Techdirt. Stories filed under "uk"

UK Recording Industry Looks To Censor More Sites With No Trial Or Conviction

Mike Masnick — Thu, 16 May 2013 07:38:00 PDT

Once the UK recording industry realized that UK courts would order ISPs to block websites it didn't like, it appears that the industry, led by BPI and PPL began putting together a list of over two dozen sites that they're asking to have blocked by all UK ISPs, even though many of the sites on the list have never been tried in a court of law or convicted of copyright infringement. Included on the list, for example, is Grooveshark, who has been sued, but has not yet been found to violate copyright laws. It may very well be true that there is infringement on many, if not all of those sites. But, generally speaking, there's this thing called due process that allows a site to defend itself before being censored from an entire country. Just because a site has some infringing content does not mean that the entire site should be blocked -- or you'd have absolutely no user generated content sites online, because the liability would be too high. The UK courts started down this slippery slope by allowing sites to be blocked, and now the record labels are just going to keep piling the list higher and higher.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public

Glyn Moody — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:02:26 PDT

The UK's new orphan works legislation allows works to be classed as orphans only after a "diligent search" has been conducted to find the owner. The fear expressed by some is that this "diligent" search won't be very diligent, allowing publishers to use materials that aren't orphans. That's actually wrong for a number of reasons, as Techdirt explained recently, but the continuing furor from photographers in particular has been such that the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) felt compelled to issue a document entitled "The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you" (pdf) explaining how the system would work, and why the fears were unjustified.

However, that document still does not answer the central question of what "diligent" will mean. A post on Out-Law.com provides some information about how this will be addressed:

"The 'diligent search' requirement will be defined through a working group so that it can reflect current best practice across all sectors," a spokesperson for the IPO told Out-Law.com. "This will make sure that any requirements are practical and manageable. The working group will include representation from creators, including the photography sectors, and users such as museums and archives."

Reading that made me wonder who exactly was on this working group, so I contacted the IPO's press office asking for details. Here's the list of organizations they kindly sent me: Society of London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association
BBC Publishers Content Forum
JISC
National Museum Directors' Council (NMDC)
Copyright Licensing Agency
Musicians' Union
Creators Rights Alliance
British Association of Picture Libraries & Archives
British Equity Collecting Society
Focal
Authors Licensing & Collecting Society
The National Archives
Stop 43
Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance
The Association of Photographers
British Screen Advisory Council
Publishers Licensing Society
The Association of Illustrators
Society of Authors
Directors UK
Producers Alliance for Cinema & Television
UK Music
Association of Authors Agents
There are two things that struck me about that list. One is the appearance of Stop 43, probably the most vociferous of the photographer groups that have been complaining about the new orphan works law. Let's hope that its presence here, and thus its ability to contribute to the definition of "diligent", means that it drops the rhetoric about how the UK government has "reversed the normal workings of copyright," when that's simply not the case.

The other thing is that in contrast to the two groups representing photographers, there is not a single advocate for the somewhat more populous general public. Of course, that's absolutely par for the course: the public is routinely overlooked whenever it comes to asking "stakeholders" what they think about proposed changes to copyright. The UK's welcome move to liberate hostage works at last would have been the perfect opportunity to break yet more new ground by engaging directly with groups representing the 60 million people whose views are never properly considered. Sadly, that seems not to be happening.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Once Again Top Downloaders Are Top Spenders, According To UK Gov't Study

Glyn Moody — Tue, 14 May 2013 07:42:00 PDT

If there's one clear trend that has emerged in recent years, it's that those who download and share unauthorized copies of files the most also tend to be the most avid purchasers of similar material. This completely negates the copyright industry's rhetoric that people who share files are just a bunch of freeloaders, suggesting instead that it's more a matter of sampling materials before going on to buy. It also implies that instead of seeking to punish such downloaders, the copyright companies should actually try to nurture them as potentially their best customers.

Even worse for the maximalists is that much of the new research revealing this trend is being conducted not by groups wearing eye patches and sporting wooden legs, but by government bodies keen to better understand the underlying dynamics of the online world. We wrote about one such study back in November, which had been commissioned by the UK regulatory body Ofcom -- the epitome of dull respectability. A follow-up report with the ponderous title "Online copyright infringement tracker benchmark study 'Deep Dive' analysis report" (pdf) has now appeared offering additional insights into why people download and stream unauthorized copies, how much they spend anyway, and what might encourage them to spend even more. The large sample size -- over 10,000 people -- makes its findings particularly valuable.

Here's one of the key results:

The Top 10% Infringers accounted for just 1.6% of the 12+ internet user population, but were responsible for 79% of infringed content. The Top 20% infringers, accounting for 3.2% of 12+ internet users, were responsible for 88% of infringements.

…

Despite their high levels of infringement, the Top 20% Infringers also accounted for 11% of the legal content consumed. The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 [$250] vs. £105 [$160] vs. £54 [$83] over the six month period covered).

As mentioned above, by now this is pretty much as expected, since survey after survey shows the same. But the current research explores a number of other aspects in greater depth, and presents new results we've not seen before. For example, in answer to the question "what would make you stop downloading or streaming content illegally?", the top answers by those downloading and spending the most were in the following order: If legal services were cheaper
If everything I wanted was available legally
If legal services were more convenient\flexible
If everything I wanted was available legally online as soon as it was released elsewhere
If it is clearer what is legal and what isn't
If legal services were better
If a subscription I was interested in became available
As that makes clear, the main obstacles stopping them spending even more is unreasonable pricing and lack of availability -- things that the copyright world is still dragging its feet over.

The new analysis also tries to break down those accessing unauthorized copies into four broad categories that reflect their different attitudes. These are:

1. Justifying Infringers (9% of infringers, 24% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers)

2. Digital Transgressors (9% of infringers, 22% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers)

3. Free Infringers (42% of infringers, 35% of infringed volume, 10% of total digital consumers)

4. Ambiguous Infringers (39% of infringers, 20% of infringed volume, 9% of total digital consumers)

It's well worth reading the full report to see what the detailed analysis reveals about each of them. The research also tries to understand the different kinds of users who always access authorized copies, both paid and free, and then compares them in a variety of ways with the other group.

All-in-all, this is a valuable contribution to the field, and Ofcom is to be congratulated for continuing to commission innovative research that tries to get beyond the simplistic statistics that have hitherto been used to justifying ever-harsher punishments, in order to understand how the interests of both public and creators can be better aligned for their mutual benefit.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Digital Surveillance Report Exposes Short-Sightedness In UK Law-Making And Shows The Way Forward

Ben Zevenbergen — Thu, 2 May 2013 05:26:00 PDT

If you would believe the UK government, there are two types of people. In the one category, you have law abiding citizens whose every movement, communication and social network activity must be monitored and digitally analyzed to keep them at bay, for their own good. In the other category, you have murderers, pedophiles and terrorists. If you object to belonging to the first category, you must therefore be part of the other, or at least a partner in crime of the scoundrels identified in category two. This would be so according to the unbelievably backward rhetoric of parts of the UK government not too long ago. To make sure society runs smoothly, the government devised the Communication Data Bill, aka. “Snooper’s Charter”, which would enable mass surveillance of digital communications.

As Glyn Moody noted, the Snooper’s Charter has been declared effectively dead after Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg announced his party would not support the Bill after some heavy scrutiny by two critical parliamentary committees. The debate on digital surveillance is far from over, however, as several sectors of law enforcement will continue to push for ubiquitous interception, because it is ‘useful’. Of course, conveniently forgetting about proportionality when dreaming up laws to use or control digital technology has become an all too common thread worldwide.

The UK Open Rights Group, an EFF sister organization, has released a report and a series of particularly funny videos to put an end to the Snooper’s Charter, and also to inform policy makers and the public at large about how the discussion about digital surveillance should be held (disclaimer: I helped compile this report).

In the report, twelve experts from different fields explain clearly how and why digital surveillance has come about, what its intent is, and why mass surveillance such as that proposed by the Snooper’s Charter is probably the worst possible next step to take, considering the ability of current technology to effectively monitor everyone and everything.

Journalist and surveillance expert Duncan Campbell puts the Snooper's Charter in historical perspective and explains:

“The manner in which the new Bill has been introduced and managed, fall full square within long British historical precedents that position privacy rights as an irritant to be managed by a combination of concealment, secrecy, information management, and misinformation.”

One of the most notable features of the Snooper’s Charter is the de facto centralized search engine – or “Filter” – which scours several public and private datasets to analyze communications in-depth. Cambridge University computer scientist Richard Clayton explains:

“It is fundamentally inherent to this proposal that Filter data should be collected on everyone’s activity and that this data should be made available en masse from the private companies, the Internet Services Providers and telephone companies that provide services, to government systems for the correlation processing.”

Information privacy rights advocate Caspar Bowden does not mince any words:

“It ought to be obvious that continuously recording the pattern of interactions of every online social relationship, and analyzing them with the “Filter”, is simply tyrannical.”

Rachel Robinson from “Liberty”, the National Council for Civil Liberties, considers what this type of surveillance will likely lead to:

“If the present proposals for the collection of communications data become law, proposals for other types of blanket or random surveillance irrespective of suspicion “just in case” are a logical next step.”

Professor Peter Sommer explains one of the underlying problems:

“Legislators need knowledge of the technical capabilities of surveillance technologies” because: “The legal words need to reflect the reality of how the technology works.”

Joss Wright, computer scientist at the Oxford Internet Institute, notes a fundamental and frequently repeated mistake in thinking about regulating internet technology:

“Equating the Internet with historical technologies when making policy is not simply wrong, it is dangerously misleading.”

Together with Professor Emmenthal below, policy makers should finally start realizing that “technology’s interaction with the social ecology is such that technical developments frequently have environmental, social, and human consequences that go far beyond the immediate purposes of the technical devices and practices themselves […]” (Kranzberg, 1986). Fortunately, the Open Rights Group established 10 clear recommendations to continue the discussion on digital surveillance law, which will also be applicable in other countries.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Do Politicians Continue To Insist That A Magic Button Can Make Porn Disappear Online?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 1 May 2013 05:25:00 PDT

It appears that UK Prime Minister David Cameron is announcing that any place in the UK that provides WiFi to the public must block porn. This is wasteful and pointless for a variety of reasons. Of course, it's being pushed under the "for the children" banner, but that's rarely true or accurate. The problem, of course, is that (1) such filtering tends not to actually block plenty of porn and (2) it regularly leads to collateral damage, including plenty of legitimate sites being blocked. Plus it's just costly.

The Prime Minister said: “We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t.”

But that's not what they're doing. The internet won't be clean. It'll just be a nuisance. Furthermore, is the unexpected appearance of porn on computers in public places really that big a problem? I've yet to see any serious data suggesting that this happens very often. Most people sitting at a computer in a public space aren't likely to be surfing porn anyway.

In the US, we've actually had something similar. Of course, we're not allowed to make filters mandatory by law, so grandstanding US politicians tiptoed around the issue by just saying that they would deny funding to public internet access providers who don't block porn. But, the end result was that many libraries, for example, stopped taking federal funding to avoid the issue altogether. This really seems like the worst kind of grandstanding: it gets plenty of attention, attacks a problem that probably isn't a problem but which involves "the children!!!!" and it attacks the "problem" ineffectively. It's the trifecta of useless grandstanding.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think

Glyn Moody — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:33:00 PDT

The photographers are freaking out again. After last year's excitement with Instagram's changes to its terms of service, now it's the UK's Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Act that's getting people worked up. Here, for example, is a post on the site of Stop43, a photographers group which successfully fought against the inclusion of orphan works in the UK's Digital Economy Act, with the title: "The Enterprise And Regulatory Reform Act Has Reversed The Normal Workings Of Copyright":

Normal copyright law as agreed in international copyright treaties, to which the UK is signatory, grant copyright owners 'the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of [their] works, in any manner or form.' Creators don't have to apply for this right: it is theirs automatically and without formality. This means that unless the work is used under one of the narrowly-defined Fair Dealing exceptions to copyright allowed by these treaties, it is illegal to exploit a copyright work without the permission of its owner.

The EAA Act changes all that. Under its provisions it will be legal to exploit a copyright work - photograph, film, text, song, whatever -- without the knowledge, permission, or payment to its owner.

As with the 2010 Digital Economy Act, the bone of contention for photographers is how orphan works will be treated under UK law. The ERR Act has not yet been published, but here's a good summary of what it says, from Out-Law.com: Under the Government's plans, organisations that wish to use orphan works would have to conduct a 'diligent search' for the owner of orphan works before they could use the material. The searches would have to be verified as diligent by independent authorising bodies. In addition, organisations would have to pay a "market rate" to use orphan works so as rights holders could be recompensed for the use of the works if they were later identified.
Sounds pretty reasonable: works would only be regarded as orphans after a "diligent search". Contrary to what some are saying, it will not be possible for companies to conduct any old kind of search, and claim that it was "diligent": there will be independent authorizing bodies that will check the search was diligent enough, and not just perfunctory. Moreover, even if a work is classed as an orphan, those using it must still pay a fee at the market rate that is held on account in case the owner turns up. So there's no question of works being used for nothing, or of owners not getting paid if they want claim their works.

The big problem turns out to be metadata -- or, rather, the absence of it. Google's Tim Bray explains the concept in a usefully calm post looking at the new UK orphan regulations:

It turns out that electronic photograph files contain not just the pixels that form the image, but also textual fields containing "metadata", information about the picture. This is generally referred to as Exif, and it identifies some or all of: the camera, lens, date, location (if there's a GPS), size, aperture, and lots of other arcane photographic details. Plus, crucially, the name of the creator.

Important stuff. But when photos are uploaded to certain sites, some or all of the metadata is stripped out. Here's what happened when Bray uploaded a photo to Twitter as a test: I took the picture above, made sure it had my name in the Artist, By-line, and Creator fields, and posted it to Twitter using the Web interface. Then I downloaded the picture and checked the Exif, and sure enough Twitter had nuked it. There were 245 lines of Exif info going in, 58 coming out, and none of them included my name.
According to Bray, other popular online services similarly strip out metadata. This is why photographers are concerned about the new orphan legislation in the UK. They fear that if their photos are available on such sites with little or no metadata, publishers will be able to claim that they couldn't find the creators, and so turn any of those images into orphans.

But this overlooks a number of points. Just because the metadata is absent from photos stored on certain sites does not mean that publishers will be able to claim that they couldn't find the creators as a result. Remember, they must carry out a diligent search, and simply looking at the metadata clearly doesn't qualify. In addition, they will need to look widely elsewhere in order to check whether there is an identifiable creator.

One obvious way to do that is using a search engine. For example, I downloaded the image that Bray uses in his post, and which he discovered had lost its metadata, even on his own site. Then I used Google's image search, which lets you upload images about which you want information. It not only found Bray's original, but also the page on which it is used. Now, it might be argued that Bray's site is quite well known, and therefore not representative, but this trivial experiment does suggest a relatively simple way to address the photographers' concerns.

Provided photographers store somewhere online an image along with their contact details, it is almost certain that Google and other search engines will find it. So an obvious way to avoid having their creations orphaned is to place them in some kind of image repository. This might be set up by photographers' associations for their members, or by independent companies offering a dedicated service. The price of storage is so low now that such a repository would cost very little to use, even for thousands of photos. The availability of images with attribution details would ensure that even a relatively cursory search will locate the owner of the work, thus blocking its use as an orphan.

Ironically, then, it may well be that Google, so often the object of hatred for photographers that see it as feeding parasitically off their work by providing easy access to their online images, will also offer them with the easiest way to avoid the problems with orphan works.

But there's another important issue here. The real threat to photographers and their livelihoods is not the UK's new orphan works legislation; it is the unauthorized stripping away of metadata from uploaded photos. Instead of attacking the new law, photographers should be fighting for full metadata to be retained wherever and however they upload their pictures, at least as an option. That seems entirely justified -- unlike the current moves to brand a reasonable framework to liberate millions of "hostage works" as an attempt to "abolish copyright".

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK 'Snooper's Charter' Torn Up; Now What?

Glyn Moody — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:32:00 PDT

Since the UK government published the draft version of its Communications Data Bill -- better known as the "snooper's charter" -- with plans to store data about every British citizen's emails, mobile calls and visits to Web sites, there has been almost total opposition to it from everyone else. Indeed, there has been growing resistance even within the UK government's ranks, largely from the smaller of the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. Here's what the party's leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has been up to, as described by one of the Liberal Democrat MPs, Julian Huppert:

Nick refused to allow the Bill to go ahead, and forced the Home Office to publish the Bill as a draft, allowing us all to see what the Home Office were planning. Nick appointed Paul Strasburger and I onto a Committee to scrutinise it in detail. We went through the evidence, heard from many experts and published a cross-party report. This was damming of the Home Office proposals -- it unanimously describe some of the Home Office information as 'fanciful and misleading'.

Following Nick's intervention and our report, the Home Office was given the chance to rethink. To build a proper case and look for proposals which were proportionate to the problem.

However, instead of trying to answer the huge range of criticisms of the proposed Bill, the Home Office simply insisted that such an intrusive system of surveillance was needed. As a result: Nick has just this morning announced that he has killed off the Data Communications Bill, dubbed the "snooper’s charter".
By withdrawing the support of the Liberal Democrats, Clegg makes it practically impossible to pass the Bill, since the UK government will lack the requisite majority to push it through. However, this is by no means the end of the story.

Clegg will be under huge pressure from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his Conservative party colleagues, to agree to some slightly watered-down proposals. Cameron will doubtless invoke all the usual reasons -- tackling terrorism, paedophiles, organized crime etc. -- knowing that this plays well with enough of the electorate that Clegg won't be able to ignore it completely. So we can probably expect to see new plans in due course. The question then becomes to what extent they address the huge flaws in the original snooper's charter, and whether they represent an approach that is truly "proportionate to the problem", as the cross-party report puts it. If they don't, the battle will doubtless begin again.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Supreme Court Says Unauthorized Browsing Of Copyright Material Online Is OK, But Asks European Court Of Justice Just In Case

Glyn Moody — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:59:00 PDT

The lawsuits brought against the media monitoring firm Meltwater in both the US and the UK have not turned out too well for the company so far. In the US, the district court handed down a summary judgment against Meltwater, while in the UK, two courts came to a particularly worrying conclusion: that simply viewing copyright material online without a license amounted to infringement.

Fortunately, this judgment was appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which has just published its ruling. The judges recognized that the central issue is whether the temporary copies held on a computer in its memory cache, which are necessary to view a document stored on the Web, are covered by a clause in UK and European law that exempts temporary copies from needing a license provided certain conditions are met. In the judges' view, copies held purely for browsing were indeed covered, provided they were not saved or printed out. Here's why that is crucial:

if it is an infringement merely to view copyright material, without downloading or printing out, then those who browse the internet are likely unintentionally to incur civil liability, at least in principle, by merely coming upon a web-page containing copyright material in the course of browsing. This seems an unacceptable result, which would make infringers of many millions of ordinary users of the internet across the EU who use browsers and search engines for private as well as commercial purposes.

That's obviously just common sense -- sadly, a rare commodity when it comes to copyright in the online world. However, the UK Supreme Court has asked the European Court of Justice to offer its own, definitive, ruling so as to settle the law for the whole of Europe. As the judge writing the verdict noted: I recognise the issue has a transnational dimension and that the application of copyright law to internet use has important implications for many millions of people across the EU making use of what has become a basic technical facility. These considerations make it desirable that any decision on the point should be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, so that the critical point may be resolved in a manner which will apply uniformly across the European Union.
Of course, the legal status of temporary copies is a crucial question elsewhere, too. For example, in her speech at Columbia University back in March, Copyright Register Maria Pallante spoke of "the confusion over incidental copies", which needed sorting out. More worryingly, one relatively recent leak of the TPP draft seemed to indicate that it would require all temporary copies to be regulated. The fact that we are still having this discussion about a technological necessity some twenty years after the Web was invented, shows just how out of touch with modern reality copyright law remains.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Parking Enforcement Contractor Leaves Sensitive Driver Data Exposed; Compounds Embarrassment By Issuing Bogus Legal Threats

Tim Cushing — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 03:38:56 PDT

Another day, another self-inflicted privacy breach. This time it's a UK private parking enforcement contractor that's leaving its supposedly-secret stuff right out in the open.

UK Parking Control (UKPC) is accused of revealing photographs of Brits' cars parked with number plates clearly to be read and in some cases the location revealed. In some images it's alleged that other details such as identification cards, shopping or belongings are clearly visible. Campaigners against private parking firms believe these images - allegedly made easily accessible to anyone on the UKPC website - exposed drivers' personal information.

When UKPC tickets a car, its enforcers take photos of the vehicle (and, apparently, inside the vehicle, among other places), which are uploaded to UKPC's site. The ticket itself has a printed URL pointing to the damning photos of the illegally parked vehicle. It's a slick system, but its "security" is easily thwarted by a process AT&T might find strangely familiar.

[O[ne ticket recipient claimed to have found that by tweaking values in this web address, he could access thousands of other digital photographs of other people's vehicles... Some shots show personal items on view inside the vehicles, such as an ID card placed next to a disabled-driver badge.

As you may recall, tweaking URLs allowed "Weev" to access the email addresses of hundreds of iPad users (and landed him in jail). The same lack of basic security is on display here. Changing a few values in the URL results in access to photos you were never meant to see.

A blog called Nutsville, which has been a longtime critic of the UK's private parking enforcement, posted several photos obtained from UKPC's website. Among the expected photos of vehicles (with visible license plates) are other oddities, including shots of the lower extremities of parking enforcement employees relaxing at home, several photos of vehicle interiors and most disturbingly, crystal clear photos of drivers' identification cards.

After the Register reported this story, the UK Information Commissioner's office pledged to investigate the leak. UKPC hasn't publicly responded to the breach, but it did send its lawyers after Nutsville in the form of a bizarre Letter Before Action that mixes and matches criminal and civil actions and seems unable to decide on when exactly Nutsville should respond/comply. Nutsville's response to the letter is well worth reading, punching holes in its paper-thin claims and generally deriding the ineptitude of the correspondence.

The letter claims Nutsville has breached the Computer Misuse Act, claiming these photos were acquired by "using a password, without authorisation, to access their website." Nutsville points out this is completely false. The only thing accessed were various URLs on UKPC's site by manipulating values in the URL themselves. From that point on, UKPC's legal representative goes completely off the rails, threatening to inform the police (a criminal matter) of Nutsville's actions. Mere sentences later, the lawyer threatens "injunctive High Court proceedings," suddenly making it a civil matter. On top of that, UKPC's rep demands Nutsville take down the blog post by 10 AM on April 2nd, only to wrap up the bungled legalese by requesting a reply by no later than April 8th.

As both deadlines have come and gone with no follow-up post from Nutsville (or response from UKPC), it would appear that the parking enforcement contractor has either given up on pursuing these bogus legal claims or is tied up attempting to clean up its own backyard ahead of the pending investigation.

The most disappointing aspect of this story is UKPC's response. Disappointing, but far from unexpected. For many businesses, the most common reaction to being informed of a data breach is to shoot the messenger. Rather than issue an apology and fix the problem, they tend to fire off legal threats about "unauthorized access" or other vague hacking claims as if the end user making the discovery should be treated as a criminal for their own negligence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Music Licensing Agency Says You Can't Use Its Music In Your Podcast Without First Purchasing A License It Doesn't Even Offer

Tim Cushing — Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:57:11 PDT

The nightmarishly intertwining world of music licensing is a popular topic here, especially considering the past outlandish actions of various performance rights agencies. On top of this, there's the multitude of different licenses, each one applying specifically to certain formats or outlets. If it's streaming on Youtube, it needs x license and y license. If it's streaming at Spotify, it needs x license and z license. If it's a radio station simulcast at the station's website, license x, y and z are needed, along with license aa. And so on.

Podcasters in the UK are running into licensing problems when attempting to clear music for their broadcasts, as PPL (who covers performance rights for recorded music, like SoundExchange in the US) is causing problems. PPL has a history of questionable over enforcement, and they just can't let up, apparently. Phil Satterly sends in this rather sad story of a long-running Progressive Rock podcast (DRRP Radio) that is going "off the air" thanks to PPL's thoroughly impossible demands.

Launched 18 months ago, we've produced 83 shows that have been downloaded over 30,000 times. We've covered bands from every type of prog. We've done special features on independent labels and festivals plus interviews with the likes of Clive Nolan, Steven Wilson, Gazpacho, Steve Hogarth, Riverside, Sean Filkins, Mystery and Godsticks. We have regular listeners from as far away as New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Cuba and The Shetland Isles!

Unfortunately three weeks ago our service provider stopped enabling downloads of the shows. The move followed pressure from the PPL – the organisation in the UK which provides broadcast licences for the recording copyright holder (i.e. record companies).

PPL is doing what collective rights organizations do best: shut down as many artistic outlets as possible. The organization is looking for a payout, but can't even be bothered to let people pay them, as Andy Read (one of the podcast hosts) points out.

Music licensing is a complex issue and it took quite some find to find a way to legally do DPRP Radio in the first place. We have a broadcast licence, we have a streaming licence and we have a podcast licence for the PRS – the body representing the songwriters. We do not have a podcast licence for the PPL who are now threatening legal action against podcast providers. We would happily buy a podcast licence from them… but they do not offer one!

DRRP isn't the only podcast being asked to do the impossible by PPL. The UK Folk Music podcast host quotes the PPL website's wording on the broadcast licensing it does offer.

As a broadcaster you would have to obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music – a PPL licence gives you this permission and allows you to play virtually all recorded music readily available in the UK simply, quickly and legally. PPL then passes these licence fees, less our running costs, onto the performers and rights holders, similar to royalties.

Handy, I guess, except that PPL does not offer a license specifically for podcasting. Podcasters need a very limited license if using PPL's music because the podcasts are able to be downloaded and stored. This distinguishes them (and moves them into another area of copyright protection) from radio broadcasts or other streaming services whose offerings are transient. (Not that these can't be "trapped/downloaded." Anyone remember cassette tapes? Yeah, same thing. Only with software.)

PPL's lack of a podcasting license punts the ball back to podcasters and other music bloggers. If they can't get a blanket license, they'll have to do it the hard way: "obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music."

Obviously, this is an impossibility. And for those of you saying clever stuff like "just use original music by artists not represented by this agency?" Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Rights groups like PPL and PRS will still try to collect from you. In their minds, no one plays music anywhere (not even in their hardware store/ hotel room) without playing a bunch of their stuff. It's a self-serving distortion of reality.

And for those hoping the artists that split from PPL to form their own rights group (EOS) will result in a brighter, smoother future for all concerned? You can pretty much kiss that rosy picture goodbye. EOS has already attempted to shutter a few radio stations. The end result is another venue for artist exposure being shut down by the "white knights" of the artistic community. These agencies don't really care about the artists on their roster. They just want to find a way to insert themselves, hands out, between the artists and their supporters.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Politician Says EU Site Wants To 'Brainwash' Children With Propaganda About Democratic Principles

Glyn Moody — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 03:36:04 PDT

The UK is famous for its tabloid newspapers and their particular brand of journalism. Here's a fine example from the Daily Express, under the headline "EU attempts to brainwash children with 'sinister Soviet-style propaganda'":

European Parliament chiefs are considering setting up a site to target young children with a "playful" presentation of their working methods and democratic principles.

The Daily Express story is mainly built around a few quotations from the politician Paul Nuttall. He belongs to the UK Independence Party, whose policy in a nutshell is as follows: the rescue of the British people depends on withdrawal from the EU to regain our self-governing democracy
So it's no surprise that Nuttall has a slightly jaundiced view of anything the European Parliament does. Here are a few of of his comments in the article: this exercise in funding kiddie propaganda really is cash for EU trash.

...

Our children need to be protected from this type of political propaganda because they are vulnerable and easily manipulated.

…

Political propaganda on vulnerable kids is a form of child abuse.
What's fascinating here is his choice of words: "kiddie propaganda", "vulnerable and easily manipulated", "a form of child abuse". Whether consciously or not, clear parallels are being drawn here with pornography and even child pornography ("kiddie propaganda") through the use of phrases that are familiar from those fields.

It's also striking that the image chosen by the Daily Express to illustrate the story is the classic perplexed child staring at a screen whose contents we cannot see -- the implication being that there is something bad there, but that we are powerless to protect the innocence of the young viewer. That, too, is something of a cliché in articles about pornography, and it's disconcerting to see it being wheeled out here for an article about promoting democratic principles.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Site Blocking Orders Need To Be Challenged In Court

Glyn Moody — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:56:06 PDT

There is an extremely dangerous trend to remove proper judicial review from cases involving alleged copyright infringement. Sometimes that means "voluntary" actions by ISPs -- the SOPA and ACTA approach. Sometimes, it means appearances before tribunals by members of the public without adequate legal representation, as is happening under New Zealand's "three strikes" law. And sometimes it might involve a judge, but consist of the latter simply agreeing to requests from the copyright industry, without anyone challenging the grounds for doing so.

That was the case for the most recent action by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the recording industry in the UK, as reported by Techdirt last week. Now Andres Guadamuz on his TechnoLlama blog has dug a little deeper into the judge's reasoning for granting these orders, and discovered the following remarkable section:

the evidence indicates that blocking orders are reasonably effective. The effect of the order made in Italy with regard to TPB [The Pirate Bay] referred to in 20C Fox v BT at [197] was a 73% reduction in audience accessing TPB in Italy and a 96% reduction in page views. The blocking order made in Italy in relation to KAT has had a similar effect. As for the effect of the orders made in England in relation to TPB, as at 19 December 2011, TPB was ranked by Alexa as number 43 in the UK, while as at 21 November 2012, its UK ranking had dropped to number 293.

As Guadamuz notes: I had to look for the source of such astounding information, but I was not able to obtain any reliable resources, and I suspect that it is a figure given by the BPI, which may have been pulled out of the nether regions of their institutional anatomy. On the contrary, I found a report from Torrent Freak claiming the opposite, but this claim should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The use of Alexa is also rather surprising, since it is very rarely quoted these days: Alexa works by measuring the behaviour of users who have installed a toolbar in their browser. This gives a snapshot of a very narrow demographic, that of Alexa toolbar users. Needless to say, people who are more likely to share files online are less likely to have any sort of toolbar installed on their browsers, particularly one that tracks online behaviour. Similarly, there are studies that prove that Alexa's rankings tend to be wrong for both small and big websites, as they tend to produce some serious mismatches with reality.
And Guadamuz goes on to point out: In the end, the best way to try to ascertain the effect of ISP blocking orders is to ask the people who are engaged in the practice. This is precisely what was done by Dutch researchers Joost Poort and Jorna Leenheer. They conducted a survey of thousands of Dutch residents about their downloading behaviour. While more than 75% of respondents claimed that they never downloaded any illegal content, those who engaged in the practice replied that they were not affected whatsoever by the blocking of TPB in the Netherlands. Only 3.6% claimed that they are downloading less, and only 1.9% admitted that they had stopped downloading entirely. This seems like a huge failure of blocking orders.
But none of this information was presented in court. Instead, the judge used his own -- or maybe the BPI's -- figures to justify his blocking orders. That's why it's regrettable the ISPs involved did not mount any kind of challenge where they could have offered an alternative view on how effective such orders really are, so that the judge could form a more balanced view of the situation. More generally, this episode shows the dangers of moving to systems where the other side of the copyright story is not fully and fairly presented.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Politicians Offer An Awful Bargain: Give Up Free Press If You Want Defamation Reform

Mike Masnick — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:18:46 PST

For many, many years, we've discussed the problems of UK defamation/libel laws, which basically put the burden on the accused, and are very broadly applied. They've also given rise to cases of "libel tourism," whereby people sue in the UK for statements made online, even if neither party is in the UK. The chilling effects on speech in the UK have been quite massive, with the case about Simon Singh being one of the most prominent. Singh wrote some columns challenging some unsubstantiated claims by the British Chiropractic Association, and got hit with a massive libel suit in response. And since the burden is on Singh to prove it's not defamation, it's an incredibly difficult position to be in. Thankfully, the BCA eventually abandoned that case due to massive negative publicity, but it still highlighted the problems with UK defamation law and how it could be abused to create chilling effects on speech.

Of course, fixing the problem has been a long and ongoing process as well, with various defamation reform packages proposed, but never getting anywhere. It had looked like the latest proposal might finally have a chance of passing... but that may now be scuttled due to a different controversial idea that has been attached to the bill.

As you may recall, after the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, the UK set up a commission on "media ethics" to explore issues related to preventing such scandals from happening again, and tragically, the recommendations included heavy regulation for the press. The rules go way overboard if you believe in freedom of the press, and really seem more designed to prevent rich and famous people from being embarrassed by the press, rather than stop egregious ethics violations.

So, here's the problem. The defamation reform package was moving forward nicely, when some politicians decided to basically lump a "Leveson Amendment" onto the bill, so that the UK is now faced with an unfortunate tradeoff. They could fix the broken defamation laws, but would have to do so at the cost of giving up basic press freedoms. It's unfortunate that UK politicians, apparently led by David Puttnam, have put others in the position of having to make that kind of ridiculous tradeoff. A functioning democracy that believes in free expression should support both a very limited defamation law and protections for a free press. Asking people to trade one for the other is really quite a travesty.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google Downranks The Pirate Bay In The UK, Because Surely, That Will Make People Buy Again

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:21:06 PST

We just recently wrote about the RIAA bitching about how Google wasn't living up to its promise to "downrank" so-called "pirate" sites. The issue was that the RIAA could still find sites that it didn't like ranked relatively highly in the index. Well, the folks at TorrentFreak have noticed that, at least in the UK, if you do a search for "pirate bay," you no longer get the actual TPB website as one of the top 100 results. Of course, you do get a variety of proxies, instead, and perhaps that makes sense, given the decision last year by a court that ISPs must block access to TPB. Perhaps Google is just reflecting, accurately, that clicking directly to TPB will fail.

Either way, it makes you realize how incredibly pointless all of this is. If someone is doing a search explicitly for "pirate bay," not finding the actual site as a top result isn't suddenly going to make someone rush to their nearest RIAA-approved record store to purchase something. Google's job is to help people find what they're looking for -- not to tell them "this isn't the site you're looking for" when it clearly is.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mobile Operator CEO: Customers Under Our Data Caps Don't Use Much Data, So Nobody Needs Unlimited Data

Timothy Geigner — Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:49:14 PST

While we just recently got some bandwidth-providers to come out from under their caps-due-to-congestion rocks, there is a long and storied history of ISPs filling in the void of logic in the debate over caps with creamy, pink nonsense cupcakes. Because, hey! Who doesn't like cupcakes? A long-standing favorite of mine was Sprint's deft change of the English language, when they altered the meaning of "unlimited" to mean "5 gigs," because Sprint thinks the real world blows and we're better off in their make-believe Sprint-land, where all of our parents turn into Kevin Durant.

But, in an apparent effort to put the UK in the mix for countries with CEOs who say really dumb things, mobile operator EE's chief guy of stuff has come out with his own assessment of why their data caps are fine and unlimited plans are unnecessary.

EE is the first mobile operator in the UK to offer 4G services. When it launched last October, it was criticised for imposing tight data caps - including a 500MB plan that could be chewed through in five minutes at the network's maximum speed.

Speaking at MWC 2013, [Olaf] Swantee said that on average users are actually getting through only 1.4GB a month. "It shows that the instinct for unlimited data plans is unnecessary," he said.

Now, on the off chance that you've spent the past week doing massive amounts of peyote, let me take a moment to explain why this kind of logic is so abysmal that it might actually be responsible for global warming. Olaf says that unlimited data plans are not in demand because their customers, who are already under their strict caps, on average use about 1.5GB per month. The logic is flawless...and by flawless, I mean backwards and evil. Of course EE customers that are under strict caps are going to do everything possible to stay under those caps. You're charging them extra if they go over! The very sample you're using in your justification nullifies your entire point.

Let's see...an appropriate analogy. Ah, got it! A dog owner buys one of those electric fence collars for Fido, puts the barrier around a twelve-foot squared kitchen, and then insists that the dog doesn't want to leave the kitchen because it rarely chooses to get the piss shocked out of it by stepping over the barrier. If someone tried to use that kind of sophistry on you, how long before you'd shove a couple of pencils in your ears to make the bad man's voice stop hurting you so?

So way to go, United Kingdom. You're officially accepted into the Dumb CEO League of Extraordinary Un-Logic. Play nice now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Is The UK Blocking Access To Sites Without Any Hearings?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:38:15 PST

We already wrote about the UK court letting the BPI decide what sites the court would order all UK ISPs to block access to, but as more details come out about the process, the scarier it is. As Duke noted in our comments, the whole process lacked any sort of due process:

For those interested the full judgment is here: EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch)

The law is a bit worrying (I haven't read it in that much detail but I think it goes slightly further than previous ones) - the main concern is that, again, there was no hearing, no defence, no cross-examination of evidence etc.. Without seeing the witness statements I can't be sure, but I think the judge just accepted everything the BPI had to say at face value.

That's not justice - not in an adversarial court system.

The Open Rights Group (ORG) in the UK has quite reasonably expressed its concern about how such blockades are likely to stifle speech, especially when there is no one allowed to argue against the blocking.

We are concerned that these orders are not protecting speech, are overblocking forums and discussion, and are prone to error as the actual block lists are private.

Furthermore, users and the public interest have not been represented in the processes

It amazes me that anyone thinks it's reasonable to shut down a site without any sort of due process in the form of an adversarial hearing, in which multiple sides can be presented. The opportunity for widespread abuse and the stifling of free expression is massive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Lets The Recording Industry Decide What Websites To Censor

Mike Masnick — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:05:40 PST

Having already kicked down the internet censorship door by ordering that ISPs block access to The Pirate Bay, the UK's High Court has expanded the list of sites to block based on complaints from BPI about which sites it believes are responsible for piracy. And, so, just like that, those in the UK will find Kickass Torrents, H33T and Fenopy blocked. I don't know anything about these three sites. So, for all I know, they could be horrible, horrible actors in all of this, but even so, having a court order them completely blocked from access based on statements from BPI -- a commercial party who clearly would have a bias against upstart, disruptive competitors -- seems crazy. Again, take a look at the history of the entertainment industry attacking every single new type of distribution technology. And now the UK High Court is allowing them to do this to the level of flat out censoring sites.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google, Facebook And Twitter Ordered To Delete Photos By UK Law Enforcement

Mike Masnick — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:38:51 PST

It seems that, once again, the UK is going censorship crazy and not realizing how that only attacts more attention to that which they're trying to censor. This time, it involves some photos that were posted online of one Jon Venables, who at the age of 10, murdered 2-year old James Bulger, in a rather horrifying story. Venables was released from jail in 2001, at the age of 19 (though he has since gone back to prison). Photos of Venables, now 30 years old and apparently using a new identity to avoid his past, appeared online. The UK apparently wants a right to forget the fact that Venables did what he did, and seems to think that there should be no additional public consequences. Attorney General Dominic Grieve has said he's going to take legal action against anyone posting the photo, and has gone even further in telling Google, Facebook and Twitter that they need to magically delete any and all such photos that appear via their services.

It appears that at least Twitter has pushed back a little bit, pointing out that it will take down images if the law requires it upon notification, but that it cannot and will not monitor every one of its users to prevent them from posting the image:

Sinead McSweeney, Twitter's director of public policy in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said she did not wish to be drawn into commenting on individual accounts.

She added: "We work with law enforcement here in the UK. We have established points of contact with law enforcement in the UK where they communicate with us about content, they bring content to our attention that is illegal, and appropriate steps are taken by the company. You may read into those words what you wish in context of the current [issue]."

McSweeney, who appeared alongside officials from Google and Facebook, said Twitter could not be expected to proactively monitor what is published on its social network across the globe each day. She added: "It's important that people increasingly understand that online is no different to offline: what is illegal offline is illegal online."

You can argue that it's unfair for Venables, under his new identity, to be connected back to what he actually did, though I'm not sure I buy that argument. But, it's taking it to a whole different level to then seek to prosecute people for merely posting a photo to their social network feed. They then take it to an entirely ridiculous level to order that third party service providers actively police and censor this particular photo. And, of course, all this is doing is calling much, much, much, much more attention to the photo. A lot more people are now seeing the photo than would have if people had just ignored the original postings.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

British Politician Tells Local Paper It Can't Quote Him Because He Dislikes Its Readers' Comments

Tim Cushing — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:01:30 PST

Being in the public arena is not for the thin-skinned. Or, at least, that used to be the case, right up until the internet made it possible for thousands to give instant (usually negative) feedback on public figures' statements, actions, sudden weight gain, etc. True, older, thicker-skinned public figures had it much easier "back in the day," but today's political aspirant should know that a.) their life is an open (face)book and b.) the angriest people talk (type) the LOUDEST.

However, rather than develop thicker skin, some politicians have instead made efforts to keep all the bad people away from the paper vellum they call skin. Some try to shield themselves (and the children!) with vague anti-cyberbullying laws. Others push for "real name" requirements. And some (well, maybe just this one), just tell the offending entity that it's no longer part of the conversation, no matter how ridiculous this "arrangement" actually is.

Christopher Hawtree is a very unusual politician because he dislikes being quoted. The Green councillor, who has just been selected to fight for a parliamentary seat, has told a reporter for his local paper, the Brighton Argus, to stop approaching him after meetings.

So, a local politician who deals with local issues would rather not answer questions from the local paper. One of the correspondents for the offending paper logically asked (via Twitter), "Isn't that his job?"

Why doesn't Hawtree want to talk to his district's paper of record?

Hawtree tweeted in response: "I have a great dislike of the Argus readers' comments and so prefer to appear in other papers."

That normally wouldn't be a problem, but Brighton & Hove's only paper is the Argus. Hawtree apparently would like to be the sort of public figure that can coast through several successful terms, untroubled by his local paper and mouthy constituents. But if that's truly the sort of person he wishes to be, he needs to drop the "public figure" part of it.

Not only will he not respond to the paper's inquiries, but he's actively steering anyone who will listen towards an alternative "paper of record."

So, given that the city of Brighton & Hove is served by only one title, what "other papers" does he prefer? The New York Times, evidently, because he urges his followers to sign up for a subscription.

I'm not sure how much longer Hawtree's planning to "serve" his community, but I would think his constituents will be trimming a few months or years off that total. It's pretty tough to remain a community leader when you've implied that many in the community are "dreadful" and "hateful." Topping it off by cutting the press out of the loop makes Hawtree look like the sort of person who'd be better off returning to the private sector and becoming a hermit, rather than attempting to bypass all that "unpleasant" communication the real world's known for.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background

Glyn Moody — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:44:55 PST

One of the reasons Techdirt rails against exaggerated responses to supposed terrorist threats is that it has caused police forces around the world to lose all sense of proportion -- literally, in the case of this UK story from the Daily Mail.

It began when Ian Driscoll decided to post a picture to his Facebook page. It was of an Action Man doll, accompanied by a toy Alsatian dog. Why? you might ask. Well, "as a laugh", he says, because the Action Man figure looked a lot like him, and he had a real Alsatian -- which sounds entirely reasonable. What Driscoll did not note at the time, though, was that lurking in the background of the picture was another toy: a model mortar.

Unfortunately, a few weeks later, someone else spotted that toy mortar and, mindful of the incessant UK government propaganda about terrorists being everywhere, duly over-reacted and reported the image. Even more unfortunately, the police also over-reacted -- to the extent of sending five officers, two armed with sub-machine guns (and you thought they didn't carry them in the UK), ready to smash down Driscoll's front door and go in with guns blazing against this supposed terrorist cell.

Luckily, Driscoll was there, and was able to defuse the situation by showing them the mortar in question. He was able to point out that it was in fact only slightly larger than the nearby Playstation that was clearly visible in the snap he had posted, and considerably smaller than the table that was also prominent in the Facebook picture. He might even have pointed out that the figure and dog in his upload were quite obviously toys to anyone who spent more than three seconds examining the picture. The police had presumably decided not to waste those precious three seconds before acting. Instead, as a spokesperson later said:

'We are sure that the community would rather we acted quickly on information given to us of this nature, in case it had turned out to be a weapon.'

Well, no, actually: what the community would really like is for the police to use some intelligence before reaching for the sub-machine guns. If they had just stopped and looked carefully at the picture, it would have been evident that there was no possible threat here. And that's likely to be the case for many other incidents around the world where the police have assumed the worst.

That not only represents a huge waste of their valuable time and resources, it also perpetuates the corrosive idea that we should be constantly afraid and ready to report anything and anyone odd or vaguely suspicious, no matter how absurd it would seem to anyone looking at things rationally. This then creates a self-sustaining loop of public fear and police over-reaction. It's time to scale the rhetoric back, and to make common-sense judgments common again.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: How The BPI Cherry Picks Its Averages To Pretend File Sharers Spend Less

Mike Masnick — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:45:17 PST

We've written more than a few times about how multiple studies have shown time and time again that those who file share tend to spend more on buying music than those who don't. We've also talked about how the RIAA absolutely hates this fact and tries to dance around it at all costs. The latest move comes from RIAA sister organization, BPI (basically the UK RIAA), which has released a report (pdf) that they claim shows the opposite:

Appearing to debunk the common belief that filesharers spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar Worldpanel found that the average spend over a 12-month period for professed filesharers was lower than the spend of consumers who only use legal services. Kantar Worldpanel’s respondents diarise their music purchases on an ongoing basis – there are no estimates made of past purchasing, just an accurate recording of spending patterns over time. The panel data demonstrated that filesharers spent an average of £26.64, compared with £33.43 by legal-only consumers, refuting the popular argument that filesharers are the heaviest spenders on music.

Of course, when you're talking about averages, it's not difficult to fudge the numbers a bit, and as TorrentFreak explains, that's exactly what BPI did. If you break out the specific numbers, you can tell a very different story:

- Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of £33.43 a year.
- File-sharers, in total, spend an average of £26.64 a year.
- File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year.
- File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of £48.26 a year.

TorrentFreak confronted BPI on this, and they shot back that TorrentFreak's analysis was unfair:

"You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music 'consumers', and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?," a BPI spokesman said.

"It's not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally."

Fair enough... except that BPI's own numbers "wave away" all of the people who consume music legally for free, but don't spend anything on music. That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works. And if the BPI was being intellectually honest they would have to average all of those £0s into the average for "legal only" if they want to require all the £0s to be added into the infringing side as well. Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better. When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it'll make the numbers look better for its argument. However, if you're going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices. Either you include all the people who don't buy on both sides or on neither. BPI didn't do that. They only chose the ones who don't buy on the file sharing side.

It's important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population actually bought any music at all. So you've got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not. The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn't. That's a clear methodological problem with their data. If they're going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the "legal" side, or they're simply lying with statistics.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Judge: Giving Hollywood Money From Newzbin2 Would Create Chilling Effects On Innovation

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:30:00 PST

Hollywood already succeeded in getting UK courts to force ISPs to block access to Newzbin2, a Usenet service that the industry insists could only have been used for infringement. And that led Newzbin2 to eventually shut down. But, the Hollywood studios want more. They've been trying to get money from the operator of Newzbin2, demanding any and all proceeds. But, surprisingly, that effort failed yesterday as the judge noted they had no rights to such profits and, importantly that just handing over the proceeds from a business like that might create chilling effects and stifle innovation:

On [Hollywood's] case, a copyright owner's claim would not even be limited to the infringer's profits: in principle, the entire proceeds of sale would be held on trust for the copyright owner. That might both be unfair and stultify enterprise. The proceeds of an infringement might be out of all proportion to the profits generated (e.g. because of the cost of raw materials used in the infringing product). It might not seem just for even a deliberate wrongdoer to have to pay the copyright owner the amount of his gross receipts, and an infringer need not have known that he was breaching copyright. Further, were Mr Spearman's [lawyer for the studios] submissions correct, a person might be deterred from pursuing an activity if he perceived there to be even a small risk that the activity would involve a breach of copyright or other intellectual property rights. As was submitted by Miss Lambert, that could have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity.

Basically, the judge is recognizing that the entertainment industry is completely overvaluing the content, and arguing that any and all money made is 100% due to the content, and not due to any other factors. And that's ridiculous. The judge used some analogies:

Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect.

The Motion Picture Association responded to this loss by saying that this is just "one particular point" in the case, and that it is planning to appeal. And, either way, they point out, what really matters is that Hollywood shut down Newzbin2. Yes, Hollywood killed another service that had figured out how to distribute content better than Hollywood. And, in the end, isn't that all that really matters? So long as Hollywood can keep killing services who do things better than Hollywood, the rest is just gravy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New UK Copyright Research Center Immediately Under Attack For Daring To Ask About Evidence

Glyn Moody — Tue, 5 Feb 2013 03:27:07 PST

As Techdirt reported last year, some copyright maximalists in the UK seem to be against the whole idea of basing policy on evidence. Last week saw the launch of CREATe: Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology, a new UK "research centre for copyright and new business models in the creative economy." One of the things it hopes to do is to bring some objectivity to the notoriously contentious field of copyright studies by looking at what the evidence really says; so it was perhaps inevitable that it too would meet some resistance from the extremist wing of the copyright world. What's surprising is that it seems to have happened during the launch itself, as Paul Bernal, an academic who was there, reports:

A key idea is that some of the CREATe projects will be gathering evidence -- and attempting to determine what's really true about what's going on. Indeed, the first publication from CREATe is a piece about what will actually constitute evidence from the many, varied perspectives of the different groups involved -- you can find it here. CREATe represents an invaluable opportunity for this gathering of evidence -- to have the money, the expertise and the time for the kind of research that can really look into this is something very, very special. And yet even before the launch event had finished, not even a day into the four year project it appeared that the lobbyists were already trying to suggest that the project was likely to be unfair and biased. The question that immediately springs to mind is what are they afraid of? Don't they want real evidence? Are they worried that the evidence will suggest that their current models both of business and of enforcement are flawed and ineffective? Are they afraid that CREATe will help put together new business models -- and that the new environment will have no place for the 'old' content industries?

In the spirit of academic enquiry, answering these questions is left as an exercise for the reader....

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Thankfully Rejects Plans For New IP Czar With Mandate To 'Increase, Protect & Enforce'

Mike Masnick — Mon, 4 Feb 2013 07:42:46 PST

The UK has been surprisingly open to reforming copyright law in a more reasonable direction over the past few years, though (not surprisingly) copyright maximalists have been pushing back on such plans. Paul Keating alerts us to the news that, thankfully, a proposal to establish a special "IP czar" in the UK, whose role would only be to increase IP, has been rejected by the House of Lords:

Conservative Party peer Lord Jenkin of Roding had tabled an amendment to establish a new post of Director General of Intellectual Property Rights. The holder would have responsibility for promoting the creation of new intellectual property; protecting and promoting the interests of UK IP owners; coordinating effective enforcement of UK IP rights; and educating consumers on the nature and value of intellectual property.

Note those four responsibilities. Increase "new" intellectual property (it's unclear if they mean laws or content itself...), protect IP owners, increase and coordinate enforcement and "educate" consumers. Notice that nowhere in there is any recognition that the supposed purpose of those laws is to benefit the public. It would seem a lot more reasonable that any such role should be about increasing the spread of knowledge, watching out for over-enforcement, protecting the interests of the public and educating IP owners on not abusing the law. But, apparently, that sort of thing is what governments are interested in these days.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Churchill's Heirs Seek To Lose The Future By Charging Biographer To Quote His Words

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:33:42 PST

"If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future." — Winston Churchill

We've talked in the past about how the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. and James Joyce have a long and unfortunate history of being ridiculous about letting anyone quote their dead ancestors. Both families have abused copyright law to demand excessive payments, even for researchers and memorials and the like. Now we can add the heirs of Winston Churchill to the bunch. The Freakonomics podcast recently explored this issue with a biographer of Winston Churchill, Barry Singer.

Singer is somewhat obsessed with Churchill, running an entire bookstore devoted to Churchill. As such, he actually says he's had a very good relationship with Churchill's heirs for years. But when he finally sought to write a book on Churchill himself, the family went the usual route and claimed no quotations unless you pay. The approximate rate: 50 cents per word. Quoting other Churchill relatives also costs money and the rates may differ. As Singer explains, he basically had to significantly cut back on what he quoted, and completely excise some Churchill family members from the book. But he did have to pay for the 3,872 words he used that included direct quotations from Churchill -- though the family gave him a slight discount, such that he had to pay £950 -- which works out to about 40 cents per word.

Singer admits that, while some lawyers told him he could fight this, he gave in to keep up his strong relationship with the family. Of course, that only brings to mind Churchill's quote:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last.

Also:

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

It's too bad Singer chose not to stand up more.

To be honest, the podcast is a little weak in that it doesn't go too deep into the legal issues here and how they can impact history, culture and research. Furthermore, it does little to explore the actual law and how far the Churchill estate is overreaching. Oddly, it seems to suggest that this is just "the way" that the UK's copyright laws work (not quite true) and then does a little section on the attempts by the UK government to reform the laws -- even though the UK government decided to reject the idea of including a US-style fair use exception.

Stephen Dubner then talks to Steve Levitt about copyright in general, and claims that his take is "un-economic" because he doesn't seem to care much for stringent enforcement of copyright, and would prefer to share his own works more widely. I don't see how that's un-economic at all. In fact, as Levitt notes, his own status goes up as the work is more widely shared, increasing all sorts of opportunities elsewhere. I actually found this part of the discussion kind of disappointing, as there were a bunch of interesting nuanced directions in which it could have gone, including a much deeper analysis of the economics of copying, but instead, they went with the standard line from people who are just exploring this topic for the first time, which I'll paraphrase as: "well of course copyright is important, and we don't want anyone copying our book, but perhaps it goes too far in some cases."

The parts on Churchill are interesting, and hopefully Dubner (and Levitt?) will follow up in more detail down the road. For example, it would be great for them to bring on Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala, who they've had guest-post for them in the past, considering they've written an entire book on these kinds of things.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story