Swedish Court Backs ISP In Not Handing Over Data On Accused 'Pirate'

Legal Issues

from the nice-to-see-some-sanity dept

Earlier this year, Sweden put its anti-piracy IPRED law into effect, and earlier this summer we noted that the ISP ePhone was refusing to give up a user’s IP address, and appealing a court ruling ordering it to do so. The details of the specific case suggested a unique circumstance, involving a server that supposedly contained infringing material — but which was never made public. It was always behind a password and thus, Ephone argued, there was no infringement. While the lower court disagreed, the appeals court has overturned the lower ruling, saying that probable cause for infringement had not been shown. Given some of the recent rulings in the Swedish court system on copyright issues, it’s nice to see a court not just accept the entertainment industry’s claims on some of these things…

Filed Under: copyright, ipred, sweden
Companies: ephone

File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films

Culture

from the no-legitimate-purpose? dept

While some continue to insist that there’s nothing good or legal that comes from file sharing sites, many content creators who have embraced those sites have found them to be wonderful tools for distribution and promotion. Now, it looks like a bunch of them are teaming up to do even more. Mininova, The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Miro, Vuze and Frostwire have all agreed to work with a new project called Vodo, which will help promote indie films. Filmmakers can offer their films through Vodo and get promoted on the various file sharing sites — and the system is designed to let people easily donate. While I’m not a huge fan of a pure “donation” business model, it should be interesting to see how Vodo evolves over time. Certainly, it could be a valuable tool to indie filmmakers who recognize that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their efforts than piracy.

Filed Under: file sharing, films, p2p, promotion
Companies: frostwire, isohunt, mininova, miro, the pirate bay, vodo, vuze

Michael Dell Recognizes Blocking What Customers Want To Protect Your Own Biz Model Is Dumb

Say That Again

from the smart-man dept

There have been lots of different writeups on Michael Dell’s recent Churchill Club talk, with most focusing on his trashing of netbooks or talking up Windows 7. But at the end of that article there was something even more interesting, which Derek pointed out to us:

Clark asked Dell about the fact that, through virtualization, many companies end up buying fewer servers, and less hardware in general. “The first thing you have to remember is that any time a new technology comes along that’s good for customers, you get in the way of it at your own peril,” Dell said.

Indeed. This is a point that so few companies seem to recognize. Instead of focusing on what the customers actually want, they freak out about how it may cause them to sell less of what they currently offer. This is the key in avoiding the innovator’s dilemma and marketing myopia. You have to focus on what benefits the customer actually gets — and if you try and get in the way of that, they’ll just go somewhere else instead. But it’s so rare to hear execs actually recognize that point — so, kudos to Michael Dell for acknowledging it.

Filed Under: consumers, michael dell
Companies: dell

UK Politician Proposes Motion Against Kicking People Off The Internet

Politics

from the some-sanity dept

While a bunch of politicians in the UK had been under the influence of entertainment industry lobbyists in believing that kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet would somehow magically bring back a working business model, at least there are some who recognize what a futile and backwards effort this would be. MP Tom Watson has put forth an “Early Day Motion” against such proposals:

That this House notes with concern the Government’s proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

I’d even take issue with the claim that it costs rights holders money when people download instead of buy — as there’s ample evidence that such things can lead to additional purchases down the road. But, still, this is a good start, and great to see some politicians not falling for the industry’s claims.

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, tom watson, uk

Australian ABC Promises To Stay Free; Mocks Murdoch And Paywalls As 'Old Empire' Thinking

Say That Again

from the take-that,-rupert dept

One of the key points we’ve raised in the past about the futility of newspapers putting up paywalls is that doing so would only open up a huge opportunity for other, smarter journalism organizations to take their market share by remaining free. And, indeed, more and more organizations are starting to point out that’s exactly what they would do. Reader Jamie writes in to let us know about a speech by the managing director of ABC in Australia (not the Disney owned ABC in America), Mark Scott, taking on the “old media” thinking around such things as paywalls:

Scott’s most virulent words were saved for News Corporation (owner of The Australian) chairman Rupert Murdoch and CEO Europe and Asia, James Murdoch.

He called Rupert Murdoch’s recent call for content providers to charge online distributors for content as “a classic play of old empire, of empire in decline. Believing that because you once controlled the world you can continue to do so.”

“When you have been so powerful and dominant for so long, it is hard to believe that empire is slipping away,” he said.

Scott argued traditional media companies had been out-thought by technology companies in strategy.

And… oh yeah, if Murdoch goes paywall, Scott promises to do the opposite:

He reiterated the ABC would continue to provide free online news content and said the ABC must remain audience-focused

Not just that, but he seems to be recognizing that the way people interact with news has changed, and they want to be much more involved:

… he noted the only media organisations to survive will be those that: know and accept that all the rules have changed; are endlessly inquisitive about the new; empower their audiences to contribute, to create and share media….

Nice to see some news business execs who seem to recognize what’s happening.

Filed Under: australia, journalism, mark scott, media, paywalls, rupert murdoch
Companies: abc, news corp

Sorry ASCAP, A Ringtone Is Not A Public Performance

Legal Issues

from the nice-try-though dept

ASCAP and BMI have been pushing all sorts of ridiculous claims over the past few months, trying to squeeze extra money out of pretty much everything, rather than actually doing right by those they represent and helping them adapt new business models based on giving people a reason to buy. Beyond claiming that Congress should make sure their royalties never decrease, they’ve also been saying they deserve money for things like YouTube embeds (even though YouTube already pays them for that same traffic) and the 30 second previews on iTunes and other music stores. However, the most ridiculous of all was trying to claim that ringtones are a public performance, and thus mobile phone providers need to pay ASCAP/BMI. The thing is, ASCAP and BMI already get paid for ringtone purchases — but this was an attempt to get a second payment on top of that for the fact that people might hear the ringtones.

Thankfully (as a whole bunch of you have sent in), a judge wasted little time totally rejecting that reasoning. The court pointed out that the Copyright Act is pretty clear that there’s no royalty needed for any sort of “performance” that isn’t done for commercial advantage and “customers do not play ringtones with any expectation of profit.” It’s a pretty complete rejection of an obvious stretch by ASCAP.

We might hope that ASCAP will take this and begin to recognize that the best way to serve songwriters is helping them embrace new business models, but we expect that instead they’ll keep looking to squeeze more money and double dip from other providers… while continuing to pay industry insiders to smear those who want to protect consumer rights.

Filed Under: copyright, double dipping, public performance, ringtones, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi, eff

Why Did Pandora Sign Away Its Right To Petition The Copyright Royalty Board For Lower Rates?

Politics

from the well,-that's-obnoxious dept

It’s already quite troubling that Pandora appears to be supporting the RIAA bailout tax against radios (Pandora’s competitors), but now we have a better understanding of why, thanks to a little birdie who highlighted what’s going on. Among the nasty little hidden gems in the recently agreed to webcaster settlement agreement (pdf) is that, if you want the lower rates in the settlement, you have to remove any objections to previous rate arbitrations and not participate in any future Royalty Board fights over royalties:

Article 6

Non-Participation In Further Proceedings
CPB and any Covered Entity making Web Site Transmissions in reliance on this Agreement shall not directly or indirectly participate as a party, amicus curiae or otherwise, or in any manner give evidence or otherwise support or assist, in any further proceedings to determine royalty rates and terms for digital audio transmission or the reproduction of Ephemeral Phonorecords under Section 112 or 114 of the Copyright Act for all or any part of the Term, including any appeal of the Final Determination of the Copyright Royalty Judges, published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 24084 (May 1, 2007), any proceedings on remand from such an appeal, or any other related proceedings, unless subpoenaed on petition of a third party (without any action by CPB or a Covered Entity to encourage such a petition) and ordered to testify in such proceeding.

Basically, this takes away the right of any company to fight for more reasonable royalty rates in the future — which doesn’t seem like it should be allowed. Based on this, there’s basically no one left who can protest future rate increases — which means that the RIAA/SoundExchange will easily be able to repeatedly push through greater rate increases.

Thus, since Pandora and the other webcasters won’t be able to protest higher and higher rates, it needs to drag others into the fight to get help protesting constant massive rate increases: hence its support of the Performance Rights tax. In theory, if the NAB (who represents radio broadcasters) gets dragged into the fight, then there’s a big dog who isn’t subject to the draconian clause above, and can push back on the Copyright Royalty Board for lower performance rights taxes. Of course, that assumes that the NAB would fight for lower overall rates, rather than just focusing on rates for radio, and leaving the webcasters to fend for themselves…

No matter how you look at this, it’s stunning that Pandora and other webcasters would sign away their right to state their own case in front of the CRB. RIAA/SoundExchange are laughing all the way to the bank. They get to make their case to increase royalty rates… while those who get stuck with the royalty rates have to shut up and take it. Regulatory capture at its finest. Again, we’re left wondering why the Copyright Royalty Board even exists. Why are a group of old judges setting the price of music anyway?

Filed Under: copyright, copyright royalty board, performance rights
Companies: pandora

Post Script On Edwyn Collins: Power Of The Press Gets His Music On MySpace For Free

Culture

from the no-thanks-to-warner-music dept

A few weeks back, we were one of the first publications to highlight how singer Edwyn Collins was unable to put his own hit song on MySpace for free download (as he wanted to do) because Warner Music claimed copyright over it — even though it had no such copyright. Despite quite an effort by Collins’ manager/wife, Grace Maxwell, nothing was changing. However, the story started to spread, including making it into some major media properties, such as the BBC and The Guardian… and whaddaya know, suddenly everything gets fixed. Mesanna writes in to let us know of an update post from Maxwell, where she points out that the power of the press seemed to finally accomplish what simple reasoning with both MySpace and Warner Music could not:

However, whaddaya know? After 30 odd fruitless emails, A Girl Like You is now available in full on the myspace player! So, todays lesson is simple:

THE MOST POWERFUL DEPARTMENT IN ANY ORGANISATION IS THE PRESS OFFICE.
The whole sad world runs scared of bad publicity, especially from a righteous source like Edwyn Collins.

While Maxwell says it’s not worth the ridiculous effort it would take to sue Warner Music or any other major label claiming copyright over Collins’ songs, she’s more than willing to help out in other cases against them:

Warner Music Group has no connection with Edwyn whatsoever and yet they are still corporately arrogant enough to steal Edwyn’s copyright and God knows what else from others. A guy from myspace advised me to treat their copyright department with kid gloves if I wanted a result. It didn’t work. If the shoe was on the other foot they’d have been down on us like a ton of bricks. The next time a major tries to take ANYONE to court for copyright infringment, I’m volunteering my services as a witness for the defense.

Filed Under: edwyn collins, music
Companies: myspace, warner music group

Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use

Politics

from the let's-not-listen-to-our-customers dept

Access Copyright, a Canadian copyright collections agency that has already positioned the discussions on copyright reform in Canada as a war against consumers, has had its submission to the government on the topic published, and it’s really quite stunning in that it says that “fair dealing” (the Canadian version of fair use) is already too broad and needs to be greatly restricted. But the really stunning statement from the filing is the following:

Access Copyright submits that good public policy should not be dictated by legalizing common public practices.

Actually, it seems that’s the very definition of good public policy. You know what bad public policy is? Destroying basic consumer rights and criminalizing basic consumer behavior because some obsolete organization can’t figure out a way to adjust its business model.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, fair use
Companies: access copyright

Why Did One NBA Player Get 800 Domain Names From A Cybersquatter?

Legal Issues

from the huh?.com dept

Here’s an odd one. Apparently Toronto Raptors forward Chris Bosh was given control over 800 domain names related to NBA basketball players that had been cybersquatted. I’m not sure what it is with professional basketball players and domain name speculation — as this is the second such story involving that combination — but what struck me as odd about this is why Bosh was given all the domain names. Bosh had sued over the registration and use of chrisbosh.com — so you could understand a ruling that gave him control over that domain name. But why give him the other 799 domain names involving other players as well? Bosh has said he’ll hand over the rights to the other players for free, but it still doesn’t make sense why he got control over them in the first place.

Filed Under: chris bosh, cybersquatting, domain names, domain squatting