The latest challenger in this stupid, stupid game? The Philippines. At the request of the Filipino record industry, with some help from their US counterparts, the government seized infamous torrent tracker site Kickass Torrents. The government notes that they're only following the lead of the United Kingdom, who similarly censored KAT back in February. So, once again, we have private industry managing to get government to act as their knee-cap hit squad. Rather, that would be a decent description if the mole wasn't able to simply pop back up out of another hole, which it did.

Local record labels and the Philippine Association of the Recording Industry said that the torrent site was doing “irreparable damages” to the music industry and following a formal complaint the authorities resorted to seize of the main domain name. The torrent site hasn’t given up and is operating as usual under a new domain name.

In sum, all of the defendants stipulated to liability before the trial. Plaintiff had already agreed not to seek damages against two of the three defendants. The third defendant stipulated to liability. Malibu Media and the third defendant asked the judge to enter a finding on damages, even though they had already agreed on what he would pay.

So there was absolutely nothing at issue during the trial. Not liability. Not damages. Nothing.

Then there was the 'trial' itself. The only party to actually put on a witness was Malibu Media. None of the defendants even cross-examined a witness. Really?

What kind of trial is it where the defendant doesn't challenge any of the plaintiff's witnesses or even put on any witnesses of its own? A sham, that's what.

So why was there even a trial? I have no idea.

It was all about Malibu Media trying to get Judge Baylson to write a document that Malibu Media could use in all its demand letters from now on. I'll point out that, to his credit, Judge Baylson had to tell Lipscomb numerous times that he would not be Lipscomb's advertising spokesman. I think what he said was he wasn't interested in writing anything that was "commercially valuable" to Malibu Media.

And as PC Inpact explains, even if it is confirmed, it may be unenforceable: although access to the Web can be cut, Hadopi's rules state that the filtering must not affect email, private messaging, telephone or any associated TV services. Since these are typically all provided together, that may be tricky, or even impossible. Hadopi says it only hands out suspensions: it doesn't concern itself about how -- or even if -- they can be implemented.

So after years of operation, all that the three-strikes approach has to show for the millions that have been spent, are a handful of convictions: one where someone was fined but innocent, and another where the person involved probably can't be disconnected anyway. Great work, Hadopi.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”

Over the 18 months of the website’s operation, the brothers earned approximately $150,000 in advertising revenue.

To be clear, the re-orchestrated instrumentals on Bizarre Tribe were sourced from the original jazz, soul, and funk recordings SAMPLED by [redacted], allowing Amerigo to create his own, distinct production within a similar framework. Given the brief and limited use of [redacted] material on Bizarre Tribe (around 2 minutes of material out of a 55 minute album), and the method by which our reinterpretations are created, it is clear that Amerigo's effort is protected under the fair use exception of copyright infringement.

We would further add that the presence of documentary style sound-bites, interviews, and news clips included on Bizarre Tribe to provide a narrative of the group's history and commentary on their work only further protects us under the fair use exception, undermindes your claim against us, and provides a clearer distinction as to the uniqueness of what we do at Gummy Soul. As you know, [redacted] is no stranger to the fair use exception as you have relied on it many times yourselves.

More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Happy Birthday to You is set was first published, defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, and with that copyright the exclusive right to authorize the song's reproduction, distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal copyright law. Defendant Warner/Chappell either has silenced those wishing to record or perform Happy Birthday to You or has extracted millions of dollars in unlawful licensing fees from those unwilling or unable to challenge its ownership claims.

Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to 1893, s hows that the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, if there ever was a valid copyright to any part of the song expired no later than 1921 and that if defendant Warner/Chappell owns any rights to Happy Birthday to You, those rights are limited to the extremely narrow right to reproduce and distribute specific piano arrangements for the song published in 1935. Significantly, no court has ever adjudicated the validity or scope of the defendant's claimed interest in Happy Birthday to You, nor in the song's melody or lyrics, which are themselves independent works.

Plaintiff GMTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, seeks a declaration that Happy Birthday to You is dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as monetary damages and restitution of all the unlawful licensing fees that defendant Warner/Chappell improperly collected from GMTY and all other Class members.

If and to the extent that defendant Warner/Chappell relies upon the 1893, 1896, 1899, or 1907 copyrights for the melody of Good Morning to All, those copyrights expired or were forfeited as alleged herein.

As alleged above, the 1893 and 1896 copyrights to the original and revised versions of Song Stories for the Kindergarten, which contained the song Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy and accordingly expired in 1921 and 1924, respectively.

As alleged above, the 1899 copyright to Song Stories for the Sunday School, which contained Good Morning to All, and the 1907 copyright to Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy Co. before its expiration in 1920 and accordingly expired in 1927 and 1935, respectively.

The 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907 copyrights to Good Morning to All were forfeited by the republication of Good Morning to All in 1921 without proper notice of its original 1893 copyright.

The copyright to Good Morning to All expired in 1921 because the 1893 copyright to Song Stories for the Kindergarten was not properly renewed.

The piano arrangements for Happy Birthday to You published by Summy Co. 111 in 1935 (Reg. Nos. E51988 and E51990) were not eligible for federal copyright protection because those works did not contain original works of authorship, except to the extent of the piano arrangements themselves.

The 1934 and 1935 copyrights pertained only to the piano arrangements, not to the melody or lyrics of the song Happy Birthday to You.

The registration certificates for The Elementary Worker and His Work in 1912, Harvest in 1924, and Children's Praise and Worship in 1928, which did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You to anyone, are prima facie evidence that the lyrics were not authored by the Hill Sisters.

“Yes. Warner Bros. is working with Digital Rights Corp on a test ISP/subscriber notification program to many ISPs that are not participating in the Copyright Alert System,” a Warner spokesman told TorrentFreak.

[....] “The notices give consumers an opportunity to settle the identified infringement for a very nominal sum of $20 per title infringed–not as a measure of damage, but as a concrete reminder that our content has value and as a discouragement of future unauthorized activity.”

After the initial payment, Rights Corp matched the notified (and settled) infringement with two others already on file. Since the guy had filled in his phone number, the company then called him up and asked for another $40.00 to clear his file.

Since I started taking classes at St. Olaf college 3 years ago, there has not been one professor that has not used some sort of audiovisual aid during the course. I am a political science major, and the trends of using videos is no different in the humanities. For example in my Russian and Eurasian politics class, we studied the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states today, and the use of Youtube videos and documentary films were instrumental in giving us a better understanding of the situation. The use of videos in education has become a norm to address the needs of various types of learners as well as to complement the various tools and sources at the disposal of the professors.

Videos are not used solely in the classroom, they are assigned as homework and part of the syllabus and the “reading list” of most if not all courses you have to take to get a bachelor today. Audiovisual materials also compose a large part of the library. Archival footage for example is an essential part of a history major curriculum.

In 2009, the Motion Picture Industry began to lobby the Obama Administration to narrow the treaty to "print disabilities" only, and to eliminate deaf persons as beneficiaries. By 2010, the Obama Administration took a hard line in the WIPO negotiations, backed upon by the European Union, to narrow the treaty, excluding deaf persons. This was designed to overcome political opposition from the MPAA, and the USPTO said the compromise on beneficiaries was necessary for the text to move forward. In November 2010, the WIPO SCCR agreed to separate the more "mature" issues of visually impaired and reading disabilities from "other disabilities" in its negotiations. In June 2011, a new committee sponsored negotiating text for this treaty (SCCR/24/9) defined beneficiaries in such a way that deaf persons were excluded.

From 1985 to 2011, the various treaty proposals all would have covered any copyrighted work, including, for example SCCR/23/7, the text published in December 2011. But shortly after the MPAA was able to remove deaf persons as beneficiaries, they lobbied the Obama Administration to remove audiovisual works from the text. The Obama Administration proposed this formally in June 2012, and in December 2012, there was a deal to eliminate audiovisual works from the text, in order to get an agreement to hold a diplomatic conference in June 2013. Since nothing is set in stone in the negotiation, that decision can be changed, but it will probably require a change of position in the Obama White House, which has threatened to block the treaty if audiovisual works are included.

"On every check we have made, Google's search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games," Hood said. "This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior."

Hood didn't buy Google's explanations that it only removes content from search results in a narrow set of circumstances, pointing out that Google blocks child pornography and has removed content that glorifies the Nazi party. "Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content?" Hood asked.

What we have there is an example of Fox News presenting two sides of the debate and among their own hosts to boot. In case you can't see it, Kelly uses clips from Lou Dobbs' show within her own to demonstrate her point. I mention this only to demonstrate that Fox News was not sufficiently embarrassed by the dumb things said by some of their commentators to keep from re-airing them on another of their shows. When an advocacy group wants to use those same clips for an ad-spot, however, suddenly the scramble to copyright claims has occurred. An anti-sexism group named UltraViolet submitted the ad to air on Fox's channel, painting the commentators in a negative light and then asking them to be retired from Fox News. You might expect the channel to dismiss the ad simply on the grounds that they don't want to denigrate their own programming, but that wouldn't help in trying to keep the spot off of other networks, would it? So Fox instead relied on the go-to protocol for censoring negative information. Per UltraViolet's media buyer, Buying Time, LLC:

Team – Just heard back from Fox Business. Unfortunately, Fox has rejected the ad. Due to their copyright rules, they can’t air an ad that uses their material in a spot.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require countries that have acceded to the Treaties to “provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures.”1 Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201 (a)(1) of Title 17 implements these treaty obligations in the U.S. by prohibiting circumvention of a technological protection measure (TPM) that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work subject to one key exception. Every three years, the Register of Copyrights is directed by statute to conduct a rulemaking in which advocates for specific exemptions may petition for exemptions to the anticircumvention provisions for noninfringing uses subject to five factors.

Since the enactment of this provision into U.S. law, the U.S. has entered into several Free Trade Agreements that require signatories (the U.S. and the particular country or region) to enact anti-circumvention provisions and set requirements on how exceptions to them can be created. Most such FTAs limit the duration of such exemptions to a three or four year period and require that they be administratively or legislatively created based upon a record of evidence.

At least ASIC realizes that its current ham-fisted approach isn't acceptable:

ASIC told senate estimates in its opening statement that it was now examining how it could ensure only a site's specific domain name was blocked and ways it could alert the public to a site being blocked via a pop up page. It was also examining ways such a page could indicate why access was blocked and to whom queries could be made to dispute a block.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

• First up, is testimony from George Slover of Consumer's Union. He highlights, correctly, how important mobile phone unlocking is for consumers, and points out that it's a demonstration of "the harm the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are causing consumers." He also points out that this issue should be a reason to explore more deeply the role of the anti-circumvention provisions found in Section 1201. He does offer a qualified support for the bill, but lists out a bunch of other changes that he thinks really should be added to the bill, to further allow consumer freedom and innovation around unlocked phones to thrive. The basic rights of consumers is important, and Slover definitely highlights that.
• Next up, is testimony from Steven Berry from the Competitive Carriers Association, who have also been fighting hard to allow phone unlocking. There, the message is obvious. The competitive carriers provide greater innovation in terms of business models, service plans, etc., but much of that is enabled by allowing unlocking of phones, so users can switch from big network providers to a competitive carrier, without having to buy a new phone. This testimony focuses on the importance of unlocking specifically, and doesn't touch on the bigger issue of fixing the anti-circumvention provision. It's narrowly focused.
• Then we get to testimony from Mike Altschul from CTIA, which is basically the trade group for the big mobile carriers. Their argument is basically "hey, we let you unlock your phones if you ask, so there's no need for this exemption." It claims, ridiculously, that carriers need to "lock" their phones so they can provide subsidies to make phones cheaper. But that's clearly not true. Carriers that subsidize their phones also have contractual early termination fees, which solve the subsidy issue, so the claim that they need the locks to protect the subsidies makes no sense. They already have the ability to do so contractually -- and they use it. There's no need for them to rely on digital locks and a broken copyright law to further protect something they already have through contract. Furthermore, the argument that they already allow unlocking is simply not correct. They allow unlocking in certain situations, but not all, and people have run into issues such as when travelling abroad, and just wanting to put in a foreign sim card.
• And, finally on the spoken testimony, we come to testimony from Steve Metalitz. Metalitz is the MPAA and RIAA's go to guy for writing the laws they like in DC. ACTA, SOPA, TPP have his fingerprints all over them, and he's the epitome of an extreme maximalist. There's nothing about greater copyright protection that he finds problematic, and he always supports expansions. I have no idea why he's a witness at this panel, since he has nothing to do with phone unlocking, and while he has advocated for the MPAA/RIAA's extreme interests during DMCA exemption reviews, he officially took "no position" on cell phone unlocking.
  
  His testimony is basically a spirited, ridiculous, and flat-out misleading "defense" of Section 1201 and the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which he seems to credit as being the reason why we have any entertainment at all online today. He claims that 1201 is "one of the most critical provisions" and says that it, specifically, has been "critical" (he likes that word) to the entertainment industry embracing the online world. This is wrong. First, the industry was dragged kicking and screaming into the online world, not willingly. And the anti-circumvention provisions have been nearly entirely useless in protecting their works, nearly all of which are available DRM-free from unauthorized sources. On the music front, they've already ditched DRM, and others will likely follow.
  
  Metalitz then claims that 1201 is critical to the success of cloud computing, which is also wrong and ridiculous. It's wrong because what protects cloud computing is not copyright law, but good computer security. If cloud providers are hanging their hat on a copyright infringement claim if someone breaks into their network, they're doing it wrong. It's also ridiculous, because it tries to pretend that the tech industry is supportive of section 1201, when many find it quite problematic.
  
  After that, he points out that 1201 was such a good idea that "scores of other countries have followed." What he leaves out is that those "scores of other countries" were pressured by the US government, in large part because of international treaties that (oooh, look at that) were strongly "supported" by Metalitz. It's quite a feat to claim that other countries supported your idea when they did so under pressure from the US government, using points highlighted by the RIAA/MPAA's own representatives.

Most significantly, the Section 1201 rulemaking is an exercise in legal theatre. All the parties to the rulemaking—those seeking an exemption, the rights holders, and the Copyright Office staff--acknowledge that it is unclear whether the rulemaking has any practical effect. This is because Section 1201(a)(1)(C) authorizes the Librarian of Congress to adopt exemptions to the Section 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibition on the act of circumventing a technological protection measure (TPM), but not to the Section 1201(a)(2) prohibition on the development and distribution of the technologies necessary to perform the circumvention. In other words, after receiving an exemption, a person might be legally permitted to perform the act of circumvention, but might have no lawful way of obtaining the technology necessary to perform that act.

Similarly, all the parties understand that what occurs inside the hearing room has no connection to the world outside it. In the last three rulemaking cycles, LCA has joined with other groups in seeking exemptions for educators and students to circumvent the TPMs on DVDs for the purpose of making educational uses of film clips. The rights holders know that the uses we seek will not harm their market in any way. They also know that whether the exemption is granted or rejected will have absolutely no impact on the level of infringement. This is because the technology necessary to circumvent the TPMs on DVDs is widely available on the Internet and easy to use. Nonetheless, the rights holders reflexively oppose the exemption or seek to narrow it so that it would be unusable. As a result, the discussions in the rulemaking descend into hyper-technical issues such as the quality of video necessary for effective pedagogy in different kinds of courses.

Moreover, in two rulemaking cycles, witnesses from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) demonstrated how a person could camcord a film off of a high definition television. MPAA was attempting to show that a relatively high quality recording could be made without circumventing a technological protection measure. What it succeeded in proving, however, was the contradiction underlying its position. If one could obtain a high quality copy without circumvention, why use technological protection measures in the first place, and why should their circumvention be unlawful? Moreover, the MPAA was demonstrating how to camcord a film precisely at the same time it was asking Congress, state governments, and foreign legislatures to impose criminal penalties on camcording.

Banning technologies is an extreme step by government, a truly incredible reach of Federal power, and I would petition this body to be very careful in continuing to delegate the authority of what technologies to ban to a quasi-regulatory agent when, in these and many other circumstances, there is no compelling governmental interest.

This legislation, as currently crafted, does not reflect the input of the White House, former FCC Chairman, FCC Commissioner, scholars or outside groups such as R Street and FreedomWorks. Our campaign was about actually solving this problem and restoring a free market. Minor changes to this legislation would ensure that H.R. 1123 actually solves the problem it intends to address by permanently legalizing unlocking and allowing for businesses to sell the technology to consumers. Overall, our contention is that given the enormous benefits that phone unlocking provides to the consumer, phone unlocking should be made permanently lawful for the consumer to use, industry to develop and marketers to sell.

It is understood that Contracting Parties who are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) acknowledge all the principles and objectives of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and understand that nothing in this Treaty affects the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, including, but not limited to, the provisions relating to anti-competitive practices.

"Contracting parties may fulfill their rights and obligations under this Treaty through, exceptions or limitations, specifically for the benefit of beneficiary persons,other exceptions or limitations,or a combination thereof within their national legal traditions/systems. These may include judicial, administrative or regulatory determinations for the benefit of beneficiary persons as to fair practices, dealings or uses to meet their needs."

"I believe that the practice of using these mug shots to belittle and abuse our citizens is immoral and repugnant," he said when discussing the websites in general during an interview Tuesday.

"A compassionate society does not utilize the scarlet letter," he said

Apple argued as follows: the decision was not based on any hard data flowing from a study of actual use and merely replicated a previous decision applicable to mobile telephones, which decision was quashed for failing to properly carve out professional use....

[....] However, Copie France sought an award of a provisional amount, relying not on decision #13 but rather on the general statutory principle that such compensation is due. The Court agreed with this line of reasoning, noting that such principle was enshrined in both domestic and European law. It further noted that Apple, as supplier of the equipment at issue, was indeed the party that owed the levy. The Court thus fixed the amount of the provision at €5,000,000, to be applied against the final sum to be determined for the period between February and December 2011 (and ordered that its judgment be enforceable notwithstanding any appeal).

We fully support a Treaty that facilitates access to published works in the form of text, notation and/or related illustrations for the blind and print disabled to address the book famine wherein the blind and print disabled have access to less than five percent of published works worldwide.

The Treaty must achieve two overarching goals: creating exceptions and limitations in copyright law which allow published works to be converted into formats accessible to the blind and print disabled, and permitting accessible copies of published works to be shared across international borders.

Ultimately, we believe it should be for signatories to determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions. We underscore that this important Treaty must not be a vehicle for extraneous agendas. The goal remains, as it has been since the outset, a meaningful treaty to create greater access to published works for the visually impaired.

4. Ensure that the treaty will be fully consistent with international copyright norms.
5. Avoid addressing extraneous copyright issues not directly related to creating greater access to published works for the blind and print disabled.

Fleur Pellerin, the French minister in charge of Internet policy, said during a recent visit to a high-technology complex in Sweden that suspending Internet connections was incompatible with the French government’s hopes of spurring growth in the digital economy.

“Today, it’s not possible to cut off Internet access,” she said. “It’s something like cutting off water.”

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+