Category: Copyright

RIAA Employed Terrorist Takes Down Web TV Network

MediaDefender, a criminal software firm employed by media companies to engage in illegal attacks on sites that they deem infringing, just took down the completely legal web broadcasting firm Revision3, which is, conveniently enough, a direct competitor to MediaDefender’s parent company.

It Revision3 uses BitTorrent to distribute its programming, but only its own stuff, but MediaDefender hacked in using a back door to place their own material on the server, and when this back door was shut down after it was discovered, a massive (8000/second) DDOS attack occurred.

At this point they say that they lack the resources to sue, but I’ve sent them an email saying that I would throw in a few bucks for a legal fund.

Viacom Going Postal On YouTube

The DMCA is pretty clear on this. If someone posts something to an internet service, and they get a notice, and then take it down, it’s no harm, no foul.

This appears to be YouTube at a glance, but Viacom is now claiming, “that YouTube is guilty of public performance of such content due to the way it presents and plays the videos“, because it allows for embedding and sharing (actually referrals) to the material.

This is going to get very, very ugly.

And the Son of WIPO Looks to Set Up a Reign of IP Terror

A copy of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been leaked online, and it appears that once again the regulators miss the point.

IP protections are not property. They are liberty that we take from every member of society in the form of temporary exclusive licenses, because the society as a whole benefits from the creativity encouraged by these licenses.

The leaked copy of the proposal is here, courtesy of Wikileaks.

Absurdity in IP, Hippo Birdie Two Ewes

I found this as an interesting followup to yesterday’s Dr. Who based, “Knitting Needles of Mass Destruction”, we have the lowdown on the “Happy Birthday” song:

Abstract:
“Happy Birthday to You” is the best-known and most frequently sung song in the world. Many – including Justice Breyer in his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft – have portrayed it as an unoriginal work that is hardly worthy of copyright protection, but nonetheless remains under copyright. Yet close historical scrutiny reveals both of those assumptions to be false. The song that became “Happy Birthday to You,” originally written with different lyrics as “Good Morning to All,” was the product of intense creative labor, undertaken with copyright protection in mind. However, it is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application.

Original paper here.

RIAA v. Thomas Sent Back for New Arguments

It appears that courts are becoming increasingly restrictive on the scope of RIAA claims, and new arguments, and possibly a new jury trial, have been ordered as a result.

In this case, the RIAA got a judgment of $220,000.00 from Ms. Davis, but:

That was the case in the trial last fall of Jammie Thomas of Brainerd. A U.S. district court judge, Michael Davis, instructed jurors that making sound recordings available without permission violates record company copyrights “regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”

On Thursday, Davis said that may have been a mistake.

He wrote that he found a 1993 ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Minnesota, that said infringement requires “an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.”

One wonders why he is asking for a re-ruling without either side having brought up this original ruling.

My guess is that his grand kid with the iPod told him.

Microsoft to Customers: Drop Dead, DRM Edition

Once upon a time, there was a company called Microsoft, and it was a bad company.

One day, they created a music shop, called MSN music, which was even worse.

Then the bad people at Microsoft created the the Zune* store, anddecided to Dump MSN Music.

So, effective August 31, 2008, Microsoft is pulling the DRM keys on the music:

MSN Entertainment and Video Services general manager Rob Bennett sent out an e-mail this afternoon to customers, advising them to make any and all authorizations or deauthorizations before August 31. “As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers,” reads the e-mail seen by Ars. “You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play.”

This doesn’t just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize, it also applies to operating systems on the same machine (users need to reauthorize a machine after they upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, for example). Once September rolls around, users are committed to whatever five machines they may have authorized—along with whatever OS they are running.

So you bought it, you paid for it, and now you have nothing.

This isn’t just Microflaccid, this is what the music and movie industries want to be their business model.

You buy the music, and then they change the rules, and make you buy it again.

*Yes, this was bad too.
And probably overpaid for it.

Senator, You are a Clueless Jerk, the Not-Lieberman Edition

It’s not Lieberman, but it should come as no surprise that I am referring to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware, Joseph Biden….What the heck is it with Senators named “Joe”?

A prominent Senate Democrat on Wednesday said federal and local police should use custom software to monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity, and he wants to spend $1 billion in tax dollars to help make that happen.

Of course, you have the obligatory screaming about Child Pr0n and terrorism, but it’s really about donations from the RIAA and the MPAA.

Additionally, the tracking method proposed, using MAC addresses, is fairly easily spoofed.

Moron.

A plea to both campaigns: Please do not select this blithering idiot as your Vice Presidential running mate.

Wanker of the Day: J.K. Rowling

Yes, the author of the Harry Potter series is suing a small publisher over their publishing a Harry Potter encyclopedia.

It appears that Rowling , “feels like her words were stolen”.

Tough. Copyright is not ownership, and it was never intended to be ownership. It is a limited time exclusive license, and people are allowed to do things like create encyclopedias.

In fact, this was the sort of activity that was specifically intended under copyright.

Under your view of copyright, Shakespeare’s folios, from which the plays were published, would have been suppressed, which would make all of us poorer in a most profound way.

She “loves” the Harry Potter Lexicon Web site, but had to “draw the line” at his publishing a book based on this material.

Frankly, you have no right to do this. Literally, unless the person has fully appropriated large blocks of your text.

Names, relationships, a plot chart of the story line (assuming that author Steven Vander Ark developed himself), they aren’t your property.

Copyright was created to promote the useful sciences and arts, at least in the USA, the fact that someone is diagramming the finer points of your tale is none of your damn business, though I’m sure you can probably bankrupt the publisher.

Judge Restricts RIAA’s Right to Sue

But only a little bit.

Basically, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas said that placing copyrighted material in a shared drive does not constitute publication. They would have to show that illegal copying took place.

This is a good thing, as Declan McCulagh demonstates:

As I wrote last fall, there are some dangers if the RIAA’s “making available” theory is widely adopted by courts. If my mother accidentally shares her computer’s entire hard drive with the world by clicking the wrong button in an OS X setup menu, is that “making available?” Should she be held liable for $222,000 in damages, and lose her house, for accidentally making two CDs of music available to the world?

If I don’t upgrade to a newer version of my operating system even though I know there’s a security glitch that opens my hard drive to the Internet, does that mean I’m “making available” my music collection? Do Internet service providers “make available” access to Kazaa? Do search engines “make available” links to infringing files?

That being said, the Judge gave an alternate route to the RIAA, specifically that they could refile charging an “offer to distribute”.

This means that people with files being shared on Bit Torrent could be liable under this, but search engines, and the examples above would not be.

This is Funny, in a Very Sad Way

It appears that musicians are disappointed that they haven’t seen any money as a result of the royalty deals that Youtube cut with the RIAA.

They are expecting to get some money out of their record distributors?

What are they smoking????

Oh…Yeah…They are rock and rollers….That’s what they are smoking.

Seriously though, the RIAA does not, and has no interest in, raising money for the artists. They represent the record distributors, who make money by shafting the artists.

AT&T: The Borg is Back.

AT&T sells you bandwidth, and now they want to charge the people from whom you download a second time for the privilidge of using the wires that you have already paid for.

They are claiming that they want to help crack down on copyright infringement, but let’s be clear, this is a lie.

They want the RIAA and MPAA to support their efforts, so that later, they can charge the RIAA’s and MPAA’s clients for selling AT&T customers online music and movies.


We don’t care. We don’t have to. (snort) We’re the Phone Company!”

Getting IP Right, and Trying to Avoid the “Oh, Canada” Cliche

Harold Feld asks, “Someone tell me why Canadians seem to be so much smarter than we are, at least on the public policy fronts that I cover?”

The public policy fronts that he covers involve things like IP and network neutrality, and he is, in this case referring to the the Candian Radio-Television Commission‘s (CRTC) announcement that it is imposing new national ownership limits and cross ownership limits on its broadcast media, and the political backlash that has delayed a Canadian version of the DMCA.

The answer is actually far more depressing than the my friend Harold Feld, esq. would like to think: The Canadians believe in public policy, and the United States does not.

This is why someone like Michael Powell could make a statement that basically said that corporate profit was a public good, and not get tarred and feathered.

In Canada, his phone calls would not be returned.

Canadians Kill MP3 Player Tax

This report does not make it clear as to why the Federal Court of Appeal struck down such a tax.

There are provision in the Canadian copyright laws that allow for audio recording media, on the theory that they are means of distribution, but an MP3 player is not a means of distribution of music, but rather a means of consumption of music.

Simply put, people don’t swap MP3 players, though obviously some people swap music files.

Pirate Bay.org Being Hauled into Court Again

Swedish law is fairly lax, and my guess is that they proprietors of the site will win.

They are are being charged with conspiracy to breach copyrights.

Considering the fact that , “seven parliamentarians from the ruling conservative party called in a newspaper opinion article last month for the decriminalization of file sharing.”, and the fact that the Pirate party has more members than the Greens, I’m not surprised that they are relying on public defenders.

This is being driven by the US, and everyone knows it.

Jumping Carcharodon megalodon

Yep, the RIAA is at it again.

This time, they are claiming that copying from a CD to your computer is a copyright violation, so if you want to mix on your iPod, you are SOL:

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

Clueless: NY Times Columnist David Pogue

Mr. Pogue is wringing his hands about how those meddling kids today don’t respect IP.

He relates how he wrote an article about PyMusic, a piece of software that strips the DRM out of iMusic downloads, and how he received a sh#@ when he said, “To me, it’s obvious that PyMusique is designed to facilitate illegal song-swapping online, nd therefore, it’s wrong to use it.”

He gets a bunch of nasty emails from readers (one of those things, it seems that upsets NY Times and WaPo writers) explaining how there are a myriad of legitimate uses for this, such as backup, using some other sort of MP3 player, etc.

So, he claims to get it, and recently he went before a young audience, and gave a number of examples, and asked if they were wrong.

The final one, and the one that shocked him, was when he only got 1 or 2 hands for, “You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it,” and he gets 2 hands out of 500.

He’s shocked, but he is shocked because people understand the issue, Patent and Copyright Law is at its Core Public Interest Law.

IP meaning intellectual product, not intellectual property, is not and was never intended to be property as we understand it.

Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the constitution, has the power to, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

This is not property. After all, when I say, “Take my wife….please,” Henny Youngman still has the joke.*

IP is an infringement on a very natural state of creativity. Patents and copyright are not much more than 300 years old, but we have the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Christian Scriptures, and some really kick ass cave paintings, among thousands of other items.

These young students have looked at the world around them, and determined, for example, that record distributors steal from the artists and give them no money, so that their money does not “Promote … the useful arts”.

David Pogue does not understand the underlying principles of the current IP regime, and these wet-behind-the-ears kids in his audience do.

*Of course his being dead for decades makes his being able to tell it academic.
Of course looking at modern pop music, there is a question as to whether any of the stuff in the top 40 rotation qualifies as, “useful arts”, but that is a metaphysical question, not a legal one.

A Good Point on the Music Industry

Cogitamus has a very good point on the music industry, when he looks at the RIAA’s latest VNR (Video News Release).

The RIAA is saying that if you find a mix CD that actually has the music that you want to listen to, it’s probably pirated.

So let me get this straight, in order for me to get the music I want in the format that I want, it has to be illegal?

Seems to me that this is a pretty good indication that the current legal music industry is absolutely worthless.

SoundExchange Realizes that Congress Is Going Cut Them a New One

I used to work at Jarvis Products corporation, and I worked on meat packing tools including the Bung Dropper.

It looks like this: , And it does this:

Here is the Youtube:

Yep, it literally cuts the animal a new asshole.

Sound Exchange decided to rape online radio stations, and now those stations have the US Congress’s ear. This means that it’s likely that they will get the deal that over the air radio has, which will lose them money relative to the status quo, so congress is poised to cut them a new asshole.

SoundExchange offers royalty compromise
By Austin Modine in Mountain View
Published Monday 2nd July 2007 23:15 GMT

Music industry taxman SoundExchange is offering a new deal to internet radio broadcasters who say upcoming royalty hikes will kill online broadcasting.

The proposed compromise puts a ceiling on the new set of hefty royalty rate hikes that takes effect July 15. Previously, the fee increase called for webcasters to be charged $500 per station per month in royalties. That would spell certain doom for stations such as Pandora and Live364 which offer thousands of streams over the internet.

Under SoundExchange’s latest olive branch, royalties would be capped at $2,500 per service, regardless of the overall number of stations or channels they are streaming.

“The idea that the per-channel minimum might have a disproportionate impact on certain internet radio stations was never presented to the Copyright Royalty Judges,” SoundExchange general counsel Michael Huppe said in a statement. “Nevertheless, at the request of Congress, we are trying to work with the small subset of affected webcasters, and are offering this proposal in the hopes of addressing those concerns.”