EU's Advocate-General Says Dutch Allowing Unauthorized Downloads Is Incompatible With European Copyright Law

from the that's-awkward dept

Back in 2012, Ben Zevenbergen wrote a long piece exploring a complicated Dutch case that had been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU’s highest court. It concerned the home-copying exception of European copyright legislation, and hinged on the question of whether the Dutch collecting society could charge for the “losses” that result from people downloading both authorized and unauthorized uploads. That distinction needs to be made, since in the Netherlands downloading copyright material is permitted, but uploading it is not. Manufacturers of blank media claimed that they should only have to pay a lower copyright levy that covered just the downloads of legally-uploaded materials.

As is usual in cases sent to the Court of Justice, the EU’s Advocate-General (AG) gives an opinion first. Although not binding, that opinion is usually indicative, and rarely ignored. Here’s what the Advocate General P. Cruz Villalón has said in this case, as reported by the Future of Copyright site:

The AG notes that the reasoning of the Dutch government has its origin in the fact that the Dutch law tolerates that unauthorized work or material is downloaded from illegal sources and only uploads can be curbed. “Thus the Kingdom of the Netherlands supports indirectly but inevitably, the mass distribution of products resulting from an illegal exploitation of protected works and materials”, which, according to Villalon, cannot be regarded as normal. “The trivialization of downloading content that circulates online without proper authorization […] undermines the normal exploitation”. This practice is not compatible with the basic idea of EU copyright law, in which it is established that copyright holders are entitled to fair compensation, said Villalón. Furthermore, the AG is of the opinion that current levy rates on empty media carriers are too low to generate a fair compensation.

On that basis, he advised the court to hold that copyright levies should not be allowed on unauthorized downloads. That’s a win for the blank media manufacturers, but the Advocate-General’s comments about the Dutch approach to filesharing being incompatible with EU copyright law will be problematic for the Netherlands if the Court of Justice agrees.

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

Filed Under: copyright, downloads, eu, eu court of justice, netherlands

City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers

from the due-process-matters dept

Last fall, we noted that the City of London Police, who had just set up a special “intellectual property crime unit” which appeared to be taking orders directly from Hollywood, had issued bizarre orders to registrars, based on no court order or ruling, that they hand over domain names to the police, point them to a splash page that advertised Hollywood-approved businesses, and block the transfer of those domains to anyone else. A bunch of registrars actually did this, despite the lack of a court order or ruling of any kind. Just because the City of London Police said so. The only registrar who apparently resisted was EasyDNS, who pointed out that there’s such a thing called due process. Furthermore, EasyDNS pointed out that the registrars who complied with the order almost certainly violated ICANN policies for registrars, which has a very specific set of conditions under which a registrar can freeze a whois record, none of which include “because some Hollywood-controlled police force says so.”

The owners of at least one of the frozen domains sought to then (smartly) move the domain to EasyDNS, who would actually protect them. EasyDNS went to Verisign with a “request for enforcement” against the registrar who froze the whois, the incredibly misnamed “Public Domain Registry.” For reasons that make no sense at all, Verisign responded with a “no decision.”

EasyDNS appealed that ruling, and finally after all of that, the National Arbitration Forum has pointed out exactly what EasyDNS said from the very beginning: Public Domain Registry cannot freeze the domain:

No court order has been issued which would prohibit the transfer of the domain names at issue from the Registrar of Record to the Gaining Registrar. Therefore, there is nothing in the Transfer Policy which authorizes the Registrar of Record to refuse to transfer the domain names.

The ruling notes that while one may think it makes sense to obey a request from the police, “the Transfer Policy is unambiguous in requiring a court order before a Registrar of Record may deny a request to transfer a domain name.” It further notes, correctly, the nature and importance of due process, as without it, abuse is too easy:

To permit a registrar of record to withhold the transfer of a domain based on the suspicion of a law enforcement agency, without the intervention of a judicial body, opens the possibility for abuse by agencies far less reputable than the City of London Police. Presumably, the provision in the Transfer Policy requiring a court order is based on the reasonable assumption that the intervention of a court and judicial decree ensures that the restriction on the transfer of a domain name has some basis of “due process” associated with it.

Public Domain Registry tried to defend itself, by arguing that it could freeze the domains because “their involvement in fraudulent activity.” However, the arbitration ruling says both that this is wrong and a total misreading of ICANN’s transfer policy. It’s wrong in that no one has actually presented any evidence of fraudulent activity, and because the sites being used for fraudulent activity is not one of the reasons why a registrar can block a transfer.

The Registrar of Record argued that a basis for withholding the transfer of the domain names was their involvement in fraudulent activity. The Response stated that the three domain names “were involved in criminal distribution of copyrighted material directly or indirectly and are liable to prosecution under UK law which serves as evidence of fraud” under the Transfer Policy. First, the Registrar of Record’s assertion is not correct as the London Police Request does not state that it has evidence of fraud. The Registrar of Record apparently contacted the London Police, as the Registrar states that the London Police have “agreed to answer any and all questions that might arise with regards to these domain names.”

Second, the reference to “evidence of fraud” in the Transfer Policy does not refer to fraudulent conduct by the holder of the domain name, but evidence of fraud with respect to the transfer of that domain name

Kudos to Mark Jeftovic and EasyDNS for fighting for basic due process. If you’re looking for a DNS provider or registrar, they seem like a good one, who is willing to actually stand up for their users’ rights and basic concepts like due process. If you’re looking for a registrar to avoid, Public Domain Registry immediately goes to the top of the list, for not only failing to comprehend the official transfer policies it is bound to uphold, but for not even remotely caring about basic due process, and being willing to lock down domains despite absolutely no judicial review.

Filed Under: city of london, city of london police, copyright, domain seizure, domain transfers, domains, uk
Companies: easydns, public domain registry

Little Evidence Of 'Infringement Risk' For 'Copyright Intensive' Companies

from the more-smoke-and-mirrors dept

For decades now, we keep hearing various “copyright intensive” companies whining to the press and politicians about how the “biggest threat” they face is continued copyright infringement. We hear about how it’s undermining not just their business, but entire economic sectors, the basis of capitalism and the fundamental rule of law. Copyright infringement, we are told, is one of the largest risks to the economy and society that you could possibly imagine. We’ve long questioned the validity of those claims, especially since history has shown that the industry cries wolf fairly frequently and has always been wrong. Most famously, of course, the MPAA’s Jack Valenti told Congress that “the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.” That was in 1982. In 1986, the home video market — which the VCR created — made more money for the MPAA’s studios than the box office did. It’s tough to believe the “threat” claims when they’re always wrong.

But, the “copyright intensive” industries just keep on making those claims, and there’s always some in the press and among elected officials who either don’t know or don’t care about the past (or technology or reality) and automatically believe those claims. They just assume that of course copyright infringement must be a huge threat because these companies say so.

A new study, however, found a pretty good way to evaluate the reality of that threat. Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi realized that a good “independent” third party to evaluate the risk and threat of copyright infringement would be investment analysts. Their only stake in the game is whether or not the company is going to do well or poorly. If the perceived risk and threat was real, they’d certainly be letting everyone know. So, Band and Gerafi have produced a new research report studying equity research reports issued over the last quarter for eight of the top companies in the so-called “copyright intensive industries.”

The choice of companies is interesting, because all eight are among those that regularly scream the loudest about the “threats” of infringement: Sony (owner of Sony Music and Sony Pictures), Vivendi (owner of Universal Music), Disney, Viacom (who also owns Paramount), Microsoft, Adobe, Pearson and Reed Elsevier. If you’re keeping track, that’s basically three of the largest movie studios, two of the largest music labels, two of the largest software companies and two of the largest publishers. If copyright infringement was really this existential threat they’ve all been screaming about, certainly it would show up in the equity analysts’ reports, right?

Well, let’s take a look at the findings:

• None of the 14 reports for Reed Elsevier and 18 reports for Pearson identified copyright infringement as a risk factor.
• Only 13% of the 15 reports for Sony and 22% of the 23 reports for Vivendi mentioned copyright infringement as a potential risk.
• Just 8% of the 26 reports for Viacom and 27% of the 26 reports for Disney referred to copyright infringement as a risk factor.
• 26% of the 19 reports concerning Adobe and 41% of the 27 reports concerning Microsoft identified copyright infringement as a risk factor.
• Cumulatively, only 19% (32) of the 168 reports referred to copyright infringement as a possible risk; 81% did not.

And, in case you were wondering, the reports that didn’t list copyright infringement as a risk (i.e., nearly all of them) did list out a variety of other factors. It wasn’t just a case where they weren’t covering risks at all. They carefully looked at the market, and didn’t seem to think infringement was a real risk at all.

And, it’s important to note that since these are all public companies, the execs at those companies often spend a lot of time “educating” the analysts about the state of their business. In fact, in the annual reports for six of the eight companies listed, the companies themselves do list infringement as a major risk. It just looks like the analysts looked at the detail and simply didn’t see any legitimate threat in most of the cases.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright intensive industries, equity analysts, infringement, jonathan band, jonathan gerafi, risk
Companies: adobe, disney, elsevier, microsoft, paramount, pearson, reed elsevier, sony, sony music, sony pictures, universal music, viacom, vivendi

The Full Story Behind The RIAA & FBI's Insanely Wasteful Prosecution Of The Dude Who Streamed Guns 'N Roses Album

from the what-a-joke dept

Back in the summer of 2008, we wrote about the bizarre move by the FBI to arrest Kevin Cogill, at gunpoint, for having posted a bunch of tracks from the as-yet-unreleased Guns ‘N Roses album, Chinese Democracy. Of course, as pretty much everyone knew, GNR (actually, Axl Rose) had been working on that album for over a decade, pretty much refusing to ever release it. It was the vaporware of the music industry. As we noted at the time, pretty much every album eventually gets leaked, and it tends to get those albums more attention. In fact, many labels purposely leak albums. Cogill received the album via someone who emailed him the tracks, he put them up on his music website, Antiquiet, in a streaming-only format (so no downloading), and took them down about an hour later after the website got slammed with traffic.

And for that, you have a bunch of FBI agents show up at your door pointing guns at you? We couldn’t understand why the FBI would be wasting taxpayer money on this at all. At best, it seemed like it should have been a civil matter for Universal Music to take up.

Either way, as we noted, the leak (and subsequent arrest) appeared to actually act as a huge marketing boost for the album’s eventual release, and as the details of the criminal case against Cogill fell apart, prosecutors dropped the felony charges altogether, and eventually Cogill agreed to a plea deal, which was two months of house arrest and that he would do a public service announcement (PSA) for the RIAA. And then the RIAA never made him do the PSA, so instead he gave an interview talking about how people involved in file sharing can “get F’d in the A” by the RIAA.

It’s been quite a few years since then… and Cogill — statute of limitations now well behind him — has decided to tell the full story of what happened. It’s worth reading, as you learn about the typical insanity of the FBI completely overreacting, being led around by the nose by RIAA and Universal Music people who were simply misleading or lying about things — yet another crazy story of massive overreaction by the industry to anything that seems like “piracy.” In fact, as the report notes, the “leak” (which again, was about an hour’s worth of streaming on a website) helped get lots of attention for the album, and Universal Music actually used the hype from the leak to sign a massive deal with Best Buy to presell 1.3 million albums. In other words, no harm done by the leak… at all.

You should read the full account, but I wanted to call out a few key sections. Cogill was officially charged under 17 USC 506(a)(1)(c), which is a special tidbit in the law that provides criminal penalties for leaking something that hasn’t been released yet (that’s how the FBI could pretend this was a serious criminal matter). But, Cogill and his lawyer had a rather useful response in their back pocket:

For that statute to be applicable, the work would need to be demonstrably headed towards a public release, and for it to apply to me, the court would have to prove that I had reason to believe that it was in fact being prepared for commercial distribution. In other words, the US government would have to prove, in court, that Chinese Democracy was really coming. And no one at the RIAA or the label had informed the government that these songs had been lying around for 14 years. Only that they had cost $12 million. The government would soon come to realize the RIAA had given them a pretty shitty case.

Remember, at the time, this was the album that seemed to be perpetually postponed with no plans of release. Turns out, that kind of sunk the case — but the FBI, as it’s done way too often, simply took the word of the entertainment industry guys on things that turned out to be untrue (this is neither the first nor the last time that the RIAA has led the DOJ on a wild goose chase, which the DOJ only discovered way too late). In fact, Cogill notes that once things got going, the situation was basically the DOJ trying to figure out how to extricate themselves from the disaster they’d gotten themselves into by buying the bullshit story the RIAA gave them.

David [Kaloyanides, Cogill’s lawyer] made me feel invincible. He knocked out any talk of a felony copyright charge in the first round, and the entire battle from there on out became, more or less, a matter of the US government trying to save face by figuring out how to slap me with a misdemeanor. They had set out to string my body up for all would-be music pirates, but David and I shared a resentment for the fact that the government of this country that we love so much let a bunch of lobbyists do their homework for them. We were out to make a nuanced point about our disagreement with Johnny Law.

There are also a number of other bizarre asides, including wild goose chases from random other fans, including one who claimed to also have a copy of the album. Oh, and then there was this tidbit, which again undermined the case:

There was the copy of Chinese Democracy on 12″ vinyl that I bought at Amoeba Records in San Francisco, a bootleg. After the RIAA’s spotty discovery, it was a revelation to the government that any of these tracks had leaked before in any form. Let alone the facts that, first, not only were most of these tracks “out there” in some form for years, but second, that all but a couple could be casually purchased in a record store, here in our own backyard, far from a hot commodity or some underground secret.

And, as mentioned before, Universal’s deal with Best Buy:

Chinese Democracy was finally released on November 23rd, 2008, exclusively at Best Buy, about 20 weeks after my leaks. That’s from no concrete plans, to going up on shelves. Pretty quickly, especially if we’re talking about the poster child for album delays. What did we know about that deal? Best Buy paid a large up front sum for the exclusive, at least seven figures, by all reports. We obtained evidence showing that the value of that exclusive was determined largely by the media hype my leaks had created. UMG had shown Best Buy charts of Google traffic for Chinese Democracy that started spiking in June, and was riding high. The iron was hot, so to speak. And before Best Buy got on board, the only heat source was the fire under my ass.

Oops.

But there’s also this: Cogill notes that he’s never been in the “leaking” business, but rather a journalistic one. He covers the music industry and had written about how the album would leak, because all albums leak — and because of that, someone sent him the leak. He posted about it from a journalistic standpoint, rather than because of any attempt to “leak” the album. And, from his account, for a while he didn’t seem to realize just how insane the laws, law enforcement and our legal system are. Combine that with a clueless bunch of FBI agents easily pushed around by the RIAA, and you get this kind of insanity. The fact that Cogill had told the FBI repeatedly beforehand that if they wanted to arrest him to let him know and he’d show up… and they still showed up with guns drawn is just part of the insanity that happens when you have the kind of ridiculous claims from the RIAA, MPAA and the like about how these leaks are “destroying” their business… at the same time they’re using them to their own advantage. Even the judge in the case couldn’t understand what happened:

The judge was suprised that they arrested me at gunpoint. He actually said, “I don’t understand why this wasn’t a summons case, like I recommended.”

At some point, perhaps the folks at the DOJ are going to finally realize that when the MPAA and RIAA tell them crazy stories about “piracy” that they’re exaggerated beyond belief. Until then, every time we hear about the stories where they screwed up royally — such as with Cogill or Dajaz1 or Rojadirecta or Megaupload — they just look completely clueless.

Filed Under: chinese democracy, copyright, doj, fbi, guns n' roses, kevin cogill, pre-release
Companies: riaa

Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism

from the do-keep-this-up dept

I’ll admit that, other than knowing his name and that he was a Hollywood actor in some big budget films, I didn’t know very much at all about Shia LaBeouf. However, apparently he’s been facing some “controversy” over a few different examples of plagiarism in his work, with the “biggest” being plagiarizing a cartoon by Daniel Clowes called Justin M. Damiano with the short film HowardCantour.com. Others also pointed out that, in a comic book created by LaBeouf, he apparently plagiarized a bunch of others, including Kurt Vonnegut and Charles Bukowski (if you’re going to plagiarize, plagiarize from the best, apparently).

While plagiarism scandals pop up every so often, there are a variety of standard responses — usually involving some sort of apology and then someone laying low for a while before reappearing (just ask Joe Biden). LaBeouf initially appeared to be following the same script… tweeting out apologies, before people started realizing that the apologies themselves were “plagiarized.” That includes using Tiger Woods’ apology after his scandal: “I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart.” Also, former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s famous apology concerning his role in the Vietnam War: “I was wrong, terribly wrong. I owe it to future generations to explain why.”

From there, he finally admitted on New Year’s eve that he was really mocking everyone — which should have been obvious from the beginning, by saying:

You have my apologies for offending you for thinking I was being serious instead of accurately realizing I was mocking you.

Oh, and if you hadn’t figured it out already, that line is also plagiarized.

He then decided to give an email interview with BleedingCool, much of which itself appears to be plagiarized as well. BleedingCool initially claimed that it believed the statements were “original” to LaBeouf, but then has gone back and noted repeated lines in the interview that are plagiarized from others. I’m guessing that they’re missing quite a few others.

But what comes out of it is what is likely a highly plagiarized defense of plagiarism, as well as a condemnation of the state of copyright law today, and how it limits forms of expression. Take this tidbit, for example:

The problem begins with the legal fact that authorship is inextricably
bound up in the idea of ownership and the idea of language as
Intellectual property. Language and ideas flow freely between people
Despite the law. It’s not plagiarism in the digital age – it’s repurposing.
Copyright law has to give up on its obsession with “the copy”
The law should not regulate “copy’s” or “reproductions” on there own.
It should instead regulate uses – like public distributions of copyrighted work –
That connect directly to the economic incentive copyright law was intended to foster.
The author was the person who had been authorized by the state to print there work.
They were the ones to be held accountable for the ideas.
THE FIRST LAWS ON AUTHORSHIP WERE USED TO CENSOR & PERSECUTE
THE WRITERS WHO DARED PUBLISH RADICAL IDEAS.
Simple – should creation have to check with a lawyer?

At least some of that is from Larry Lessig. Almost certain other parts are from others. But, in a way he’s proving the point. He is creating something new, unique and interesting, even as he’s plagiarizing others, even to the point of talking about outdated copyright laws.

For what it’s worth, even this idea is not unique. Back in 2007 we wrote about author Jonathan Lethem writing an entire defense of plagiarism, which was 100% plagiarized. If Labeouf is looking for more material, he might want to check that one out, if he hasn’t already. Oh, and also Malcolm Gladwell’s 2004 defense of plagiarism, which has some great quotes as well.

Filed Under: copyright, creativity, intellectual property, plagiarism, shia labeouf

The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain

from the we-need-more-than-12-angry-men dept

As they do every year, unfortunately, the good folks at the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke have put together a depressing list of what should have entered the public domain yesterday. As you hopefully know, until 1978, the maximum amount of time that work in the US could be covered by copyright was 56 years (you initially received a 28 year copyright term, which could be renewed for another 28 years). That means, back in 1957, everyone who created the works in that list knew absolutely, and without a doubt that their works would be given back to the public to share, to perform, to build on and more… on January 1, 2014 at the very latest. And they all still created their works, making clear that the incentive of a 56 year monopoly was absolutely more than enough incentive to create.

And yet, for reasons that still no one has made clear, Congress unilaterally changed the terms of the deal, took these works away from the public, without any compensation at all, and will keep them locked up for at least another 40 years. At least.

The website lists out books, movies, music and much more that is locked up away from the public for no good reason at all. In the books, there are works such as:

• Jack Kerouac, On the Road (completed 1951, published 1957)
• Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
• Margret Rey and H.A. Rey, Curious George Gets a Medal
• Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat
• Eliot Ness and Oscar Fraley, The Untouchables
• Studs Terkel, Giants of Jazz
• Corbett H. Thigpen and Hervey M. Cleckley, The Three Faces of Eve
• Ian Fleming, From Russia, with Love

The list of movies is quite impressive as well. Imagine the kind of creativity that would be unleashed if people could take clips from the following list of films and mash them up into something new and wonderful. While I’m sure some folks (including, perhaps, folks reading this right now) could make something amazing out of mashing up clips from many of these works, you’d be making a very risky bet on fair use protecting you — and even if it did, you might still have to face an insanely costly lawsuit first.

• The Incredible Shrinking Man (Based on Richard Matheson’s 1956 book The Shrinking Man)
• The Bridge on the River Kwai (Best Picture, Best Director (David Lean), Best Actor (Alec Guinness); also starring William Holden, Jack Hawkins and Sessue Hayakawa)
• A Farewell to Arms (Rock Hudson and Jennifer Jones)
• Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas)
• 3:10 to Yuma (1957 original starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin)
• Island in the Sun (James Mason, Joan Fontaine, Dorothy Dandridge, and introducing Harry Belafonte)
• Witness for the Prosecution (Tyrone Power, Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, Elsa Lanchester)
• 12 Angry Men (Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, and more)
• Sweet Smell of Success (Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis)
• Jailhouse Rock (Elvis Presley)
• The Prince and the Showgirl (Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe)
• Funny Face (Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire . . . and Paris as only Hollywood can imagine it)
• An Affair to Remember (Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr . . . and the Empire State Building)
• Nights of Cabiria (written and directed by Federico Fellini and starring Giulietta Masina)
• The Seventh Seal (written and directed by Ingmar Bergman and starring Max von Sydow and Bengt Ekerot)
• What’s Opera, Doc? (Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd do Wagner)
• The first episodes of Leave It to Beaver and Perry Mason
• Elvis Presley’s third and final appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on January 6, 1957

There’s plenty of some of the most influential American music from the early days of rock and roll as well.

If you wanted to find guitar tabs or sheet music and freely record your own version of some of the influential music of the 1950s, January 1, 2014, might have been a booming day for you under earlier copyright laws – “That’ll Be the Day” and “Peggy Sue” (Buddy Holly, Jerry Allison, and Norman Petty), “Great Balls of Fire” (Otis Blackwell and Jack Hammer), and “Wake Up, Little Susie” (Felice and Boudleaux Bryant) would all be available. You could score a short film with Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 11 in G minor (Opus 103; subtitled The Year 1905). Or you could stage your own performances of some of Elvis Presley’s hits: “All Shook Up” (Otis Blackwell and Elvis Presley) and “Jailhouse Rock” (Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller). Today, these musical works remain copyrighted until 2053.

They further note that the classic musical West Side Story came out in 1957 as well. It should be in the public domain. But it’s not.

And it’s not just arts and entertainment. The post points out plenty of science and technology is still locked up thanks to all of this.

1957 was a noteworthy year for science: the USSR launched Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, IBM released the first FORTRAN compiler, and the UK’s Medical Research Council published an early report linking smoking and lung cancer. There were groundbreaking publications in the fields of superconductivity and astrophysics such as “Theory of Superconductivity” by John Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieffer and “Synthesis of the Elements in Stars… ” by Geofrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge, William Fowler, and Fred Hoyle.

They further make an important point that while the works listed above grab all the attention, because they were so successful, the real shame is in lots of other works that are simply not available at all any more. And this would likely include all sorts of works from 1985. After all, works created in 1985, if created under the old law, would have been given an initial 28 year copyright term, which would also be expiring, and if history is any guide, the vast majority of those would not have their copyrights renewed. Instead, they’re locked up… and quite frequently completely unavailable, with a very real risk of being lost to history.

The really crazy part about all of this is that it’s the exact opposite of the entire original purpose of copyright. Copyright law was put in place specifically to encourage the creation of works that would be put into the public domain to promote learning, knowledge and understanding. Yet, instead, it’s been distorted, twisted and misrepresented into a system that is used solely to lock stuff up, make it less accessible and less available, limiting the ability to promote knowledge and learning. What a shame.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright term extension, copyright terms, public domain, public domain day

New Year's Message: Optimism On The Cusp Of Big Changes

from the make-it-so dept

While Techdirt started back in 1997 (yikes), since 2008 I’ve had an end of the year tradition in which I use the final post of the year to reflect a bit more generally on the topic of optimism. It kicked off after I received some comments from people questioning how I didn’t go crazy after writing about all of these negative things — and I noted that I’m actually quite optimistic and happy. The frustration comes from all of the efforts to hold back the pace of progress, but I’m quite excited about all the progress that is happening. In 2009, I focused more on the power of creativity and innovation, and followed that up in 2010 by noting that innovation can help turn pessimism to optimism. In 2011, I pointed out that we could then take that innovation and optimism and finally start to make a real difference, because the power was now in our hands. That turned out to be prescient, because 2012 was a year where we started to see real change, as people spoke up and actually made a huge difference around things like SOPA and ACTA.

For this year, that trend continues in a big way. The accomplishments of the past have only resulted in continued pressure to change things for the better in the future. The story of the year, without question, is the revelations about the surveillance state (thank you Ed Snowden), a story that is still just beginning, but has already had tremendous impact around the globe and will continue to drive efforts towards real, lasting and important changes. It’s interesting to see that the infrastructure that came together around SOPA starting in 2011 is continuing to operate today on issues related to privacy and surveillance. Yes, there’s a big fight ahead, and it may not go perfectly (nothing ever does), but to suggest that change is not coming is naive in the extreme.

This kind of change is not just possible, it’s becoming probable. In the past, it was nearly impossible for the public and a loose coalition of folks nowhere near the centers of power to effect change. But that’s been altered in a big, big way over the past few years, and it’s only going to continue. It’s easy to be cynical about all of this, but we’re already seeing the beginnings of change and it will continue so long as people continue to speak out, speak up and push for basic freedoms and rights.

And, of course, we’re seeing similar things happen beyond the issue of surveillance, in other areas that we normally talk about. After years of pushing copyright law to be ever expanded, Congress has now started a (long) process towards comprehensive copyright reform, in which it’s clear they’re paying attention to what the wider public thinks, rather than just focusing on what one legacy industry thinks. Again, this is the earliest stage of this process, but just the fact that Congress is open to comprehensive reform — something most thought to be impossible just a few months ago — is a sign of how far we’ve come.

Similarly, on the issue of patent reform, Congress is poised to pass significant legislation to try to limit patent trolling. The legislation doesn’t go nearly far enough, but a year ago it was laughable to think that Congress would even take up the issue, since it had passed (basically useless) patent reform in 2011 and pretended that it had solved all of the problems. The fact that Congress was willing to go back and revisit the issue so quickly — and this time to actually look at the problems — is a sign that when people really speak out about these problems, it is possible to create change. There’s still more to be done, but things are moving forward.

Yes, there’s much to be cynical about. And there is tremendous frustration in bad laws, bad rulings, clueless policy, dumb decisions and lawsuits. But if you go back just a few years and look at where we are today, you’re being willfully blind if you haven’t seen the somewhat astounding progress. Two years ago, you’d be laughed at if you said that at the close of 2013 we’d be talking about significant reforms to surveillance, copyright and patents. Yet we’re right on the cusp of all of those things.

That’s an amazing statement of the power to create change in important ways.

We can and should be frustrated that this change happens as slowly as it does, and at the efforts to dilute or limit the change. We should be furious at the steps backwards that inevitably happen in this process. But we should be energized by the power to create change that we’ve seen over the past few years, much of it driven by large groups of people gathering together and speaking out. The amazing ability of the internet to bring together and amplify those voices and to drive home the message that these changes aren’t just desired, but necessary, should not be discounted.

2014 is going to be quite an interesting year in so many ways, and each and every one of you should pat yourselves on the back for helping to get us this far… while gearing up to continue the fight.

Once again, I want to put forth a massive thank you to everyone who is a part of the Techdirt community — whether you comment, lurk, read, share, submit stories, discuss elsewhere, tell others about us or just drop in occasionally. We even appreciate those of you who feel it’s your job to disagree with nearly everything we write. For many years we’ve pointed out what an amazing community this is. It challenges me to think through a variety of issues each and every day in new and different ways.

We’re looking forward to 2014 and additional efforts we’re making to do even more for the community here.

I’ve been writing here for over 16 years and it remains an absolute joy and pleasure every day to share this space with all of you, to learn from you and to discuss and debate with you. You continue to inspire me, each and every day, to see what we can do not just to make this a better place for the community, but to look at ways that we might, in whatever little ways we can, make this a better world for everyone. Thank you again, for being a part of this effort.

Filed Under: change, copyright, new year's message, optimism, patents, progress, surveillance, thank you

Bogus DMCA Notices Nearly Delete Cyberlocker From Google

from the what-happens-when-you-let-others-mess-with-search-results dept

The legacy players in the entertainment industry, led by the MPAA and the RIAA have been trying to get the right to edit search results on various search engines for years, under the bogus belief that if people didn’t get search results linking them to infringing files, they’d suddenly start spending more money on entertainment. As we’ve explained in detail, it’s not nearly as easy as some people think to simply demote “bad” sites will promoting “good” sites. Even with a long list of reasons why such a plan won’t work, Google (alone among the search engines) has actually been trying to implement something along these lines. And, exactly as we’ve warned, caving to the demands of the legacy entertainment industry never works. For them, it’s never enough, as they’ll continue to whine and complain until search engines have magically brought us back to 1982.

And there are real dangers when you effectively let third parties “edit” or “shape” Google’s results as they see fit. TorrentFreak recently highlighted a good example of this, as the cyberlocker RapidGator discovered that it’s basically been almost entirely delisted from Google because of DMCA notices. RapidGator already blocks Google from indexing the files hosted on its site — so even if some users of the service post infringing files, they wouldn’t have appeared in Google anyway. As the article notes, copyright holders apparently sent Google DMCA takedowns on links that weren’t even in Google’s index in the first place. But, more importantly, the pages that were in Google’s index were clearly non-infringing, including things like the site’s front page or details about the site and the services it offers.

The end result is that Google has taken RapidGator almost entirely out of the Google index. As the company states, the same thing could easily happen to a more high profile or “mainstream” cyberlocker like Dropbox. Just get enough DMCA notices — legitimate or not — and thanks to pressure from the entertainment industry, the “results” pages on Google get effectively edited by the legacy entertainment industry. I wonder how long it will take until other industries demand similar rights….

Filed Under: copyright, cyberlocker, dmca, search results, takedowns
Companies: google, mpaa, rapidgator, riaa

Berlin Law Firm Files Criminal Complaint Against Copyright Troll U+C Alleging Its Demand Letters Are Fraudulent

from the but-no-one-would-fight-being-accused-of-stealing-porn,-would-they? dept

German copyright troll Urmann + Colleagues’ (U+C) pain is only just beginning. U+C misrepresented a streaming service as a file-sharing site to a German court in order to obtain subscriber info on thousands of German RedTube users. U+C then used this fraudulently-obtained data to send out collection letters to over 10,000 users, demanding a payment of $345 for copyright infringement.

Red flags were raised by a handful of German lawyers who noted that almost everything about U+C’s actions bordered on illegal. At the very least, U+C couldn’t demand payment for activity not considered to be infringement by the German courts. The backlash began there.

First, the court that had issued the 50 orders (covering thousands of IP addresses) revoked them after it became apparent that U+C had misrepresented RedTube’s service. Then RedTube itself was granted an injunction forbidding U+C (and The Archive AG — which apparently “owns” the copyright to the porn titles at the center of all this activity) from sending out further demand letters to its German users.

Now a Berlin law firm (MMR Müller Müller Rößner) has filed a criminal complaint against U+C, alleging fraud and blackmail. According to the firm, U+C payment demands were predicated on a false claim (that German RedTube users were liable for copyright infringement for viewing a streamed video). Under German law, nothing illegal had occurred, but U+C was obviously hoping ignorance of the law would net it some income from RedTube users. Roughly paraphrased (and even more roughly translated), the law firm accuses U+C of deploying a “grandson trick” — a scam — that preys on the gullible and ignorant, and leverages the underlying threat that their targets’ porn-watching habits could be exposed if payment isn’t prompt.

Additionally, the method that U+C used to obtain IP addresses still hasn’t been adequately explained. Even if it did use a completely above-board method to harvest viewers’ IP addresses, the way RedTube serves its streams makes proving who watched what video almost impossible.

Even more incredibly, U+C lawyer Thomas Urmann claimed earlier this month that it makes no difference if shady methods were used to obtain the IP addresses. According to him, it’s “too late” to raise that objection seeing as the court had already ruled in U+C’s favor by issuing the orders to release user data. Urmann is likely not feeling quite as confident now that the court has repealed its support and revoked the earlier orders, but it’s still a bit discomfiting to hear a lawyer boldly claim that the ends justify the possibly illegal means.

Another law firm (Diehl & Partner) weighing in on U+C’s misconduct wonders exactly what it plans to use as evidence should any of these cases go to court, considering the works under discussion were only streamed and not downloaded. Obviously, this question is almost entirely rhetorical. Demand letters sent on a massive scale are the business model, not the first step in a complex legal strategy. Here in the US, courts have become less and less willing to entertain copyright trolls’ low-level extortion schemes. U+C’s audacious (and possibly fraudulent) letter writing campaign will only hasten the development of an identical legal climate in Germany.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, extortion, fraud, germany
Companies: the archive ag, u+c, urmann + colleagues

Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling

from the and-on-and-on-it-goes dept

We had hoped that, after nearly a decade of fighting and losing, the nearly complete trouncing of the Authors Guild’s ridiculous arguments against Google’s book scanning project (by a judge, Denny Chin, known for favoring copyright holders), that the Authors Guild and its proudly luddite leader, Scott Turow, might finally take a step back from the brink and recognize that maybe, just maybe, Google’s book scanning project isn’t as evil as the organization insists. But, back here in reality, the Authors Guild is going to keep on keeping on with wasting the various dues its authors pay to be members… as it has officially appealed the decision, guaranteeing the throwing of more money away on a stupid lawsuit that serves no purpose other than to make it clear to the world that the Authors Guild is anti-technology, anti-creativity and anti-innovation.

The lawsuit paints the organization as completely out of touch. Plenty of authors have pointed out how incredibly useful Google’s book scanning project has been for the sake of research and discovering other books (many of which lead to purchases). Publishers have pointed out that having books scanned by Google increases sales. It’s difficult to see what the Authors Guild is arguing for, other than “progress is bad.”

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use, scott turow
Companies: authors guild, google