br />
In a recent Techdirt <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120629/07141319534/uks-3-strikes-plan-continues-to-grind-through-system-still-not-force-still-awful.shtml">post</a> about the DEA, Glyn Moody finished with the sentence "<i>The longer the great Digital Economy Act farce drags on, the more absurd it becomes from every viewpoint</i>." With FAST's claims, the debate is set to continue, and yes, it will become more absurd. Here's a short recap of DEA before we see how history repeats itself when its lessons are ignored:
<ul>
<li>
The DEA was hastily passed at the end of the last UK Parliament's term to "combat piracy", or whichever rhetoric was used this time.</li>
<li>
The act initially proposed to block websites and disconnect repeat infringers of copyright in a <i>graduated response</i> type system, or otherwise limit internet access. Customers may also be taken to court because ISP's would be obliged to disclose personal information of their customers.</li>
<li>
The scope is limited to the largest ISP's in the UK, which covers about <a href="http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/06/ofcom-release-internet-piracy-tackling-initial-obligations-code-for-uk-isps.html">93% of its citizens</a>.</li>
<li>
The implementation of the DEA has been delayed due to heavy criticism. Some of these ISP's went to court about the hefty costs which need to be made to enforce copyrights online.</li>
<li>
Some provisions, such as the blocking of websites at the ISP level,  have since been scrapped. This was not met with much resistance from rights holders, as they already had their Supreme Court <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/pirate-bay-uk_n_1465333.html">precedent</a> set with the blocking of the Pirate Bay.</li>
<li>
More specifics about this piece of legislation can be found around the internet, but as a final point it must be mentioned that -- surprise surprise -- the whole impact assessment of the act was based on <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/evidence,-copyright-enforcement-and-self-regulation">highly inflated and controversial figures</a> with bogus methodologies, provided by private stakeholders.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Let's dive into the claims of this most recent attempt to attack the technology as legacy players try to stay relevant.  Of course, every time they do this, they discover that they're on the wrong side of innovation. <a href="http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/?f=betamax_20th.html">Again</a>. And, all too often, the goals of these groups run entirely contrary to the real wishes of those they <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/its-not-a-crime-to-download-say-musicians-1643217.html">claim to represent</a>. Julian Heathcote Hobbins, General Council at FAST, states the following:
<blockquote>
<i>The DEA has the potential to be a valuable piece of legislation in the fight against illicit peer-to-peer copyright infringement and a significant development for rights holders as an educational programme. However, the <b>DEA must remain timely</b>. The issue is that <b>by the time the DEA is finally implemented, technology could have moved on so far making the Act ineffective</b> in helping to deal with those using 4G networks to share files. In its current form the DEA is <b>not sufficiently flexible in scope to account for advances in technology</b>.</i></blockquote>
Another representative, Jonathan Cornthwaite, a lawyer in London and member of FAST's Legal Advisory Group, then goes on to state:
<blockquote>
<i>[...] As we are now witnessing,<b> technology does not stand still</b> and gaps are appearing in the DEA as the use of mobile devices accelerates. Unless this situation can be remedied, it may be of less assistance,<b> leaving rights holders with a watered down remedy</b>.</i></blockquote>
It is fascinating to see these representatives finally realizing that regulation will not be able to keep apace with technological developments, where innovation happens at <i>internet speed</i>. They are right in stating that legislation must be flexible to stay timely and to move with technological and societal advances, which are indeed moving at an unprecedented pace.<br />
<br />
However, they fail to think through that it may not be the enforcement side, but actually that the copyright system lacks social legitimacy because it is out of date and out of touch with how we now <a href="http://deuze.blogspot.co.uk/">live <i>in </i>media</a>. The approach chosen by these representatives leans more towards a permission innovation society as identified by Mike in a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120927/00320920527/former-copyright-boss-new-technology-should-be-presumed-illegal-until-congress-says-otherwise.shtml">recent post</a>, where former Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, expressed that he feels any new technology should have to apply to Congress for approval, before it is allowed to exist. Instead, we should follow the sensible part of Mr. Heathcote Hobbins and Mr. Cornthwaite's analysis and make the underlying copyright system timely and flexible so it takes into account technical reality, which, indeed, does not stand still.<br />
<br />
A group of UK mobile operators have branded their 4G service "<a href="http://everythingeverywhere.com/">Everything, Everywhere</a>" (EE), indicating they understand what consumers want: all media available at any time in any place. This does not directly mean consumers want media for free. Most are willing to pay for access, especially when the service purchased offers them the ability to use works without undue restrictions. A line can be drawn as to which uses are permissible and which are not. However, if restrictions inhibit normal media usage as consumers expect it, and penalties include disconnection, throttling or otherwise limiting the promise of the super-fast paced mobile internet experience, copyright will further lose social legitimacy and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/its-not-a-crime-to-download-say-musicians-1643217.html">work-arounds</a> will be found.<br />
<br />
France's graduated response scheme -- HADOPI -- has already <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/hadopi-failure-warning-for-uk.html">failed miserably</a>, thereby proving the critics right that such a scheme is not workable nor desirable with regards to media sharing on the internet. Why then push for a very similar DEA anyway? Give it another go in a new country, hoping for different results? Apply it to new technology and hope the criticism will go away? To quote Einstein: "<i>Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results</i>."
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121009/09222220663/anti-piracy-group-already-protesting-that-uks-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-go-far-enough.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121009/09222220663/anti-piracy-group-already-protesting-that-uks-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-go-far-enough.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121009/09222220663/anti-piracy-group-already-protesting-that-uks-anti-piracy-law-doesnt-go-far-enough.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>history-lessons</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121009/09222220663</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious Pirates</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The following may look familiar to you:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/8J3Yz"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/8J3Yz.png" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>
</center>
It's the FBI's special "anti-piracy" warning.  For the past few years, under a special "pilot" program, <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/anti-piracy/" target="_blank">the FBI has allowed the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA and SIIA</a> (basically, the big record labels, movie studios, video game makers and software companies) to make use of the logo to warn all of their customers that they just might be felons and the FBI might show up at any moment.  It's pure FUD.  It also makes no difference.  Is there seriously anyone anywhere in the world who sees this logo and suddenly changes their behavior?
<br /><br />
However, this program is about to expand in a big, big way.  The FBI is about to <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-16506.pdf" target="_blank">release new rules</a> (pdf and embedded below) that expand the program so that any copyright holder will be allowed to slap this logo on their product.  Expect to start seeing it everywhere... and to feel that much more like the content creator you're legitimately buying from thinks you're a crook subject to federal law enforcement action.  Way to "connect" with fans, huh?
<br /><br />
The document from the FBI discussing this repeats a few times that the FBI really feels like this program is effective and important.  Could they be any more out of touch?
<blockquote><i>
First, the FBI believes that the 
APW Seal and accompanying warnings convey important messages to the public and are a significant component of its efforts to deter and to investigate federal crimes involving the piracy of intellectual property.  Allowing use by copyright holders who are not members of industry associations will enhance those efforts.  Second, although broader access may make unauthorized use more likely, this concern is overshadowed by the value of increasing public awareness of these prohibitions and the FBI&#8217;s role in investigating related criminal activity.
</i></blockquote>
There are all sorts of issues with this.  The first is that this whole campaign is ignoring a key point: nearly all copyright infringement is a civil infraction, not a criminal one.  Most ordinary users don't understand the difference between civil and criminal infringement -- and the FBI and its silly seal do nothing to explain that difference.  It's pretty clear that the purpose is to falsely imply that sharing with a friend music you legally purchased might somehow lead you to being targeted in an FBI sting operation.  It's FUD, plain and simple.  Second, the idea that spreading this logo further will deter actual criminal infringement?  Are they serious?  Remember, one of the requirements for criminal copyright infringement is that the action is <i>willful</i>.  That means that the person knows they're breaking the law.  So educating them on the fact that they're breaking the law... er... shouldn't make much of a difference.
<br /><br />
Finally, notice that nowhere does the FBI provide any <i>data</i> on how effective this program has been.  Because there isn't any.   The MPAA shows this logo before movies, and it's not like there has been any less infringement. In fact, the FBI and ICE recently decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/13504418849/ice-fbi-hatch-ingenious-plan-to-make-dvd-piracy-warnings-longer.shtml">double up and extend</a> the warnings on DVDs , and it's not like that made a difference either. No, instead, all it's done is piss off tons of legitimate customers, who paid good money for the content, only to be interrupted by a giant FBI logo warning them that they may be criminals facing federal charges.  The FBI even admits: "it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the APW Seal program at preventing piracy," but apparently that won't stop it from expanding it.  Who in their right mind thinks this is a sensible strategy?
<br /><br />
Either way, it's interesting to read through the comments and feedback on this program -- including someone who suggested that the FBI should make sure the warning is skippable at the beginning of movies (the FBI notes that's up to the film producers) or another one that says <i>this seal should be <b>mandatory</b></i> on copyright-protected works (the FBI rightly points out it has no such authority).  Repeatedly, when people raise issues of more widespread use of the seal (dilution, confusion, belief that works without the seal aren't protected, etc.) the FBI insists that the supposed benefits of blanketing the universe with this logo far outweigh any downsides.  
<br /><br />
There were also concerns raised that the logo will have serious chilling effects on fair use -- which is definitely a major possibility.  And the FBI's response is ridiculous.
<blockquote><i>
Five comments also expressed a concern that the broader accessibility of the APW Seal may have a &#8220;chilling effect&#8221; on fair use, as some copyright holders may attempt to use the APW Seal to discourage uses of their copyrighted work that would otherwise be permissible under the fair use doctrine.  The FBI fully recognizes that fair use, which is authorized under Title 17, United States Code, Section 107, does not constitute infringement, much less a federal crime.  The warning language does not suggest otherwise.  The FBI intends to address this matter on its public website.
</i></blockquote>
Because we all know that everyone who sees the logo will go to the FBI's website and read the fine print at the bottom of the page. 
<br /><br />
Of course, what's really crazy in all of this is that the FBI is famous for having an itchy trigger finger when anyone uses its normal logo.  Remember, this is the same FBI that, just two years ago, sent a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml">threat letter</a> to Wikipedia, because the Wikipedia page on the FBI shows the FBI logo (leading to an awesome reply from Wikimedia General Counsel, Mike Godwin).
<br /><br />
Honestly, the whole thing is silly, but because of this kind of cluelessness, expect to see those pointless FBI warning logos on <i>all sorts</i> of content in the future, so that every time you legitimately purchase content, you'll be reminded that the copyright holder thinks you're a lousy stinking thief who deserves a federal investigation.  I'm still trying to figure out how that could possibly be good for business, but I guess I just don't understand copyright...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120712/11195219675</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 08:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/17273019008/congressional-staffers-still-cant-come-to-terms-with-what-happened-over-sopa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/17273019008/congressional-staffers-still-cant-come-to-terms-with-what-happened-over-sopa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In a short article about a panel of Congressional staffers at the NCTA show, they basically admitted that <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/protect-ip-sopa-defeat-legislation-ncta-judiciary-committee-staffers-327310" target="_blank">any new "anti-piracy" legislation may be tough to pass</a> -- with one staffer saying that the SOPA protests "poisoned the well."  However, perhaps more interesting were the comments from Stephanie Moore, the "Democrat's chief counsel on the House Judiciary Committee" who apparently still refuses to believe that the public actually spoke out against the bill of their own free will:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;What happened was a misinformation campaign,&#8221; said Moore. &#8220;People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from-the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
I always find this line of reasoning quite extraordinary.  If you look at the history of copyright law -- especially over the past 40 years or so, it's been one "misinformation campaign" after another by RIAA and MPAA lobbyists.  As we've discussed, Congress has bent over backwards to pass <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml">15 anti-piracy laws</a> in the last 30 years -- each one pushed by industry lobbying about how they would collapse and die without the laws being passed, and how no one will create content without such laws.  They've been wrong every single time.  So even if it <i>was</i> a misinformation campaign on the other side, at best all it would do is even out the playing field.  Besides, looking at the arguments in favor of SOPA and PIPA, they were so full of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/02093116930/step-step-debunking-us-chamber-commerces-dishonest-stats-about-rogue-sites.shtml">blatant misinformation</a> that I don't think any amount of misinformation against the bills would have even out the score.
<br /><br />
But, to be clear, since I was pretty closely involved in the effort to stop these dangerous bills, I can say first hand that the claim that this was a "misinformation campaign" and that it wasn't about an "up-from-the-streets opposition" are hogwash by a person speaking from ignorance, anger or jealousy over having their own pet bill blocked.  The folks working against the bill worked pretty damn hard to paint a clear and accurate picture of the bill.  While there were various people who helped shepherd the process along, the protests didn't take on any life until various communities of people took them over and ran with them -- starting with the users on Tumblr and Reddit (followed closely by those on Wikipedia).
<br /><br />
Of course, when you have any large group of internet users, not all of them are going to understand the nuances or the details.  So, certainly some misinformation got into the discussion.  To be fair, though, the largest bit of "misinformation" I saw on the anti-SOPA side was from people who didn't realize that (under serious public pressure), Lamar Smith issued a manager's amendment to take out the worst of the worst of SOPA (still leaving in plenty of bad).  Some people mistakenly referred to the impact of the original bill in protesting later versions.  This was, indeed, a mistake, but hardly a result of "misinformation."  After all, those issues <i>were</i> in the original bill and were clearly part of what the House Judiciary Committee's staff was going for when it <strike>scribbled down the bill as the MPAA dictated it</strike> crafted the bill.
<br /><br />
What I do know is that when misleading suggestions were made on the anti-SOPA email list, knowledgeable people quickly pushed back against those claims, noting that they were not true and should not be used.  I <b>did not</b> see that on the other side.  When the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/02093116930/step-step-debunking-us-chamber-commerces-dishonest-stats-about-rogue-sites.shtml">bogus claims</a> of the entertainment industry were widely debunked, the supporters of SOPA kept on quoting them (and still do, to this day).
<br /><br />
So, I'm sorry, but the idea that the defeat of SOPA was a misinformation campaign and not a grassroots effort is pure bunk.  And if Moore wants to avoid a repeat, rather than lashing out mistakenly, and misunderstanding what happened, she should perhaps spend some time actually learning about why people were so upset by SOPA.  But, of course, we know that won't happen.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/17273019008/congressional-staffers-still-cant-come-to-terms-with-what-happened-over-sopa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/17273019008/congressional-staffers-still-cant-come-to-terms-with-what-happened-over-sopa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/17273019008/congressional-staffers-still-cant-come-to-terms-with-what-happened-over-sopa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>time-to-learn</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120521/17273019008</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dutch Pirate Party Refuses To Shut Down Proxy Service Based On Demand From Anti-Piracy Group</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04510818386/dutch-pirate-party-refuses-to-shut-down-proxy-service-based-demand-anti-piracy-group.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04510818386/dutch-pirate-party-refuses-to-shut-down-proxy-service-based-demand-anti-piracy-group.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is somewhat famous for its overreaching efforts.  While it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/04092217374/dutch-isps-told-to-block-pirate-bay.shtml">succeeded</a> in getting ISPs to block The Pirate Bay's website, it's been going after a bunch of proxy sites that have helped people get around the block.  Its latest move may run into some difficulty however.  The Dutch Pirate Party has its own proxy offering, and <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-refuses-to-shutdown-pirate-bay-proxy-faces-lawsuit-120403/" target="_blank">BREIN is demanding they turn it off</a>.  The Pirate Party, however, is standing its ground.  As TorrentFreak reports:
<blockquote><i>
<p>Last week the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_of_the_Netherlands">local Pirate Party</a> also received a letter from BREIN, demanding the shutdown of their Pirate Bay proxy site hosted at <a href="http://tpb.piratenpartij.nl/">tpb.piratenpartij.nl</a>. However, unlike the site owners that were previously contacted by the group, the Pirate Party is not caving in. They would rather fight the case in court.</p>
<p>Today the Party <a href="http://depiratenpartij.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/de-1-april-grap-heeft-wel-lang-genoeg-geduurd-zo/">informed</a> BREIN that the proxy site will stay online. To show that The Pirate Bay can be a useful communication tool the Pirate Party sent the letter <a href="https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7154691">through a torrent file</a>, hosted on the BitTorrent site at the center of the dispute.</p>
<p>&#8220;The demands are ridiculous,&#8221; Pirate Party chairman Dirk Poot told TorrentFreak.</p>
<p>&#8220;A private lobbying organization should not be allowed to be the censor of the Dutch internet. We were also amazed to find an ex-parte decision attached, threatening Dutch minors with &euro;1000 per day fines for operating their proxy. If we would have yielded, their trick would immediately be played out against numerous other private citizens.&#8221;</p>
</i></blockquote>
The larger point in all of this, of course, is just how completely and utterly useless BREIN's game of whac-a-mole is.  There are so many proxy sites out there, and many are used for perfectly legitimate reasons.  Trying to block every single one of them is a fool's errand.  Those who want to go to TPB will figure out ways to get there.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04510818386/dutch-pirate-party-refuses-to-shut-down-proxy-service-based-demand-anti-piracy-group.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04510818386/dutch-pirate-party-refuses-to-shut-down-proxy-service-based-demand-anti-piracy-group.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04510818386/dutch-pirate-party-refuses-to-shut-down-proxy-service-based-demand-anti-piracy-group.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>standing-its-ground</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120405/04510818386</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:04:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, I spoke on a panel at Stanford Law School concerning SOPA.  There were two lawyers representing the MPAA's views, and at one point one of them said that he hoped that Hollywood just wanted to "meet in the middle" with those opposed to SOPA and find "a solution" that worked.  Lawyer Andrew Bridges got up and asked a rather reasonable question: when, in the past, has the entertainment industry <i>ever</i> been willing to "meet in the middle" on copyright issues?  He began listing out every single expansion to copyright law from the past 30 years.  In 1976, we got the Copyright Act of 1976, which flipped copyright on its head and expanded it massively.  Not only did it switch from an opt-in system with registration and renewals to an "everything is automatically opted-in," but it also massively expanded the length of copyright.  You might think that the industry would be satisfied from that point forward.  In fact, as key SOPA supporter Steve Tepp from the US Chamber of Commerce recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/18034117533/discussing-sopapipa-over-media.shtml">claimed</a>: "To me if I get what I ask for, I stop complaining."
<br /><br />
So, did the entertainment industry "stop complaining"?  No.  Since the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect (in 1978), we've expanded copyright law <i>15 times</i> on issues related to "stopping piracy" (and <a href="http://law.copyrightdata.com/amendments.php" target="_blank">many, many more</a> if you look at all copyright law expansions -- beyond just anti-piracy efforts -- such as expanding coverage to semiconductor chip designs, boat hulls and other things).  It really started in 1982, meaning that we've had 15 new anti-piracy laws in just 30 years.  If SOPA/PIPA had passed, it would have been 16 -- or more than once every two years.  Let's take a look:
<ol>
<li>1982: <b>Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act</b>: Increased criminal penalties for infringing records, tapes and films from $25k &#038; 2 years in jail to $250,000 and 5 years in jail.  Also... made it so that first-time offenders could get the maximum.</li>
<li>1984: <b>Record Rental Amendment of 1984</b>: Outlawed music rentals (have you ever wondered why there were no Blockbusters or Netflixes for music?)
</li><li>1990: <b>Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</b>: Allowed copyright holders to sue states for copyright infringement (before that, states could claim sovereign immunity)
</li><li>1990: <b>Computer Software Rental Amendments Act</b>: Outlawed software rentals
</li><li>1992: <b>Audio Home Recording Act</b>: Mandated DRM on certain digital audio devices (mainly DAT), added a royalty on such devices.
</li><li>1994: <b>Uruguay Round Agreements Act</b>: Not only did it seize works out of the public domain and put them under copyright (this was what was challenged in the recent Golan case), but it made it a criminal offense to bootleg concerts (audio or video).
</li><li>1995: <b>The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act</b>: Created a new "performance" right for copyright holders concerning digital "performances."
</li><li>1996: <b>Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996</b>: Expanded racketeering laws to include criminal copyright infringement, as well as "trafficking" in computer software, documentation or packaging, as well as trafficking in movies or audiovisual works.  Also let the government seize property associated with these activities (precursor to domain seizures...).
</li><li>1997: <b>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act</b>: Decreased the threshold for what counts as criminal infringement (such as taking out the monetary profit requirement).
</li><li>1998: <b>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</b>: You should know this one.  Expanded copyright terms by 20 years.
</li><li>1998: <b>Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)</b>: Again, you may have heard of it.  Created anti-circumvention rules and the notice-and-takedown system for online infringement, among many other things.
</li><li>1999: <b>Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999</b>: Massively increased statutory damages for infringement
</li><li>2004: <b>Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act</b>:  Set up penalties (civil and criminal) for counterfeit labels, documentation and packaging in association with copyrighted goods (yes, separate from the content itself).  Also lowered the bar to show willful infringement.
</li><li>2005: <b>Family Entertainment and Copyright Act</b>: Criminalizes recording of movies in theaters and also lets theaters detain people merely suspected of recording in theaters.  Criminalizes releasing a work online before it's been officially released (if it's "being prepared" for commercial distribution).
</li><li>2008: <b>Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act</b>: Increased civil penalties for infringement.  Increased government seizure &#038; forfeiture powers (which is how the government currently justifies its questionable domain seizures) and created a job in the White House to focus on greater enforcement.
</li></ol>
But apparently we're told that the internet is a "lawless wild west" when it comes to copyright issues?  I think not.  All we've seen is expansion after expansion after expansion, always using questionable claims of rampant infringement that is supposedly destroying industries.  Each time, the various industries would create a moral panic about why <i>this</i> law was absolutely needed.  Forgive us for being a bit skeptical.  We've seen this game pretty damn frequently.  To claim that there are no laws, or that we need to "meet in the middle" seems pretty bizarre.  As Bridges noted at Stanford last week, if they want to "meet in the middle," are they willing to give up half of these laws to get SOPA/PIPA?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>make-it-stop</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120215/04241517766</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:45:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Norwegian Music-Streaming Experience Shows Why Tough Anti-Piracy Laws Are Unnecessary</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/08323117538/norwegian-music-streaming-experience-shows-why-tough-anti-piracy-laws-are-unnecessary.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/08323117538/norwegian-music-streaming-experience-shows-why-tough-anti-piracy-laws-are-unnecessary.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/07355617514/new-market-research-music-streaming-services-halve-illegal-downloads.shtml">wrote</a> about how the availability of music-streaming services seems to be have a big impact on reducing the scale of illegal downloads in various Scandinavian countries.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/ThAOSteen/status/161873637652172800">Thomas Steen pointed out to us</a> that the country with the <i>highest proportion</i> accessing music authorized streaming services is his native Norway, which is particularly noteworthy because Norway also <b>has the least aggressive laws against illegal downloads</b> in the region (he kindly put together a document <a href="http://pastebin.com/RN9UpU75">comparing cases in Denmark, Sweden and Norway involving piracy</a> to highlight this.)  That not only undermines the case for tough anti-piracy laws, but also Norway's own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/02502316233/norway-latest-country-to-look-censorship-as-solution-to-entertainment-industrys-failed-business-models.shtml">plans</a> to bring the laws in, which are still <a href="http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&#038;sl=no&#038;tl=en&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Fkud%2Fdok%2Fhoeringer%2Fhoeringsdok%2F2011%2Fhoring---endringer-i-andsverkloven---til.html%3Fid%3D643799">grinding</a> their way through the system. 
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/08323117538/norwegian-music-streaming-experience-shows-why-tough-anti-piracy-laws-are-unnecessary.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/08323117538/norwegian-music-streaming-experience-shows-why-tough-anti-piracy-laws-are-unnecessary.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/08323117538/norwegian-music-streaming-experience-shows-why-tough-anti-piracy-laws-are-unnecessary.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>facts?-who-needs-facts?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120125/08323117538</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Dec 2011 07:42:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad... Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is one of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=brein">most aggressive</a> of the anti-piracy groups out there.  So there's some amusement in watching as <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corruption-scandal-surrounds-anti-piracy-campaign-111201/" target="_blank">it gets caught up in a scandal that started when <i>it pirated music</i></a> for an anti-piracy campaign.  BREIN had asked musician Melchoir Rietveldt to compose a song for a video that was only to be used at a local film festival.  The terms of the deal were strict: the song was only for that one anti-piracy video at that one film festival.  However, Rietveldt later discovered that the anti-piracy ad was being used all over the place -- a fact he discovered when he bought a Harry Potter DVD and noticed the video... with his music.
<br /><br />
After determining that the music had been used tens of millions of times in such an unauthorized manner, he contacted the local music collection agency, Buma/Stemra, asking them to seek somewhere around $1.3 million owed from BREIN.  Buma/Stemra ignored him.  Eventually, however, apparently a Buma/Stemra board member, Jochem Gerrits, reached out, and said he could help Rietveldt get paid... but with some questionable conditions.  According to TorrentFreak:
<blockquote><i>
In order for the deal to work out the composer had to assign the track in question to the music publishing catalogue of the Gerrits, who owns High Fashion Music. In addition to this, the music boss demanded 33% of all the money set to be recouped as a result of his efforts.
<br /><br />
The conversation between Gerrits and the composer&#8217;s financial advisor was recorded by Pownews, and during the conversation the financial advisor confronts Gerrits with his unconventional proposal.
<br /><br />
&#8220;Why do you have to earn money?&#8221; he asks, as usually all of the money goes directly to the artists.
<br /><br />
&#8220;It could be because a lot of people in the industry know that they are in trouble when I get involved,&#8221; Gerrits responds, adding that he can bring up the topic immediately in a board meeting next week.
<br /><br />
Once again trying to find confirmation for the proposal, the composer&#8217;s advisor later asks if the music boss indeed wants one-third of the money.
<br /><br />
&#8220;Yes, that&#8217;s the case, but then [the composer] would make 660,000 euros and now he has nothing,&#8221; Gerrits responds calmly.
</i></blockquote>
This is apparently making news across the Netherlands, and Gerrits has resigned.  As for BREIN, it's insisting that the whole thing is "a contractual issue" and that it is "not involved."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111201/17275016947</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:36:44 PST</pubDate>
<title>White House's Totally Clueless Response To Copyright Infringement: Call In McGruff The Crime Dog</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The White House has shown itself to be totally and completely out of touch on intellectual property issues for a while, so it should come as little surprise that it went even further into silly town, with <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/29/bargain-hunters-be-wary" target="_blank">a big White House briefing</a>, involving IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Attorney General Eric Holder, Acting Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank and ICE boss John (due process? what due process?) Morton to announce (I'm not kidding) that <a href="http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft" target="_blank">McGruff the Crime Dog was taking a bite out of "intellectual property theft."</a>
<br /><br />
Of course, the first thing McGruff the Crime Dog (and our illustrious White House officials) might want to do is <i>learn what the actual law says</i> and recognize that <b>infringement and theft are two different things</b>.  It seems like in all his "biting" out of crime, McGruff forgot that lying about what the law actually is isn't a particularly good idea. 
<br /><br />
 The campaign is really ridiculous, with tons of absolutely laughable statements, debunked claims and web design from a decade ago.  For example, it takes the famously and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars" target="_blank">thoroughly debunked</a> (years ago!) claims that "counterfeiting and piracy costs the U.S. economy more than $250 billion in lost revenue and 750,000 jobs every year."  Those numbers came from the upper end of a "stick your finger in the air" estimate from a few decades ago.  And they have no bearing on reality.  Even the US government in the form of the GAO <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/2346298988.shtml">has debunked</a> these numbers.  So why is the White House standing behind them?  Espinel isn't stupid.  She knows that these numbers are false and have been shown to be false.  Why would she support a campaign based on them?
<br /><br />
The site just gets more and more full of stupid the deeper you dig.  It feels like it was put together by someone with only a passing familiarity with the actual debate on copyright infringement (and one that is about 10 years out of date) and a heavy dose of US Chamber of Commerce propaganda.  It's like what you'd get if you simply hired some random clueless ad agency to create the campaign -- which it appears <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/mcgruff-is-now-asking-the-public-to-take-a-bite-out-of-counterfeiting/?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss">is exactly what was done here</a>.   Take a bow, CauseWay Agency of Westport Connecticut.  You bring the debate over infringement down to new lows by repeating long debunked information and stats as if it were factual.  Next time, maybe find someone who actually understands these issues.
<br /><br />
Take <a href="http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft/pirated-products" target="_blank">this page of "facts"</a> for example (complete with stock photo of a girl using a rather old ipod.  
<blockquote><i>
Piracy of intellectual property that&rsquo;s protected by copyright law is a serious crime. Not only does it rob the makers of recordings, videos, movies, games, and other creative works of the money they are entitled to, but it costs tens of thousands of people their jobs each year. It also deprives governments at all levels of tax revenue. Piracy itself is a crime, and it causes an increase in other types of crime. Gangs and organized crime groups have both been linked to the piracy of creative work.
</i></blockquote>
Almost everything in that paragraph is either wrong or highly misleading.  Most infringement is a civil offense.  Some may be criminal, but most of it is not.  Implying otherwise is pretty sleazy.   And someone sharing some stuff with a friend is hardly "robbing" anyone.  The jobs estimates have already been debunked.  The "tax" claims have also been <a href="http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/">debunked</a> years ago, based on pretending that money not spent on content never gets spent.
<br /><br />
Worst of all?  That whole thing about "linked to gangs and organized crime"?  Totally and completely debunked.  SSRC investigated such reports in their report that came out earlier this year and it could find <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/00493313981/whos-funding-more-terrorism-downloaders-hollywood.shtml"><b>no evidence</b></a> to support any links to organized crime or gangs, and pointed to additional research that found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" anywhere in relation to copyright infringement.  The one key study that claimed there was such a connection was from a RAND report that involved "Decades-old stories... recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes... as evidence of wider systemic
linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low."  In other words, there's no there there.  At all.
<br /><br />
Why would the White House support something so clearly false?
<blockquote><i>
Pirated materials are everywhere. All you have to do is walk down a city street to see all the CDs and DVDs for sale by street vendors. 
</i></blockquote>
Hello five years ago!  As that same SSRC research found, CD and DVD bootlegging by street vendors has been decimated itself by competition online: "they piled out of the business in the past decade as profit margins on pirated CDs and DVDs collapsed. We see no evidence that DVD piracy is still a high margin business... Rather, our work documents that pirate prices have fallen dramatically as burners became cheap in the early 2000s and, more recently, as non-commercial internet-based file sharing began to displace DVD piracy."  Someone should tell the White House to update their out of date report.
<blockquote><i>
Making unauthorized copies of these creative works is against the law, and breaking it may subject the person who does it to civil and criminal liability&mdash;especially if they distribute the stolen product to others. The penalties for first-time offenders include jail time  of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000.
</i></blockquote>
Holy exaggeration McGruff!  Making unauthorized copies <i>may</i> be against the law.  They might also be fair use or allowed for the purposes of backing up legally obtained materials.  Merely making a copy is also almost certainly not criminal infringement, not subject to jail time or fines up to $250,000 (yet, though we'll see what happens with various laws...). 
<blockquote><i>
Once a tune or movie is posted on the Internet, it lives forever&mdash;and the artist behind the product is forever deprived of income.
</i></blockquote>
Really, now?
<blockquote><i>
When you buy a tune on the Internet and download it, make sure you don&rsquo;t send a copy to a friend or someone who might sell it to others
</i></blockquote>
Wait, what?  The White House and McGruff think that people are <i>selling</i> the MP3s their friends send them?
<blockquote><i>
If you get a tune from someone, don&rsquo;t re-send it to others.
</i></blockquote>
What if the artist <i>wants</i> you to send it to others?
<blockquote><i>
Don&rsquo;t instant message a tune.
</i></blockquote>
Just yesterday I sent a friend of mine a song via IM that was released under a Creative Commons license.  Why shouldn't I do this?  Really.  Why?
<blockquote><i>
Don&rsquo;t burn CDs or DVDs.
</i></blockquote>
Why not?  Depending on the context, this can be absolutely legal.  These days, CDs and DVDs are kinda outdated, but is the White House and McGruff now arguing that making a mixtape is a crime?
<blockquote><i>
If shopping online, beware of sites that aren&rsquo;t familiar to you&mdash;and that are selling expensive products at prices that are way too good.
</i></blockquote>
Watch out, GroupOn, McGruff is ready to take a bite out of you.
<br /><br />
About the only nod to the idea that infringement can actually be a market opportunity occurs on the <a href="http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft/trends-globalization-and-digitalization-usher-in-a-new-era-of-intellectual-property-theft" target="_blank">trends page</a> that more or less reprises the story we recently had about how Rovio (makers of Angry Birds) discovered that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/06565416582/angry-birds-ceo-peace-with-chinese-counterfeit-merchandise.shtml">infringement in China wasn't actually a problem</a>.  This seems like perfect evidence that (as many people have been pointing out for ages), this is a business model issue, and those who are smart can take advantage of them.
<blockquote><i>
One anomaly to the damage caused by piracy recently took place in China, where the small Danish company that makes the "Angry Birds" game actually found a benefit in the widespread, illegal copying of the game, which has been downloaded 50 million times in that country. The company turned the widespread knowledge of its brand in China that resulted from the piracy into a marketing advantage for its other products in the country. Moreover, since consumers couldn&rsquo;t tell the difference between the fake and genuine products, and sales of the game skyrocketed. In the United States, however, piracy of creative products can damage the brand of the original manufacturer when consumers can&rsquo;t tell the difference between a counterfeited product, which may be shoddy, and the genuine article. Cheapening of the brand can be a serious problem, especially as reputations are hard to recover when lost.
</i></blockquote>
First of all, McGruff may have just caused an international incident there.  Rovio is a Finnish company, not a Danish one.  Seriously.  Don't they have anyone looking over this stuff?  Second, notice that they ignore the key point of the story: Rovio didn't freak out, but embraced the market, used the infringement as market data on what to do, and then came out with a <i>better</i> offering for the market, not one that users "couldn't tell the difference" on.  The McGruff report makes it sound like Chinese people are a bunch of idiots who buy Angry Birds products willy nilly, some legit, some not.  And somehow, in the US things are different?
<br /><br />
This honestly may be the most poorly conceived "anti-piracy" campaign ever.  It makes the White House look pretty damn foolish.
<br /><br />
Oh, and then there are the videos.  How could we forget the videos.  Some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQFnSnhg7U" target="_blank">propaganda PSAs</a> that again go back to bootleg DVDs, claiming that they lead to child labor and gangland murder.  Amusingly, the title of the marketing campaign is "Get Real."  If only the National Crime Prevention Council did "Get Real" and decided to stop repeating these debunked claims.  Then there's the heartstrings-pulling video of a young woman <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOBC5kuDS5A" target="_blank">busking in a subway station</a>, with her guitar case open with some cash.  People stop, listen, and then take her cash.  It's a metaphor!  For something.  I'm not sure what.  Because the internet is kinda the opposite.  People who have set up donation and pay what you want models find that fans donate.  No one takes money away.
<br /><br />
In the end, the whole thing actually makes the White House look really, really bad.  It could have been a real leader here, outlined the actual issues with infringement, how the market is changing.  It could have pointed out resources showing those who are adapting, highlighting strategies and business models that work.  It could have pointed out actual data (not old, debunked or made up stats) that show more content than ever before is being produced today, more people are earning money making content than ever before, and that the overall size of the content industries continues to grow.  All of that would be useful.  None of that is here.  Just pure FUD.
<br /><br />
For what purpose?  It's not clear.  McGruff is aimed at kids, but multiple studies (including the SSRC study) have looked at "education campaigns" on copyright infringement and have found that they have no impact at all.  It's not an education issue.  It's that people intrinsically don't see what's wrong with sharing music and movies in many cases.  And the really bizarre part is I have no clue who this campaign is actually targeted at.  It feels like it was perhaps targeted at people who aren't on the internet and who live in 2003 or so.  What a waste of time, and what a shame that the White House would put a stamp of approval on such an amateurish mess.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-apparently-is-not-a-joke</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111129/15095716926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Confused Indian Anti-Piracy Group Asks Us To Remove Article It Doesn't Like From Some Other Blog</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/02583316350/confused-indian-anti-piracy-group-asks-us-to-remove-article-it-doesnt-like-some-other-blog.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/02583316350/confused-indian-anti-piracy-group-asks-us-to-remove-article-it-doesnt-like-some-other-blog.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is bizarre.  A few hours ago, we received an email to our copyright notice email address from Aiplex, an Indian anti-piracy/SEO/medical transcription company.  You may remember the company because we wrote a short post about them over a year ago, when its CEO said in an interview that it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml">would resort to denial of service attacks</a> on sites that didn't cooperate.  We also noted that the somewhat confused company listed "Bram Cohen" as a type of BitTorrent client.
<br /><br />
Anyway, I'd nearly forgotten about the company until we got this email.  But the email is asking us to take down the post.  Except, it's not.  Rather than asking that we remove <i>our</i> post, it actually asks us to remove a copy of the post on a spam blog that appears to copy every Techdirt post (there are a bunch of sites out there that do this and get no traffic -- it makes no sense to us, but they're free to use our content that way, if they want).  Here's the email:
<blockquote><i>
This has reference to the below article on your webpage, we kindly request you to deactivate the link as the article is defaming the company&rsquo;s image &#038; its prospects. It was mis-interpreted by the news agency which was blown out of proportion by some of the pirates across the globe. And subsequently we have to face damages/threats from the pirates &#038; undergo immense losses due to their attack on our servers/websites etc.
 <br /><br />
Although, we did declare that we are not involved in any of those activities as published in the article, we still have to face the consequences for reasons unknown.
 <br /><br />
Below is the link for your reference:
 <br /><br />
http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2010/09/bizarre-indian-anti-piracy-group-says-it-does-dos-attacks-on-file-sharing-operations/
 <br /><br />
We kindly request you to deactivate at the earliest possible please.
 <br /><br />
Appreciate your help on this matter.
 <br /><br />
Jagadish<br />
Support Operations<br />
Aiplex Software Pvt. Ltd.
</i></blockquote>
Interesting stuff.  First of all, they used our copyright notification email, and this issue has nothing to do with copyright.  Second, they are asking us to remove our content from a site that is not ours, and which we have no control over.  The content did, certainly, originate from our site, but they don't ask us to remove the content on our site.  This does not speak highly of their technical skills, let alone their basic understanding of this World Wide Web we live on.  Finally, as to the claim that this is "defaming," the article directly quotes the company's CEO.
<br /><br />
Anyway, seeing as we don't control the web page they've asked us to take down, we obviously won't be doing a damn thing about it, other than to publish this post and hope that, sometime in the future, Aiplex learns a little bit about how the web works.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/02583316350/confused-indian-anti-piracy-group-asks-us-to-remove-article-it-doesnt-like-some-other-blog.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/02583316350/confused-indian-anti-piracy-group-asks-us-to-remove-article-it-doesnt-like-some-other-blog.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/02583316350/confused-indian-anti-piracy-group-asks-us-to-remove-article-it-doesnt-like-some-other-blog.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>try-again-guys</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111014/02583316350</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:20:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Former 'Anti-Piracy Investigator' Explains How He Fed Police Cases, Inflated 'Piracy' Stats</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ None of this will come as much of a surprise, but a former "anti-piracy" private investigator who worked for the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110901/01544015760/leaked-state-department-cable-confirms-what-everyone-already-knew-mpaa-was-behind-bogus-australian-isp-lawsuit.shtml">MPAA's anti-piracy shell operation</a> in Australia, AFACT, has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/private-anti-piracy-investigator-spills-the-beans-111003/" target="_blank">explained to Torrentfreak</a> how he helped inflate "piracy" numbers, was used to imply a non-existent link between infringement and drug trafficking, and how he basically handed police targets for raids.  The guy was focused on physical counterfeiting of movies, and actually lost his job as the MPAA/AFACT started focusing more on online, rather than physical.  But, still there are some tidbits that highlight pretty much how the MPAA twists things:
<blockquote><i>
"He was adamant that we needed to boost our statistics to make the media sit up and take notice and that the large numbers would make it easier to get the local Police interested. This was especially difficult to do as local police had no jurisdiction over copyright infringing product and the AFP were desperately short on manpower. We were encouraged to find links to drugs and stolen goods wherever possible."
<br /><br />
"We discussed the formula for extrapolating the potential street value earnings of 'laboratories' and we were instructed to count all blank discs in our seizure figures as they were potential product. Mr Gane also explained that the increased loss approximation figures were derived from all forms of impacts on decreasing cinema patronage right through to the farmer who grows the corn for popping."
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
"Funded solely by MPAA, AFACT lobbies hard for changes to Australian law and enhance the sexiness of their case by making vague references to links to terrorism. Sometimes not so vague. I was instructed to tell police officers that the profit margins were greater than dealing heroin. It was bizarre. A twisted logic that AFACT spewed out with monotonous regularity," Warren says.
<br /><br />
One of the examples Warren gives is that they assumed that all burners and DVD replicators would run 24/7, making these operations appear very lucrative.
<br /><br />
"Each burner cranking out ten discs an hour, multiplied by ten dollars per disc is potentially a hundred dollars an hour, multiplied by number of burners by hours in a year gives a yearly potential&hellip;. Very pumped up statistics."
</i></blockquote>
There's a lot more in the story -- none of which is particularly surprising, but just interesting to see someone who was there come out and admit what most people knew already.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111003/12283916184</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Once Again NY Expands 'Anti-Piracy' Laws Based On No Evidence</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/12060215436/once-again-ny-expands-anti-piracy-laws-based-no-evidence.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/12060215436/once-again-ny-expands-anti-piracy-laws-based-no-evidence.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall a few years ago that the MPAA totally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070502/173805.shtml">made up numbers</a> about how big a "problem" camcording was in New York (if you added up their percentages, it came out that significantly <i>more than 100%</i> of all worldwide camcorded movies came from NY and Canada).  But, it's not like New York politicians pay attention to the actual facts.  After all, we're talking about the same folks who basically took an NBC Universal propaganda video and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/02385514537/why-is-federal-government-running-ads-secretly-created-owned-nbc-universal.shtml">pretended it was their own</a>.  So, of course, the "anti-camcording" law <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070508/202525.shtml">passed</a>.  
<br /><br />
As always, however, stricter laws are never enough for the folks at the MPAA and the RIAA.  When those laws fail to change anything, rather than realizing that maybe (just maybe) they should be helping their member studios &#038; labels adapt to the changing times, they instead focus on ratcheting up the laws even more.  So, the news that New York has <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OU0JF02.htm" target="_blank">"expanded" its anti-bootlegging law to now include other forms of storage</a>, including hard drives, flash drives and memory cards, is not surprising.  It seems that bootleggers in New York were actually changing with the times (while the labels were not), and had moved on from selling bootlegs on discs. 
<br /><br />
Still, I really have to wonder if the "bootleg" trade is as big a problem as the industry likes to make it out to be.  Considering all of this stuff is available online, who's really walking down Canal Street buying a hard drive of bootleg music these days?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/12060215436/once-again-ny-expands-anti-piracy-laws-based-no-evidence.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/12060215436/once-again-ny-expands-anti-piracy-laws-based-no-evidence.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/12060215436/once-again-ny-expands-anti-piracy-laws-based-no-evidence.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110808/12060215436</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 May 2011 15:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Indian Filmmakers Plan To Battle Piracy -- By Using Pirates' Own Computers Against Them</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/16183914104/indian-filmmakers-plan-to-battle-piracy----using-pirates-own-computers-against-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/16183914104/indian-filmmakers-plan-to-battle-piracy----using-pirates-own-computers-against-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Alarming news comes our way via TorrentFreak, who detail <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/crazy-warnings-and-hacking-webcams-anti-piracy-indian-style-110501/" target="_blank">some brand new (and rather frightening) tactics</a> being deployed by filmmakers in India, where piracy is such a huge problem that the industry was limited to <a href="http://cbfcindia.gov.in/CbfcWeb/fckeditor/editor/images/Uploadedfiles/file/Publications/ANR2009-ch6-SI.pdf" target="_blank">releasing <em>only</em> 1,288 feature films in 2009</a>:</p><blockquote><em>According to Rakshitha, the producer of a new movie called Jogaiah, her company has hired an anti-piracy outfit called Shree Technologies to protect the movie&rsquo;s soundtrack due to be released later this month.<br /><br />&ldquo;The software that we&rsquo;ve used will help us track each person down, so that we can take action against them. It is much-needed in the film industry,&rdquo; Rakshitha said this week.<br /><br />Then, and without explaining exactly how the anti-piracy system will achieve its most extraordinary feat, Prem &ndash; the director of the film &ndash; drops the bombshell.<br /><br />&ldquo;All it requires is for someone to search for the keywords &lsquo;Jogaiah music download&rsquo; and it automatically tracks them down,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;If they have a webcam on their system and it&rsquo;s switched on, it will also capture the photo of the offender.&rdquo;</em><br /></blockquote><p><br />While this itself would seem threatening enough, Shree Technologie's as-of-yet unnamed anti-piracy software has many more features:<br /><br /><strong>ADDITIONAL SERVICES/PROGRAMS USED</strong></p><ul><li>In addition (if their webcam is switched on), the user will be logged on to Chatroulette (Penises Only Rotation*). Their full name, phone number and estimated penis length/openness to random sexual encounters will be displayed below their face.<br /><br />* <em>Syncs with Hotmail account (if applicable) to turn every third word of outgoing mail to &quot;penis.&quot;</em></li></ul><ul><li>If the user has MS Paint open, their photo will then be pasted onto the body of a stick figure who will be drawn violating random farm animals.* The resulting graphic will then be uploaded to the 4chan /b/ board for further mockery and captions.<br /><br />* <em>Stick figures and farm animal drawings will be outsourced to Mechanical Turk</em>.</li></ul><ul><li>If the user has MS Word or WordPad open, an angry and threatening letter will be drafted and emailed to the editorial section of the nearest paper of record* via Outlook.** Users of OpenOffice will receive an emailed warning that the Business Software Alliance (BSA) has shown that the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02374413324/bsa-claims-open-standards-will-increase-costs" target="_blank">use of open source software is surprisingly expensive</a>, along with a rebate certificate good towards the purchase of a more hackable product.<br /><br />*<em>If the nearest paper of record is the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=denver+post" target="_blank">Denver Post</a>, all personal information will be turned over immediately to Righthaven and the user's name inserted into the byline of the nearest violating article</em>.<br /><br />**<em>If the user has Outlook fully functional, everyone will be duly surprised and the information will be passed on to the nearest Microsoft marketing team for further study</em>.</li></ul><ul><li>Those with Windows Media Player installed will be blasted with a repeated 8-bar loop of whatever shrill Indian pop song is currently sitting at number one on the pop charts, followed by an equally shrill voice loudly informing them that they should purchase a licensed version to <a href="http://www.modular-infotech.com/html/antipiracy.html" target="_blank">avoid &quot;further embarassment&quot; and a stay at the &quot;Police guest house.&quot;</a></li></ul><ul><li>Those using other free media players (WinAmp, SongBird, etc.) will be hounded into installing some sort of extraneous toolbar. I mean, more so than usual.</li></ul><ul><li>If the user is a member of &quot;The Facebook,&quot; his/her status will be immediately set to &quot;I STEAL FROM FILMMAKERS AND MUSICIANS WITHOUT REGARD TO OTHERS AND AM EMBARASSED. If you agree with this, post this as your status, only using my name instead of &quot;I&quot; and report me to your local authorities. (&quot;Me&quot; meaning the original poster and not yourself, the re-poster.)&quot;</li></ul><ul><li>If the user is a member of MySpace, Friendster, etc., the same posting will be made, but nobody will see it. Shree Technologies considers this to be punishment enough.</li></ul><ul><li>If the user has so far refused to join Failbook, Failspace or Failster at this point, he/she shall continue to feel pointlessly superior to the people around them, most of whom have forgotten he/she exists.</li></ul><p><strong>ADDITIONAL SEARCH TERMS</strong>:</p><ul><li>&quot;Jogiah iTunes download&quot; - User will be berated by various musicians* as accomplices to Apple's industry killing mechanism.<br />*<em>Basically just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/02072513497/bon-jovi-thinks-steve-jobs-killed-music-more-old-rockers-shooing-those-darn-kids-off-their-lawn.shtml" target="_blank">Jon Bon Jovi</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1836306554.shtml" target="_blank">Garth Brooks</a>, who have sold a combined eleventy billion albums</em>.</li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Jogiah musick download&quot; - Will redirect to a variety of <a href="http://soundcloud.com/ijesuskhrist" target="_blank">sketchy Soundcloud pages for the witch house community</a>, swamping the user in montone dirges and abused Unicode.</li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Jogiah megaupload rapidshare mediafire&quot; - Will redirect to &quot;Did you mean: <u><em>I want to go to jail</em></u>&quot;.</li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Shrill Indian pop music&quot; - Will redirect to this page.</li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Shrill American pop music&quot; - User will be assaulted by the latest shrill pop chart topper from America, followed by a guest rap from Snoop Dogg. </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Shree Technologies&quot; - Will give you the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&#038;biw=1337&#038;bih=882&#038;q=shree+technologies&#038;aq=f&#038;aqi=g-s1g-sx1g-sv2g-b2&#038;aql=&#038;oq=" target="_blank">Indian phone book</a>, metaphorically speaking, but none of the answers you're looking for.</li></ul><ul><li>&quot;ChatRoulette -penis&quot; - Will redirect to:<br /><br /><strong>Your search - ChatRoulette -penis - did not match any documents.<br /><br />Suggestions:<br /><br />Make sure all words are spelled correctly.<br />Try different keywords.<br />Try +penis.</strong></li></ul><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/16183914104/indian-filmmakers-plan-to-battle-piracy----using-pirates-own-computers-against-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/16183914104/indian-filmmakers-plan-to-battle-piracy----using-pirates-own-computers-against-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/16183914104/indian-filmmakers-plan-to-battle-piracy----using-pirates-own-computers-against-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>all-your-applications-and-services-are-belong-to-us</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110501/16183914104</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:28:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>Irony Alert: NYC's Anti-Piracy Propaganda Campaign Using 'Free' YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we wrote about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/15111112387/nbc-universal-mpaa-get-nyc-mayor-bloomberg-to-run-propaganda-anti-piracy-ad-campaign.shtml">anti-piracy propaganda campaign</a> that NYC has been running, paid for by taxpayer dollars, which spreads typical MPAA FUD, and concludes with the line: "There's no such thing as a free movie."  However, in looking over the campaign, I just realized that the videos <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUABOIe5SWo&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">are hosted on YouTube... for free</a>.  In other words, while NYC and its Hollywood friends are claiming that if you get something for free, it must be illegal, they're making use of free online services themselves.  Without YouTube, they'd have to pay for the hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc. themselves.  But this way, they get it for free.
<br /><br />
Now, it's absolutely true that YouTube could monetize the videos with ads (though, I don't see any on that video right now), but that sort of reinforces the point.  There are all sorts of business models that allow you to offer something for "free" to the end user, but are monetized elsewhere.  YouTube does exactly that.  It offers what would otherwise be quite expensive (hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc.) and gives it all away for free, and has built a whole business around that.  There's nothing saying that the movie industry can't do the same thing.  Rather than falsely stating that there's no such thing as a "free" (to the consumer) movie, there are certainly plenty of ways  that the movie industry could monetize movies that were offered free to consumers.  It's just that the legacy players choose not to.  And then complain.  And get politicians to waste taxpayer money...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-free-free</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110109/21070112580</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Nov 2010 04:25:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft's Anti-Piracy Efforts: Millions Spent Driving People To Open Source Software</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/03035911755/microsoft-s-anti-piracy-efforts-millions-spent-driving-people-to-open-source-software.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/03035911755/microsoft-s-anti-piracy-efforts-millions-spent-driving-people-to-open-source-software.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the past, Microsoft used to be willing to admit that unauthorized copies <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/224452.shtml">helped the company</a>, as it helped establish its software as a near-monopoly in certain areas, and kept competitors out.  But, in the past few years, the company has become more adamant, not just about denying any possible "benefits" to unauthorized copies, but in trying to crack down on them at any cost.  The NY Times has an article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/technology/07piracy.html?_r=1&#038;hp=&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">highlighting Microsoft's "fight" against unauthorized copies</a>, and does so with dramatic (and cinematic) claims about how organized crime groups are turning to software copying, as an alternative to drugs.
<br /><br />
Of course, this ignores the fact that such organized crime groups have actually discovered that it's harder and harder to make money with counterfeit software -- because more and more such software is just available for free online, leaving little reason to pay anything for it, especially from counterfeiters.  But, what strikes me as most interesting through the blatantly ridiculous claims throughout the article from Microsoft's folks and its stand-ins at the BSA, is that all the company is really doing here is spending a ton of money to convince people to look at cheaper (or free) alternatives.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/03035911755/microsoft-s-anti-piracy-efforts-millions-spent-driving-people-to-open-source-software.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/03035911755/microsoft-s-anti-piracy-efforts-millions-spent-driving-people-to-open-source-software.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/03035911755/microsoft-s-anti-piracy-efforts-millions-spent-driving-people-to-open-source-software.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>surely-that's-not-the-best-use-of-money?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101108/03035911755</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:47:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Russian Officials Abusing Copyright Law -- With Microsoft's Help -- To Intimidate Gov't Critics</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12440610969.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12440610969.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about how the Russian gov't (after years of diplomatic pressure from the US), was suddenly cracking down on organizations for using unauthorized software -- but, that such "anti-piracy raids" only seemed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/011339.shtml">target government critics</a>.  We've suggested in the past that the US should know better than to pressure countries like Russia and China to be more proactive when it comes to copyright issues, because those efforts will backfire when such tools are used solely to further the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100312/1843418546.shtml">political ambitions</a> of those in power, not the business prospects of American companies.
<br /><br />
It looks like the Russian government's misuse of copyright law in this manner has continued, and the NY Times (who also had that original article three years ago, though they don't point back to it, like we do) is noting that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/world/europe/12raids.html?_r=2&#038;hpr=&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Microsoft appears to be helping the Russian government suppress dissent in this manner</a>, because even when organizations claim they legally licensed Microsoft products, Microsoft keeps its hardline "down with pirates" line and supports the Russian raids and prosecutions.  Despite the fact that these sorts of stories have appeared for at least three years, and despite claims from the groups targeted that they've requested Microsoft's help in not being involved in frivolous attacks, Microsoft only seems to have taken notice of the issue once the NY Times came calling.
<br /><br />
And, before people say that the best way to avoid these things is to either not use Microsoft software at all, or to properly license it, it should be made clear that there's evidence that Russian officials don't care:
<blockquote><i>
But the review of these cases indicates that the security services often seize computers <b>whether or not they contain illegal software</b>. The police immediately filed reports saying they had discovered such programs, <b>before even examining the computers in detail</b>. The police claims have in numerous instances been successfully discredited by defendants when the cases go before judges.
<br /><br />
Given the suspicions that these investigations are politically motivated, the police and prosecutors have turned to Microsoft to lend weight to their cases. In southwestern Russia, the Interior Ministry declared in an official document that its investigation of a human rights advocate for software piracy was begun "based on an application" from a lawyer for Microsoft. 
</i></blockquote>
In other cases, organizations that were raided had compliance stickers on the computers, and had all the receipts and documentation ready to show police.  However, police refused to look at the documentation and <i>removed the stickers</i> that showed compliance.
<br /><br />
Microsoft execs should be ashamed of how their ridiculous anti-piracy stance is being abused to put down political dissent.  Shameful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12440610969.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12440610969.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12440610969.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100912/12440610969</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:23:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Bizarre Indian Anti-Piracy Group Says It Does DoS Attacks On File Sharing Operations</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This one's just a bit strange.  TorrentFreak alerts us to the news of an Indian company called AiPlex, which (according to its website) seems to do a bit of medical transcription, a bit of SEO and... just for fun, a bit of anti-piracy work.  Apparently AiPlex's CEO explains that one of their anti-piracy methods is to <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-outfit-threatens-to-dos-uncooperative-torrent-sites-100905/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">hit non-cooperative sites with a denial of service attack</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"In such cases, we flood the website with requests, which results in database error, causing denial of service as each server has a fixed bandwidth capacity," Kumar reveals. And it doesn't stop there.
<br /><br />
"At times, we have to go an extra mile and attack the site and destroy the data to stop the movie from circulating further," he adds.
</i></blockquote>
TorrentFreak also notes that this firm seems a bit confused over how BitTorrent works, in that it lists "Bram Cohen" as a type of BitTorrent client, which I'm sure amuses Bram).  Watch out, Bram, or a medical transcription SEO company might try to flood you with requests, resulting in a database error.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100905/11383610909.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100905/11383610909</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 20:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Revolving Door: Administration's ACTA Defender Jumps Ship To US Chamber Of Commerce</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may remember Steven Tepp, from the US Copyright Office, who just recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100527/0120329597.shtml">defended the administration's position on ACTA</a> by mocking the very legitimate concerns of many people about ACTA's exporting of stronger copyright laws, without any corresponding exceptions, combined with the fact that it would lock in currently in-flux US caselaw with no chance for Congress to fix mistakes by the courts.  James Love alerts us to the news that Tepp has left the employment of the government to <a href="http://twitter.com/jamie_love/statuses/17984134912" target="_blank">become the "Senior Director of Internet Piracy and Counterfeiting" for the US Chamber of Commerce</a>.
<br /><br />
The Chamber of Commerce of course (a private organization, not to be confused -- as some people do -- with the government's Commerce Department) is famous for its anti-fact position on IP laws, where it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0410036386.shtml">always believes greater protectionism is better</a>, despite the evidence.  Of course, when all of the evidence is against the Chamber of Commerce, it came out with its own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/0056079188.shtml">laughable study</a> that confuses correlation with a causal relationship, and bases its conclusions on lumping together various companies and assigning their success or failure <i>entirely</i> to intellectual property laws.  It sounds like Tepp should fit right in, though it again highlights the revolving door between the folks who make the policies and those who lobby for the policies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lobbyists-in-and-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100707/16572710115</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:57:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Campaign Shows You 'Killing' Look Alike Pop Stars</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1521059835.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1521059835.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been some really ridiculous "anti-piracy" campaigns out there, but this one is really quite impressive.  TorrentFreak has the details on a site, called <a href="http://www.freemusichk.com/en/" target="_blank">FreemusicHK.com</a>, that pretends to be a site for downloading unauthorized music.  However, when you actually do go to download it, instead you <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/assassinate-a-pop-star-by-illegally-downloading-some-music-100615/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">get to play a little flash game where you get to "kill" look alike pop stars</a> on the cover of their albums.  Of course, the pop-stars aren't just lookalikes, but name-alikes, too.  So, it's A<b>n</b>y Winehouse, instead of Amy.  It's Madownload, instead of Madonna.  It's B<b>i</b>ur, instead of Blur.  Copy Play instead of <strike>Cold Play</strike> Moby's "Play" album... etc.  If this really is some sort of anti-piracy campaign, they're doing it wrong.  As multiple people are <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody/statuses/16255806926" target="_blank">pointing out</a>, they've made the whole thing so silly and ridiculous that's it's kind of fun to play.  It's really quite incredible how tone deaf various "anti-piracy" campaigns have been to what consumers are actually thinking.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1521059835.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1521059835.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1521059835.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-convincing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100615/1521059835</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 15:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Swedish Police Say Anti-Piracy Law Has Harmed Ability To Catch Criminals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1609539448.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1609539448.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've pointed out many times in the past the "unintended" consequences of certain activities, and it looks like the entertainment industry's worldwide effort to push for more and more industry-favorable copyright laws is causing serious problems elsewhere.  Apparently, Anders Ahlqvist, who runs the Swedish IT crime unit is noting that the response to the IPRED law in Sweden (pushed by the entertainment industry to crack down on unauthorized file sharing) means that it's <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/police-say-anti-piracy-law-makes-catching-criminals-harder-100517/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">now more difficult for him to do his job</a>.  Part of the issue, of course, is that various ISPs <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090416/1744494531.shtml">responded</a> to the law by seeking to protect their users' privacy by deleting log files.  Of course, that probably means it's only a matter of time before the industry pushes for new data retention laws, despite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/0305177669.shtml">evidence</a> that more data retention can actually make life trickier for law enforcement as well.  Still, at some point people need to recognize that the entertainment industry's single-minded focus on "stomping out file sharing" rather than adding value through new business models has some serious costs elsewhere.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1609539448.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1609539448.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1609539448.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>consequences</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100517/1609539448</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Group Says: 'Child Porn Is Great' Since It Gets Politicians To Block File Sharing Sites</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've seen the entertainment industry make totally bogus and unsubstantiated claims about file sharing sites being hotbeds of child pornography in an effort to get them to regulate or shut down those services.  Of course, the actual evidence shows that file sharing porn is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031212/0923207.shtml">no worse</a> than what's on the wider internet.  But that doesn't stop the entertainment industry from making such bogus claims -- and it seems like they're gleefully admitting it these days.  <a href="http://twitter.com/jamie_love/statuses/12949253262" target="_blank">Jamie Love</a> points us to an account of an event in Sweden, entitled "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?" put on by the <i>US Chamber of Commerce</i>, where someone from the Danish "Anti-Piracy" group <a href="http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/" target="_blank">spoke out about how <b>great</b> child pornography is</a>, because it makes it easy for them to get politicians to block or shut down file sharing sites.
<blockquote><i>
"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium [Johan Schluter] declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".
</blockquote></i>
Of course, this is no surprise, but having him say so directly is a bit surprising.  He goes on to admit that the entertainment industry is planning to use child porn as a wedge to demand "a giant filter" for copyright:
<blockquote><i>
"One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, those filters <i>don't</i> actually work, and using them to force entire sites to be blocked, despite them having a relatively tiny proportion of such content isn't just dishonest and underhanded, but dangerous.  We're all in favor of trying to stop child porn, but you do that by focusing on the source, not by putting up filters willy-nilly in a misguided attempt to get politicians to also protect your business model.
<br><Br>
Either way, it's incredibly disgusting to have anyone claim that child porn is "great," just because it can be improperly exploited for the sake of protecting another industry's business model.  That he's basically admitting that he doesn't remotely care about stopping child pornography, but prefers to use it to his advantage is downright sickening.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100427/1437179198</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If File Sharing Is Costing Hollywood So Much Money, Why Do They Want To Pay So Little To Stop It?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1036498765.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1036498765.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have sent over the story that TorrentFreak posted about Warner Bros. UK looking to <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-recruits-students-to-spy-on-pirates-100329/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">hire a technology-savvy student for a year</a> to be on its "anti-piracy" team.  The job involves finding file sharing sites, monitoring them, and sending takedown notices.  Fun stuff.  But what caught my eye is that the job pays &pound;17,500 for 12 months (or about $26,000).  Considering that the industry pushes to fine people more than that amount <i>per file shared</i>, it certainly seems to be cheaping out to offer so little to the knowledgeable student they're hiring.  If file sharing is really "costing" the industry so much, wouldn't the industry actually pay well to stop it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1036498765.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1036498765.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1036498765.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hell,-that's-the-penalty-on-a-single-movie</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100329/1036498765</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:14:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Are Entertainment Industry Tactics Working?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been somewhat amusing over the last day or so to see a bunch of our usual critics all submit the same exact story with some sort of triumphant "I told you so!!!!!" (usually in less friendly language).  It's a report that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/23/sweden-music-sales-filesharing-crackdown" target="_blank">music sales are up in Sweden</a> following the strict anti-piracy law that went into effect earlier this year.  The claim is that this is proof that the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI/etc strategies work.  To them, this is clear, irrefutable evidence that draconian measures to crack down on unauthorized file sharing really does <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1017496795.shtml">make people buy</a>.  That would be quite interesting if true, but our friends employed by these companies might want to wait a bit before breaking out the champagne over a dead cat bounce.
<br /><br />
First, there are some who are questioning the actual numbers.  So far, the only numbers have come directly from the IFPI, who hasn't provided much in the way of detail (and have a long history of publishing questionable, fact-challenged numbers).  In fact, the very lack of detail would likely indicate that there are extenuating circumstances here.  And, when we're talking about Sweden, it has to also be noted that services like Spotify (which dragged the labels kicking and screaming into the modern world) were just launched at the very end of last year.  So, it could be that it was one of these more modern services that helped convince people to buy music rather than any crackdown.  But, of course, the bigger question is whether or not any boost is sustainable.  It was reported that there was a drop in file sharing after the Swedish IPRED law went into effect (though, again, many argue that the "drop" was simply because more people started using encryption and those who measure file sharing traffic had no way to deal with it, so pretended they all stopped).  Yet, it didn't take long for the traffic numbers to <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-internet-traffic-recovers-after-initial-ipred-scare-091113/" target="_blank">bounce back up</a>.
<br /><br />
And that's the issue.  If your entire business model is based on whacking people with a stick and telling them what they can't do, you may get brief moments of compliance, but at the first chance they get to go back to a more consumer-friendly system, they will.  So while our friends in the entertainment industry will likely misread this situation into believing that its strategy of pissing off pretty much everyone makes business sense, let's wait and see how this works out in the next year or so.  Dead cat bounces can fool lots of folks, but there are very few industries that succeed by basing their future on such things.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1018597087.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>or-is-it-a-dead-cat-bounce</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091125/1018597087</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Anti-Piracy Group In Spain Fined For Bad Faith Actions Against File Sharing Systems</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/1920017075.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/1920017075.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just talking about how the justice system in Spain seems at least <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1152097027.shtml">somewhat more reasonable</a> on the subject of file sharing, and here's yet another example.  A court has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-sites-injunctions-overturned-anti-piracy-group-fined-091124/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">overturned injunctions on two file sharing sites</a> <b>and</b> fined the anti-piracy group that brought charges against them in the first place for "acting in bad faith."  The case was dismissed because the court realized (yet again) that linking to infringing material is not infringing itself.  But, the "bad faith" part involved the anti-piracy group, SGAE, tricking the operator of the sites into believing that two SGAE employees were representatives of the court and had the right to search his home and confiscate computer hard drives.  We've seen such things allowed elsewhere, so it's nice that the Spanish courts are letting private anti-piracy groups know that they are not law enforcement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/1920017075.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/1920017075.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/1920017075.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>another-one-for-spain</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091124/1920017075</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>