Some might regard this as proportionate when combatting crimes as serious as child pornography; but undermining basic principles of law to tackle gambling sites, or those allegedly providing unauthorized access to copyright materials, seems an incredibly high price to pay for very little benefit. It's yet another indication of the way in which a continuing but unwinnable war on sharing has seriously damaged fundamental aspects of how justice and society now function.

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

Malawi is a politically-troubled, least-developed country where more than half of the population lives below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day. One would have thought that IP enforcement should take a back seat in such a country, in favour of measures designed to ensure the satisfaction of the population’s basic needs of food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

Yet Malawi was one of four poor countries in which Interpol chose to conduct an anti-counterfeiting campaign in 2009, and in which the local police often join IP-holder organisations in conducting copyright raids against local traders. Is this noholds-barred, developed-country model of IP protection and enforcement truly the most appropriate model for countries like Malawi?

"My idea was simple, I was trying to reach the other side. There are all these talks about war, Iran is coming to bomb us and we bomb them back, we are sitting and waiting. I wanted to say the simple words that this war is crazy," said Edry.

Now if you're cynical, or you watch too much cable news, you might be wondering what the big deal is. So an Israeli made some posters and put them on Facebook. So what?

The response, said Edry, was overwhelming. "In a few hours, I had hundreds of shares and thousands of likes and it was like something was happening.

"I think it's really amazing that someone from Iran poked me and said 'Hello, I'm from Iran, I saw your "poster" on Facebook,' " Edry said.

And that's when the posters created by Iranian citizens in return began flooding in. Posters with messages of peace and commonality. I found one particular post on Edry's Facebook page from an Iranian to be particularly heartening:

We share a common history, have been sharing both our great and ancient cultures, languages and poetry together. ... We are so similar, and politicians cannot cut a tie that has been tied thousands of years ago. I am proud to have you as my friends.

I'm not going to go all peace, love and flower power on you, but this is why the internet age is so important. It's also why cutting off communication between nations, or allowing even the first steps of internet censorship to take hold, must be stopped at all costs. It's not just about copyright, or flash mobs, or YouTube videos showing Spaceballs clips. The internet is ultimately about people sharing with one another, whether they're sharing thoughts, images like this, or whatever. It's about commonality. It's about creating a web of bonds through which communication and understanding can flow.

And now, I'm realizing, it's about giving every man and woman the power to do what their blowhard, acrimonious politicians won't do: talk to one another.

The court decided that the course listings lacked originality (or creativity); usually they include only "dry" data. The court emphasized that although previous decisions did not demand very much creativity, ads still need at least some creative value to become copyrightable. Thus, "the advertiser holds no rights in the content of the advertisement, in a manner that enables to prevent other billboards and index sites to publish the ad without her authorization" (my translation).

The court used, as an example to explain why the course descriptions were not copyrightable, a course description for sculpting sugar-figures for cakes. The text was (my translation, again): "Figure sculpturing workshop, consisting of two 5 hours encounters, each. The workshop emphasizes female and male proportions. First meeting shall include preparing the cake-base, and a winter male figure with proper clothes and accessories. On the second encounter we will prepare the female summer spouse, accessorized as well. At the conclusion of this fun activity each shall have the original couple s/he created."

"The good of online anonymity outweighs the bad, and it must be seen as a byproduct of freedom of speech and the right to privacy."

Hon. Justice Eliezer Rivlin dismissed Mor's petition and analysed the procedure to reveal anonymous posters. According to his ruling "it is an attempt to harness, prior to a legal proceeding, the justice system and a third party in order to conduct an inquiry which will lead to the revealing of a person committing a tort so that a civil suit could be filed against him. It is, de facto, an investigative-like procedure that the court is drafted to in a preliminary procedure in this way or another. This procedure is not trivial, it involves policy consideration and requires legislative regulation". His decision rules, actually, that until a procedure will be legislated, petitions to reveal anonymous users may not be granted (and according to estimations, there is at least one daily request per ISP).

Shattering the 'illusion of anonymity', in a reality where a user's privacy feeling is a myth, may raise associations of a "big brother". Such violation of privacy should be minimized. In adequate boundaries the anonymity shelters should be preserved as a part of the Internet Culture. You may say that anonymity makes the internet what it is, and without it the virtual freedom may be reduced.

"The good of online anonymity outweighs the bad, and it must be seen as a byproduct of freedom of speech and the right to privacy."

Avraham suggested looking at issues such as how extreme the allegedly damaging remarks are, whether the attack was systematic or a one-time phenomenon, and how seriously a reasonable reader would take the comments.

The second concern, regarding intellectual property rights, involves the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest producers of generic drugs. Major American and Swiss companies have long accused Israel of insufficient regulation of the way Teva markets its products in the face of patent regulations in other countries.

"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit -- technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."

One of the more prominent Israeli users of YouTube is 40-year-old Guy, who has been operating his own homepage there for three years. Guy says that he spends about two hours every day uploading content. He focuses on old archival material: Israeli music which is now considered classic.

"I do it out of love and I have no commercial interests," he says. "The idea behind this is ideological, romantic, to expose older cultural material, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In most cases it is not readily available anywhere else."

For example, he has uploaded the contents of singer-songwriter Matti Caspi's first album from 1974, and material from the "Siba L'mesiba" ("Excuse for a Party") television program, which aired on the Channel One from 1984-1990.

Most of the responses he gets, according to Guy, are from former Israelis who live abroad; they are enthusiastic and ask him to add more material.

He admits that he is not current on copyright law, but believes removal of the content from the Internet is proof of narrow-mindedness.

"Perhaps exposure to this material in fact increases demand," he says. "YouTube is no substitute for purchasing music in higher quality formats; it simply provokes nostalgia. This work is a community service."

the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that it was a case of "fair use" since no profit was made from the broadcasts and that, in Israeli law, breach of "broadcasting" copyright only referred to cable or wireless transmission and not streaming over the internet.

The judge, Michal Agmon-Gonen, furthermore ruled that the site had important social aims -- "watching sports events is socially important and should remain in the realm of mass entertainment, and not just be for those who can afford it" -- and argued that those who view online were not damaging the revenues of broadcasters. She said they were mainly "those of small means or who are not sufficiently interested in sport to pay".

"Someone who claims breach of copyright must meet two conditions. The first is to present prima facie evidence of a breach, that will lead with a high degree of probability to proof of it. Secondly, the breaches claimed must be especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances," the judge said. This is because "unintentionally, millions of people infringe copyright every day; there are no grounds for disclosing their identities in such cases, but only when it is a matter of blatant and severe infringement."

Internal discussions on whether to implement TPM continue and in this respect the GOI [Government of Israel] notes that the experience with TPM around the world has not been uniform, nor has it achieved the results that many of its early promoters thought it would. Additionally, comments received by the Ministry of Justice following a "request" for comments on the subject of TPM, indicate that many several large authors' groups vehemently oppose TPM, while other right holders categories favor TPM. The critiques and criticism of TPM both from business model perspectives and from copyright perspectives are almost endless. Indeed, some content providers are already experimenting with non-encrypted access to content. Hence, the question of whether and in what manner to implement TPM is not straightforward and politically volatile.

The notice and takedown provisions are balanced and reasonable as between the rights of persons claiming injury (copyright or libel for example) and the rights of free expression. Where allegedly infringing material is notified to the ISP or host and the uploader fails to refute the charges within three days, the offending material will be removed. The IIPA, it appears, prefers a system wherein ISPs and hosts would have to take down material as soon as there is an allegation of infringement, without need for due process or rebuttal. A "takedown" system which operates on the basis of a mere allegation of infringement would be an invitation to censorship and abuse of process. To require "take down" on the basis of "constructive notice" alone, as desired by the IIPA, would require the ISP or Host to make rulings of law as to whether certain content infringes copyright or is libelous or otherwise actionable, something that only courts have competency to do. Again to require takedown on the basis of "constructive notice" (i.e. the allegation of an interested party) alone would be an invitation to censorship, abuse and restraints on free speech. It is not the role of the ISP or Host to become a policeman of content. Requiring such would effectively bring the internet to a halt. Similarly, protecting the anonymity, to a reasonable extent, of uploaders of content is essential to the promotion of free speech and discourse on the internet, provided that a court has not ruled differently.