Showing posts with label MPAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPAA. Show all posts

Friday, January 8, 2010

French solution to illegal download and copyright infringement - tax Google and Yahoo | ZDNet Government | ZDNet.com

 

French solution to illegal download and copyright infringement - tax Google and Yahoo

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ January 7, 2010 @ 11:24 AM

The French government commissioned a study to determine solutions to the problems of downloading copyright protected movies and music. The panels recommendation is to tax search engine companies, funding new portals that would make available legal ways for consumers to access copyright materials. In a Globe and Mail post, the governments Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterrand; The plan seemed inevitable to us, if we want to maintain a certain pluralism in the culture world and prevent the endless enrichment of two or three world players who will impose their cultural formatting on us, Patrick Zelnik, a record producer who helped lead the mission, was quoted as telling Liberation newspaper. This idea is similar to how blank VCR and music tapes were taxed in some countries to distribute to the music industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Googles response in the article was polite but clearly concerned; Google appears cool to the idea, but sought a conciliatory tone. Google Frances public affairs director said the company told the mission it wanted co-operation between Internet players and the cultural fields to develop new models. Olivier Esper said there were opportunities to promote innovative solutions instead of continuing on a path that opposes the Internet and the cultural worlds, for example the path of taxation. Its unknown what the RIAA or MPAA think of this approach. The complexity of creating the taxation method and how it is applied certainly would cause significant challenges and how tax revenues would be distributed. Such a program would likely face stiff resistance if a similar proposal was suggested in the United States and Canada.

French solution to illegal download and copyright infringement - tax Google and Yahoo | ZDNet Government | ZDNet.com

Friday, June 12, 2009

Film, TV music composers urge copyright law change - Yahoo! News

 Film, TV music composers urge copyright law change - Yahoo! News

Film, TV music composers urge copyright law change

Reuters
  • By Sue Zeidler Sue Zeidler Wed Jun 10, 5:29 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Nathan Barr has scored horror films like "Hostel" and the HBO vampire series "True Blood," but what really keeps the composer up at night is fear he will not get paid for music distributed online.

"'True Blood' is my first big show for TV and it's definitely going to see a lot of play on the Internet. It's a big issue for me," Barr, 36, told Reuters in an interview. "I don't understand why composers don't get paid if someone downloads it."

The issue is the latest digital copyright debate pitting creators in the entertainment industry on one side and studios, broadcasters, cable operators and technology companies on the other. Barr underscores how a growing number of artists -- writers, actors and, yes, composers -- feel they are not fairly compensated for content distributed on the Internet.

Actors and writers have aired their grievances and demanded Hollywood studios pay up. Now, composers, along with publishers, are urging Congress to change copyright law so that when music airs in an audio-visual download, it is considered a public performance that earns them royalties.

The stakes are high: Industry experts believe composers could potentially earn nearly $100 million in additional royalty payments annually as Internet viewing grows -- if the law was changed to deem downloads of music in audio-visual works as public performances.

"We see audio visual as a vigorous growth area for composers, whether it's on Hulu, Netflix or iTunes, and a big issue is clarifying public performance rights as they apply to digital downloads," said Richard Conlon of Broadcast Music Inc (BMI), a performing rights group that collects royalties on behalf of artists.

The copyright issue, apart from being proposed legislation, is also expected to be the subject of a House Judiciary committee hearing in July, industry experts say.

At the center of the debate is a federal court ruling in April 2007, considered a victory for companies like AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo! Inc YHOO.O> that found that downloading a music file was not considered a "performance."

AU REVOIR

Composers are arguably one of most overlooked among the so-called frontline entertainers behind a movie or TV series.

"Most composers don't get pensions like other people ... and we're now realizing we're not covered for much of the way entertainment is viewed online," Barr protested.

Performing rights group American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) is appealing the 2007 ruling.

And ASCAP, BMI, and various other publishing and songwriting groups sent a letter in March 2009 to Congress urging a change in the U.S. Copyright Law.

"It's important these markets get locked down as composers really rely on public performance royalties," Conlon said.

Meanwhile, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a trade group for Hollywood studios such as General Electric Co's Universal Pictures, Viacom Inc's Paramount and Walt Disney Co, strongly opposes these efforts, arguing that a download is not a performance.

"The MPAA is opposed to amending the copyright law to require a double payment for music in movies and TV shows downloaded from the Internet," Angela Martinez, a spokeswoman for the MPAA said. "We do not need to amend the Copyright Act to compensate these composers twice for the same activity."

Veteran entertainment lawyer Jay Cooper said composers collect performance royalties when their music airs on cable, TV, radio and is streamed over the Web.

"But if a film along with the music in it is incorporated in a DVD, the typical contract between a composer and studio does not grant the composer a royalty or payment for sales of the DVD or for any downloads of the DVD," Cooper said.

"Composers believe the performance right of a download is not a contractual right but a legal right to which there is great opposition," he said.

Martinez and others like Jonathan Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, which represents online services like Apple Inc iTunes and Yahoo, believe composers are being disingenuous.

"This legislative request is the latest effort by these groups to blur the lines between making a copy and making a public performance in order to get royalties where none are obligated or should be obligated," said Potter.

(Reporting by Sue Zeidler; Editing by Edwin Chan, Richard Chang)

Film, TV music composers urge copyright law change - Yahoo! News

Friday, May 15, 2009

RealNetworks Files Antitrust Claims Against Hollywood -- Hollywood Studios -- InformationWeek

RealNetworks Files Antitrust Claims Against Hollywood -- Hollywood Studios -- InformationWeek 

RealNetworks Files Antitrust Claims Against Hollywood

The media player software maker's lawsuit reads like a conspiracy plot as it's impossible for any organizations other than the studios to sell DVD-copying software.

By Antone Gonsalves
InformationWeek
May 14, 2009 06:07 PM

 

RealNetworks, which is waging a court battle against several Hollywood studios over its DVD-copying software, has filed antitrust claims against the movie studios, accusing them of trying to prevent other companies from building products that let consumers legally copy DVDs for personal use.

RealNetworks filed the accusations Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where it's battling an attempt by the studios to extend a court order barring the company from selling its DVD-copying RealDVD until after the legality of software is settled. The Motion Picture Association of America has sued RealNetworks accusing it of copyright violations. In addition, the DVD Copy Control Association, which licenses copyright-right protection technology for the MPAA, has joined the suit, accusing RealNetworks of violating its license with RealDVD.

RealNetworks filed its latest allegations in preparation for closing arguments in the current court battle over the temporary restraining order against RealNetworks. Closing arguments are scheduled for May 21.

Within the 36-page court document, RealNetworks claims the studios and the DVD CCA have conspired to make it impossible for any organizations other than the studios to sell DVD-copying software. "Without this illegal cartel, Real and others would be able to compete to provide consumers with products to enable them to gain more value from their DVDs, without having to pay again to make a fair-use copy of the DVDs they have already purchased," a RealNetworks spokesman said in an e-mail.

Under the fair-use segment of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act, people can legally copy movies and music for personal use. RealDVD, which costs $30, makes it possible to copy a DVD onto the hard drive of a laptop, but does not strip the copyright-protection technology on the DVD, according to RealNetworks. In addition, RealDVD adds another layer of protection that prevents the movie file from being opened on any device other than the one it was originally copied to.

As part of its latest filing, RealNetworks is asking the court to bar the movie studios and the DVD CCA from anti-competitive activity and for monetary damages that would be determined later.

RealNetworks Files Antitrust Claims Against Hollywood -- Hollywood Studios -- InformationWeek

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Q&A: Gigi Sohn Says Give Remote DVR A Chance - 2009-05-09 18:52:00 | Multichannel News

Q&A: Gigi Sohn Says Give Remote DVR A Chance - 2009-05-09 18:52:00 | Multichannel News 

Q&A: Gigi Sohn Says Give Remote DVR A Chance

Public Knowledge President Weighs In On Cablevision's Court Case

Public Knowledge has frequently taken aim at cable operators over network management issues. But the group is squarely in Cablevision's corner when it comes to legal wrangling over the operator's plans to roll out a headend-based digital video recorder service. The U.S. Supreme Court is awaiting advice from the solicitor general on whether or not to hear content creators' - studios and programmers - appeal of an earlier ruling that found Cablevision's plan to provide DVR functionality in centralized servers does not violate copying and performance restrictions in copyright law. The studios say that fundamentally distorts copyright law. Cablevision, meanwhile, has yet to roll out the service. Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn wants the last decision to stand, enabling Cablevision to roll out the "cool, consumer-friendly technology" and reinforcing fair-use rights established in the Sony Betamax case over video cassette recording. She spoke with Multichannel News senior Washington editor John Eggerton about the issue.

MCN: Could you briefly explain the case?

Gigi Sohn: Cablevision has a remote storage digital video recorder service which is just like a TiVo or any other DVR except there is no hard drive. The copies of the shows are stored on Cablevision servers. But for all intents and purposes it operates like a TiVo. You use your remote controls to pick what programs you want to record, you record those programs and you play them back But you don't have a box with an expensive hard drive.

The studios and some cable networks sued for copyright infringement based on three theories. They said the little, temporary buffer copy that it made before digital transmission violated the right of reproduction. The fact that the copy of the show resided on the server was also a violation of reproduction rights, they argued. And third, they said that when Cablevision provides the recorded show violates the right of public performance.

MCN: So why wouldn't that violate the public performance restrictions. A cable operators has to get a separate right for VOD, doesn't it?

GS: Yes, but the court differentiated between VOD and this because for video on demand, the cable operator makes certain movies available. The consumer isn't the one doing the choosing. In that situation it is the cable operator who chooses what library of shows will be available to the consumer. With the DVR, the only choosing the cable system does is what networks to put on its system. It doesn't choose the programming available for the DVR. You choose that. That is the big differentiation.

MCN: But in the original lower court decision, which went against Cablevision, the judge saw it differently?

GS: Yes, he basically looked under the hood of these technologies and said they were more like video on demand and less like the TiVo. It is really Cablevision that is making the copy. But the Second Circuit [U.S. Court of Appeals] reversed on all grounds, finding that the buffer copy is temporary and that in order to violate the copyright it had to be more than transitory duration. The Second Circuit determined that the customer is doing the copying and, on public performance, that Cablevision was only providing the show to one person. The studios had said you had to look at the potential audience for the work. So if it went to more than one person, it was a public performance.

MCN: Where does the case stand now?

GS: The studios sought Supreme Court review, but we don't think this is a case that is worthy of the Supreme Court taking for a variety of reasons. Number one, there is no conflict in the circuit. It is also a very narrow decision. It is only about one cable remote DVR technology. Conversely, if the case were reversed there could be some serious damage done to technology.

The Second Circuit crafted a narrow decision and left a lot of doors open. For instance, they left the door open if companies wanted to assert contributory liability, saying that maybe Cablevision was inducing infringement. I don't think they would win, but the point is they didn't decide that. They frankly took pains, maybe in a way I might not have done if I was one of the judges, to make this as narrowly construed as possible.

MCN: What serious damage would result if the Supreme Court reversed the appeal decision and found for the studios?

GS:Every time you make a digital copy of anything, an audio stream, a video stream, you have to make a buffer copy first. Can you imagine what that would do to the cost of digital transmission or to the consumer if you had to pay a licensing fee? Think about cloud computing. If all remote storage is a copy and the host is liable, cloud computing is dead.

MCN: So how did the Solicitor General become involved?

GS: The court asked the Solicitor General to give his opinion about the case. She is planning on filing at the end of this month with an opinion on whether this case should be taken or not.

MCN: So what has been going on for the past few months is both sides have been trying to convince the Solicitor General by enlisting various and sundry agencies to weigh in on their behalf. Lobbying is the wrong word, but there has been a lot of advocacy in the relevant agencies. Who is on the side of Cablevision and Public Knowledge?

GS: Let's not put it that way. I'll tell you who is on the side so far of the Solicitor General telling the court not to take the case. The White House and the FCC.

On the other side so far [are] the Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office. The civil division of the Justice Department has not weighed in yet. I don't know whether one agency has more weight than another. Both the parties, Cablevision and the studios/cable networks, if they haven't already met with the Solicitor General or assistant Solicitor general, will be doing so.

MCN: You have historically been concerned about concentration of control with cable operators. Is there no concern about Cablevision controlling content on its centralized servers?

GS: I'm more concerned about the concentration of control of copyrights and that a handful of powerful copyright holders are trying to sue a cool, consumer-friendly technology out of existence. If I want to try to convince the antitrust department of the Justice Department is that the competition concern is more than copyright.

MCN: But if it is easier or cheaper for Cablevision to provide this service, aren't they getting an extra, commercial, benefit from using copyrighted material in this way? The studios argue the technology is "fundamentally distorting" copyright laws?

GS: I would say it is the exact opposite. The Sony case is now 25 years old. And the Sony case says it is fair use to record a program for later viewing. Tell me how this is any different from a VCR.

MCN: Cablevision doesn't get a benefit if I buy a VCR and record, but if they provide me a service that is faster and cheaper, that is a value added for me?

GS: You have to look at my rights as a viewer. It doesn't matter whether Cablevision is getting some money out of it. The argument that the studios made in the Sony case is that Sony is making money off of my copyright. Here, instead of the hardware company making money you have the software company making money. It is my right to record that is really being affected here.

MCN: Cablevision won't pin the delay in its rollout of the service on this case. What do you think?

GS: Of course it is about this case. If, God forbid, this case is reversed, they are liable for what could be millions if not billions of dollars. Every single work under the copyright law you can be liable for damages of up to $150,000 in infringement. If they willingly continued to run this service and were found to be in violation of copyright laws it would bankrupt Cablevision. It would probably bankrupt Time Warner and Comcast. You would be insane to take that risk.

Copyright is a strict liability law. There is no such thing as a person who thought they were acting legally. If you violate copyright laws, it doesn't matter what your intentions were, you will be punished with very large damages.

Q&A: Gigi Sohn Says Give Remote DVR A Chance - 2009-05-09 18:52:00 | Multichannel News

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

 

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

Teachers don't need to rip DVDs to get clips for classroom use—they should just use a camcorder to record the DVD playing on a TV screen! So says the MPAA in a video it showed to the US Copyright Office in an attempt to argue that nobody should be ripping DVDs, even for educational use.

By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated May 7, 2009 9:44 PM CT

The Motion Picture Association of America has put itself back into the limelight as the DMCA exemptions hearings wraps up, thanks to a video circulating online suggesting teachers should use camcorders to record video instead of ripping DVD clips for classroom use. Though this suggestion has been floating around for some time now, the MPAA's attempt to push such a convoluted (and more costly) process into the classroom only highlights the industry's desperation to keep people away from DVD ripping—even when what they're doing falls into the category of fair use.

The video, posted on Vimeo, is actually of MPAA execs showing another video (meant to instruct teachers) to the US Copyright Office. The MPAA was showing the video as part of the triennial DMCA exemptions review, when all sides of the copyright debate whip out as much ammo as they can in an attempt to get the law extended to allow certain behaviors (or disallow, as the case may be) for the next three years.

In the video, the MPAA suggests that teachers who want to use movie clips as part of their curricula should use a camcorder to record the movie off of a TV set, and that this is an acceptable way to use video clips without breaking a DVD's copyright protections.

Nevermind that this solution results in video of questionable quality and requires teachers to learn even more tech in order to get the job done. It also requires schools (or, given the way most schools are run, the teachers themselves) to incur additional costs to purchase camcorders and videotapes if they don't have them already. Add in the extra time involved, and this "solution" is a laughably convoluted alternative to simply ripping a clip from a DVD.

Granted, teachers who want to rip DVD clips may still have to learn a bit in order to create a finished product, but that process still involves less equipment and fewer steps, not to mention a better-quality video. And, let's not forget that US copyright law already offers exemptions to teachers who want to use copyrighted clips for educational use—they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get those same clips just because the MPAA insists on continuing to fight the already lost battle to keep people from ripping DVDs.

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

Monday, May 11, 2009

Documentarians, DVDs and the MPAA | Technology | Los Angeles Times

 

Documentarians, DVDs and the MPAA

You would think that the movie industry, which celebrates documentarians every year at its awards ceremonies, would want to help those same filmmakers overcome the hurdles posed by changing technology. But Hollywood's copyright holders don't see things quite that way. In fact, they're trying to make it harder for documentarians to practice their craft, opposing the latter's bid for the freedom to extract short clips directly from DVDs.

As instructed by Congress in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Copyright Office considers requests every three years to create or renew exemptions to the DMCA's ban on circumventing the electronic locks on copyrighted material. Such "technical protection measures" include the encryption on DVDs. In one of the rare exemptions granted by the Copyright Office, film professors have been permitted to copy short clips from DVDs for the purpose of creating video compilations for their classes. Of course, the DMCA makes it illegal for anyone to make or sell a tool that professors could use to extract these clips from discs; luckily for them, it's easy to find (illegal) software online that can do the trick.

Anyway, the Copyright Office held hearings last week on the latest requests for exemptions, including one from a group of documentary filmmakers. Led by Kartemquin Educational Films (the producers of "Hoop Dreams") and joined by well-known filmmakers such as Kirby Dick ("This Film Is Not Yet Rated") and Morgan Spurlock ("Super Size Me"), the group seeks permission to copy short segments from DVDsfor their work. The group (whose papers were prepared by a team from USC's Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic and Beverly Hills attorney Michael C. Donaldson) notes that VHS production has all but ceased, meaning that DVD is the de facto medium for video. And without the ability to make fair use of material on DVDs, the group contends, documentaries that cast their subjects in a negative or mocking light may not be possible....

It points to such works as "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," "Smoke and Mirrors: A History of Denial" and "Bigger Stronger Faster" as examples of filmmakers relying on the fair use doctrine for the clips they needed instead of obtaining the copyright holders' consent. According to comments filed by the group:

Each of these films plays an important role in society through its critique, commentary or exposé of some aspect of our culture, but without fair use, none of them could even have been made. Documentary film has faced this reality since the form was developed, and it is why documentary film is an exemplar of the type of activity for which the fair use doctrine was developed.

The MPAA opposed the request, along with a broader one by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that sought permission to take short clips from DVDs for any noncommercial, non-infringing video. "These proposals fail to establish that content desired for non-infringing uses is not available from sources other than DVDs, or that the desired non-infringing uses cannot be made by means that do not require circumvention of technical measures, such as screen shots," the association argued in its comments. But the problem with copying clips from other sources, the documentarians responded, is that it introduces image and sound problems that render the video unacceptable to broadcasters, cable networks and other outlets for their work.

The reaction by the MPAA and other copyright holders to the documentarians' appeal typified their response to all the requests for exemptions, which ranged from the narrow and common-sensical (such as allowing circumvention by people who had purchased software, music or movies protected by DRM systems that were later abandoned by the retailer), to the broad and, well, quixotic (such as allowing phone resellers to circumvent the locks on mobile phones).

Any new or expanded request drew a uniform "no" from the copyright holders, who contended that expanding the (extremely limited) exemptions would weaken the anti-circumvention regime, "confuse consumers" and "spawn an undergound marketplace for circumvention services" (as if that didn't already exist). The trump card in the copyright holders' arsenal: if the anti-circumvention provisions grow weak, content providers will lose faith in their ability to protect content and make it less available. Of course, the copy protection on DVDs was cracked not long after the discs were introduced, yet the studios continued to sell them and sales exploded anyway.

In the documentarians' case, Hollywood's Katy-bar-the-door approach doesn't just strain credulity; it's more than a little anti-competitive. The copyright holders argue that "the most salient alternative method" for documentary filmmakers is to "obtain footage directly from the copyright owners." That's another way of saying, "Let us retain control of the clips." The fair use doctrine, though, holds that copyright holders don't control all uses of the material they create. It's one of the ways that the courts and Congress have tried to balance the Constitution's protection for "authors and inventors" with the First Amendment rights. The copyright owners correctly observed that fair use is a fuzzy notion, with the courts as the ultimate arbiters. Yet the Copyright Office won't affect what is and isn't a fair use by granting the documentarians an exemption; copyright owners can still sue for infringement if they don't like what a filmmaker does with their work. They could also accuse a filmmaker of illegal circumvention if they prove their infringement claim; after all, the exemption would only apply to non-infringing clips (i.e., fair uses). The only real effect if the exemption is granted is that documentarians would have easier access to video clips as they're making their films, which would increase their productivity and, potentially, help them compete against the studio's releases. The MPAA's members should be willing to meet the documentarians in the marketplace, rather than trying to hold them back in the Copyright Office.

Documentarians, DVDs and the MPAA | Technology | Los Angeles Times

Friday, April 24, 2009

Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar - Ars Technica

Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar - Ars Technica

"I had hoped that having a Dem in office would delay or roll back this stuff I guess $$$ counts more than the public good no mater what party you're from -- HSM"

Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar

The MPAA hosted its latest DC lobbying event, featuring a dinner at which Vice President Biden promised the group that it will like the person Obama will eventually pick for the administration's chief copyright policy position.

The Obama administration's stance on copyright enforcement has already attracted an open letter in which a variety of public advocacy groups voiced concerns that there seemed to be a bias towards content owners in the initial round of appointments. Those worries are unlikely to go away any time soon, if this week's events are any indication. The Motion Picture Association of America came to town, armed with lobbyists and figures that suggest it functions as a one-industry, nationwide job stimulus, and it heard exactly what it was looking for from Vice President Biden.

The MPAA hosted a series of events in Washington on Tuesday, during which it pressed both Congress and the administration for action on piracy. Its justification: a new report which presents the entertainment industry as one of the US' big success stories in recent years, one that's creating jobs nationwide. The report focuses on how the industry is one of the few portions of the economy that is running a trade surplus, and that it's able to create jobs in nearly every state.

Some of the self-promotion is undoubtedly true. A single film shoot can spread the wealth to a wide variety of peripheral jobs, from caterers to security to the carpenters and technicians that build sets and provide lighting. Nevertheless, many of these jobs are transient, at least outside of states like New York and California where filming and production runs year-round. It's not clear, for example, how much South Dakota's state economy benefited from the fact that the "Dinosaur Dig" TV show was filmed there, as highlighted by the MPAA report.

The report also relies on some statistics that probably aren't very informative. For example, it brags that "the average salary of those employed in the core production-related industry was just under $75,000 in 2007." Given the oversized salaries of leading actors, that's probably a bit like highlighting the average salary of jobs hosted at Yankee Stadium.

This sort of stretching also occurs in the section of the report entitled "Investing in infrastructure and community development." The language seems chosen to parallel that of a lot of the stimulus spending, which is supposed to help improve the national infrastructure. A careful look at the projects listed by the MPAA, however, suggests that the group considers studios, sound stages, and office buildings "infrastructure."

The industry (as its report notes) does well in selling overseas, and probably would do even better without piracy and counterfeiting. The report is simply meant to give legislators leverage when they agitate for changes in copyright enforcement through either national laws or international treaties; as we've seen in the past, said legislators don't really seem to care how precise these sorts of figures are.

In any case, the day's events wrapped up with a dinner that featured Vice President Joe Biden as a speaker. According to reports of his speech, Biden blasted piracy as "pure theft" and singled out China for failure to enforce intellectual property laws. He also promised that the administration would "find the right person for intellectual property czar." It was left unsaid whether that was "right" in the sense of "best person for the job", or "right" in the sense of "someone the audience would be happy with."

 

Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar - Ars Technica

The Associated Press: Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

The Associated Press: Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying 

Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

By PAUL ELIAS – 12 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Hollywood calls it "rent, rip and return" and contends it's one of the biggest technological threats to the movie industry's annual $20 billion DVD market — software that allows you to copy a film without paying for it.

On Friday, the showdown over the issue will take place in federal court in San Francisco, where an army of lawyers representing Hollywood will argue that RealNetworks Inc.'s DVD "ripper" is an illegal digital piracy tool.

The company, in turn, will say the $29.99 software that allows DVDs to be easily copied to computer hard drives is legitimate.

The same federal judge who shut down music-swapping site Napster in 2000 because of copyright violations will preside over the three-day trial, which is expected to cut to the heart of the same technological upheaval roiling Hollywood that forever changed the face of the music business.

The movie studios fear that if RealNetworks is allowed to sell its RealDVD software, consumers will quickly lose interest in paying retail for DVDs that can be rented cheaply, copied and returned.

Their lawyers argue the software violates a federal law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that makes software and other tools that enable digital piracy illegal. They also contend shoppers will widely condone such illegal behavior if RealNetworks' product is allowed on the market.

For its part, the Seattle-based company says its RealDVD product is designed to simply let customers back up a purchased DVD and that the software allows for only one copy to be made.

The company argues that the contract it signed with the DVD Copy Control Association, which equips DVD player manufacturers with the keys to unscrambling DVDs, allows RealDVD because the software doesn't alter or remove anti-piracy encryption on DVDs like illicit software that is easily obtained for free online.

RealNetworks says its product legally fills growing consumer demand to convert their DVDs to digital form for convenient storage and viewing.

In October, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel temporarily barred sales of RealDVD after the product was on the market for a few days. At the time, the judge said it appeared the software did violate federal law against digital piracy, but ordered detailed court filings and the trial to better understand how RealDVD works.

The industry's lawsuit has incurred widespread wrath from bloggers, digital rights advocates and groups on both sides of the political spectrum, including former Republican congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr and the left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The industry's critics accuse the studios of stifling innovation as they attempt to develop their own copying software.

"It's all about control," said Cato Institute scholar Timothy Lee. "No one is allowed to innovate in the DVD space without industry permission."

The industry, through the Motion Picture Association of America, counters that its goal is to stamp out piracy. It says it welcomes legitimate attempts at innovation.

"RealNetworks acted in bad faith by taking a license to build a DVD player and instead built a copier that violates the circumvention rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by enabling consumers to copy DVDs illegally," said Greg Goeckner, the MPAA's top lawyer. "Our objective is to get the illegal choices out of the marketplace and instead focus constructively with the technology community on bringing in more innovative and flexible legal options for consumers to enjoy movies."

Regardless of the trial's outcome — and the judge isn't expected to rule immediately — some predict that Hollywood control over digital copies will continue to wane because of the proliferation of illegal software online.

"If Hollywood wins, I don't think much changes in the real world," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Anybody who wants DVDs copied can download software for free in 10 minutes."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The Associated Press: Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily

"I know its a little old but I love her site -- it kept me sane durring the WGA strike and I follow-it for the SWG strike to come" HSM

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Fires Showbiz Columnist For "Promoting" Piracy

Updates FBI Joins Fox In Hunt For Stolen 'Wolverine' Pirated On Web

 

SUNDAY UPDATE: News Corp issued the following statement from Los Angeles today confirming my reporting from Saturday -- "Roger Friedman’s views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. When we advised Fox News of the facts they took immediate action, removed the post, and promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."

SATURDAY PM EXCLUSIVE: News Corp like all major Hollywood studios takes the crime of piracy very seriously. Nor will the Fox parent company tolerate it if its employees don't. Especially after a stolen, early and unfinished work print of 20th Century Fox's big summer blockbuster X-Men Origins: Wolverine was put onto the Internet illegally this week in a major scandal that the FBI is now investigating. So there was universal shock on Friday when long-time "Fox 411" freelance columnist Roger Friedman wrote what I'm told his bosses felt was a blatant promotion of piracy on his Fox News web outlet. Besides writing a review from watching the purloined print of Wolverine, Friedman posted, “I did find the whole top 10 [movies in theaters], plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in I Love You, Man. It’s so much easier than going out in the rain!” I'm told that Fox News' actions were swift and severe. First, Roger Ailes, who oversees Fox News, deleted the offending post after he was contacted by 20th Century Fox about it. And then Ailes fired Friedman as a freelance Fox News entertainment writer. I hear the move was done with the full support of News Corp. "He promoted piracy. He basically suggested that viewing a stolen film is OK, which is absolutely intolerable. So we fired him," a source told me Saturday. "Fox News acted promptly on all fronts."

Friedman has written his gossip column, "Fox 411", for FoxNews.com for more than a decade and peppers it with celebrity items, industry news, and off-the-cuff movie reviews. He has long been a controversial writer who quite frequently angers the publicity machine surrounding actors, directors, producers, studios, celebrities, movies and TV. Occasionally he has scoops, especially about the music biz. Still, how could he not have known that his writings Friday would hit a nerve with his employers. After Friedman's column on FoxNews.com appeared, both News Corp and Fox condemned it as "promoting a pirated version of Wolverine".

News Corp issued this statement: “Roger Friedman’s views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. Once we learned of Roger Friedman’s post we asked Fox News to remove it, which they did immediately.”

And Fox said, "We’ve just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com – an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox -- watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Orgins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically -- whether the review is good or bad."

UPDATE: I did reach Friedman for comment. He emailed back only that he was at the Paul McCartney concert.

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Scourge of Scandinavia: The Dread Pirate Bay

 

The Scourge of Scandinavia: The Dread Pirate Bay

by Mark McKinnon

It wasn’t much of a surprise when the New York Times reported that one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year-X-Men Origins: Wolverine-had been leaked a month before the film’s release date and was available for download on illegal file-sharing sites.  Stories like that are all too common, unfortunately, with the ease of illegal file trafficking over P2P sites like Pirate Bay.  The Wolverine leak is particularly troubling because the leaked version was unfinished, missing several key scenes, music, and special effects. As the film’s star Hugh Jackman said, “It’s a serious crime and there’s no doubt it’s very disappointing. I was heartbroken by it. It’s like a Ferrari without a paint job.”

What was surprising however, is that this time, the leak was universally condemned by Wolverine’s online fan community, bloggers, movie buffs and comic book fans.  Several movie blogs are refusing to run reviews of the raw footage (FoxNews.com’s Roger Friedman was fired for writing a review of the pirated copy), while others such as Dark Horizon have condemned the uploading of the pirated copy as an “act that cruelly robs thousands of people of not just months of hard effort, but their livelihood as well.”  The New York Times was even spurred to ask whether Internet access is a fundamental human right, or a privilege, carrying with it a responsibility for good behavior.

Could the leak of Wolverine be the seminal moment when online piracy jumped the shark?  That’s doubtful, but the tide of public opinion does seem to be starting to turn.

Sweden has a particularly bad reputation when it comes to digital piracy.  It is the home of Pirate Bay-the self-proclaimed world’s largest bittorrent tracking site-but its bad reputation is well-deserved for other reasons too: the country’s main statistics agency recently estimated that 8% of the Swedish population uses P2P networks, and even major party political candidates there have supported decriminalizing “non-commercial” file-sharing. (Just how transfers of complete creative works can be considered “non-commercial” is befuddling: there is certainly a commercial impact on the creators, artists, and musicians who are not being compensated.  It’s a bit like saying that people who knowingly swap or receive stolen goods aren’t actually doing anything wrong, which is a bit of a head-scratcher.)

Even more stunning evidence of Sweden’s illegal file-sharing problem came last week when a new law aimed at curbing piracy took effect. The law, based on the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), requires ISPs to divulge information about illegal file-sharing activity, allowing copyright holders to take legal action against infringers. The day after the law took effect, Internet traffic in Sweden plummeted by over thirty percent in the first 24 hours, and there’s little doubt as to why. 

But were the file-sharers suddenly scared straight?  It seems unlikely that that’s the case given the overwhelming sense of entitlement many Swedes seem to feel towards their “free” digital content.  As the BBC reported, Kjell Bohlund of the Swedish Publishers’ Association said an incredible 80 percent of Swedes don’t think copyright holders should take action against P2P users. Christian Engstrom of the Swedish Pirate Party-a political party working for copyright “reform” in Sweden (i.e. decriminalizing file-sharing)-agrees that the majority of file-sharers haven’t simply given up or seen the error of their ways.  Engstrom told the BBC, “Experience from other countries suggests that while file-sharing drops on the day a law is passed, it starts climbing again. One of the reasons is that it takes people a few weeks to figure out how to change their security settings so that they can share files anonymously.”

Turns out, he was right.  In response to the new law, Pirate Bay launched a new service just a week after IPRED took effect called (mockingly) Ipredator, which anonymizes users’ IP addresses so they can continue to share files without fear of legal action.  The service will also make it next to impossible to find identity thieves and other cyber-criminals who can now use the service to anonymously carry out even more online mayhem, but as long as illegal file traffickers can continue to get their “free stuff” this is apparently an acceptable price to pay. Before the service even went live, over 100,000 people had signed up, roughly 80 percent of them Swedes, a Pirate Bay spokesman told a Swedish news agency.

Speaking about the sense of entitlement Swedes seem to feel, Bohlund of the Swedish Publishers Association remarked, “Ultimately we have to change people’s perception on file-sharing” so that they understand they’re “taking money out of the pockets of musicians, authors or artists.” In the U.S. this education process is now underway. Several ISP’s here are now sending notices to copyright infringers along with standard cease and desist letters from copyright owners.  CNET reported that these cover letters “inform the customer that downloading unauthorized copies is illegal,” but noted that ISP’s have no intention of cutting off subscribers for repeat offenses, as would happen under a “three-strikes” rule. According to ISP’s, even without a three-strikes threat, the letters seem to be working; there have been few repeat offenders.  While it’s still early, the evidence so far seems to suggest that U.S. Internet users don’t want to contribute to the growing trend of online lawlessness and are responsive to educational efforts discouraging it. With the explosion of free and inexpensive content online-subscription based service like Netflix, ad supported like Hulu, or pay-per-download like iTunes-getting users to switch from illegal P2P downloads to legal options isn’t a tough sell.  As Billboard.biz reported earlier this month, P2P use among American teens is on the decline as they move to streaming sites that increasingly provide safe, legal, licensed content.

That’s good news, but in other parts of the world, there’s a lot more work to be done.  But with collaboration between technology companies and copyright owners-plus flexible policies that allow those companies to find innovative new ways to deliver content legally-public opinion is shifting. As Internet consumers increasingly have other legal options to enjoy content online, sites like Pirate Bay that relish thumbing their noses at the law are starting to look like the irresponsible Internet citizens that they are.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Scourge of Scandinavia: The Dread Pirate Bay

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Hollywood-Funded Study Concludes Piracy Fosters Terrorism | Threat Level from Wired.com

 Hollywood-Funded Study Concludes Piracy Fosters Terrorism | Threat Level from Wired.com

Hollywood-Funded Study Concludes Piracy Fosters Terrorism

By David Kravets EmailMarch 03, 2009 | 5:46:54 PMCategories: Intellectual Property

Here's a startling coincidence: A study funded by Hollywood concludes movie piracy is hurting the industry and fostering terrorism.

The Motion Picture Association, the European counterpart to the Motion Picture Association of America, paid for the 182-page RAND Corp. study.

Here's a snippet from Film Piracy, Organized Crime, and Terrorism:

Moreover, three of the documented cases provide clear evidence that terrorist groups have used the proceeds of film piracy to finance their activities. While caution must be exercised in drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence, further investigation is a timely imperative. These cases, combined with established evidence for the broader category of counterfeiting-terrorism connections, are highly suggestive that intellectual-property theft — a low-risk, high-profit enterprise — is attractive not only to organized crime, but also to terrorists, particularly opportunistic members of local terrorist cells.

Last year, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey uttered a similar view when he said intellectual property theft promoted terrorism.

Find the Rand report here.

See Also:

Hollywood-Funded Study Concludes Piracy Fosters Terrorism | Threat Level from Wired.com

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Streaming: Monty Python Puts Free Videos Online, Sells 23,000% More DVDs

 

Monty Python Puts Free Videos Online, Sells 23,000% More DVDs

By Adam Frucci, 11:40 AM on Fri Jan 23 2009, 29,460 views

Monty Python started a YouTube channel with tons of their sketches streaming for free. The included links to their DVDs at Amazon. The result was a whopping 23,000% increase in sales.

For 3 years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them on YouTube. Now the tables are turned. It's time for us to take matters into our own hands.

We know who you are, we know where you live and we could come after you in ways too horrible to tell. But being the extraordinarily nice chaps we are, we've figured a better way to get our own back: We've launched our own Monty Python channel on YouTube.

No more of those crap quality videos you've been posting. We're giving you the real thing - HQ videos delivered straight from our vault.

What's more, we're taking our most viewed clips and uploading brand new HQ versions. And what's even more, we're letting you see absolutely everything for free. So there!

But we want something in return.

None of your driveling, mindless comments. Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies & TV shows and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years.

Are you paying attention, MPAA and RIAA? A controlled release of free material keeps people from resorting to piracy and keeps them in your controlled ecosphere, which can include, yes, ways for fans to give you money. But when you're a bunch of pricks, people go to The Pirate Bay and think of you as the enemy, and then you don't get any money. Take notes, you idiots. [Mashable via BoingBoing]

Streaming: Monty Python Puts Free Videos Online, Sells 23,000% More DVDs

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

RiP: A remix manifesto (Trailer) by Gaylor Brett, - NFB

RiP: A remix manifesto (Trailer) by Gaylor Brett, - NFB 

"Should follow the link for the Video....HSM"

 

RiP: A remix manifesto (Trailer)

Gaylor Brett, 2008, 2 min 30 s

Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 21st ...
[ more ]

Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 21st century and shattering the wall between users and producers.

The film’s central protagonist is Girl Talk, a mash-up musician topping the charts with his sample-based songs. But is Girl Talk a paragon of people power or the Pied Piper of piracy? Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig, Brazil's Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow are also along for the ride.

A participatory media experiment, from day one, Brett shares his raw footage at opensourcecinema.org, for anyone to remix. This movie-as-mash-up method allows these remixes to become an integral part of the film. With RiP: A remix manifesto, Gaylor and Girl Talk sound an urgent alarm and draw the lines of battle.

Which side of the ideas war are you on?

RiP: A remix manifesto (Trailer) by Gaylor Brett, - NFB

Monday, May 5, 2008

Editorial: Unmasking P2P secrets on campuses

"Interesting article on internal university wide p2p sharing" -- Stephen

Editorial: Unmasking P2P secrets on campuses

By Don Tennant

May 5, 2008 (Computerworld) This is coming to you from St. Louis, where I participated in the inaugural Gateway to Innovation conference organized by several local IT associations. With academia well represented at the event, some of the loudest buzz at the conference surrounded the characteristics of students planning to enter the IT profession.

Meanwhile, on campuses all over the country, many of those students are engaged in an activity that no one seems inclined to talk about. On this day, as every day, students are silently stealing property by flagrantly violating copyright law.

Suppose you were a student at one of those universities, with experience in journalism both on a professional level and as a former editor in chief of the school newspaper and an intern at Computerworld. Now, imagine you became aware of an explosive development involving the university's peer-to-peer file-sharing network and its widespread use by students for illegal downloads of copyrighted material.

You know that the development is an important news story for the school paper and perhaps for outside media as well.

But there are at least two problems. For one, you risk becoming a pariah for writing about a topic that many of your classmates want kept out of the spotlight. For another, you're among the large swath of students who engage in illegal downloading, and the story will "out" you.

What would you do?

That's the quandary that my son Dan, a student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, found himself in a couple of weeks ago. It didn't take him long to come to a decision. He wrote the story.

Dan's article recounted the rise and fall of a group of students called The 40 Thieves, whose initial mission was to outsmart WPI's network operations center by countering its measures to block BitTorrent downloads. The 40 Thieves were successful enough to allow a degree of arrogance to set in, and they extended their activities beyond WPI's internal network to include self-credited distribution of illegally sourced content.

That brazen expansion turned out to be ill-advised. With the activity now outside the university's perimeter, the network operations center moved to disable the peer-to-peer network entirely — but not before it had monitored enough to enable it to disband The 40 Thieves.

Dan reported that four of the students were summoned before the campus hearing board and charged with violating the university's code of conduct and acceptable-use policy. When two were tried before the board last month, one was suspended, and the other was put on probation. The other two will be tried early next year. Most of the rest in the group are banned from wireless and residence-hall Internet access for one year.

There's little doubt that there's concern within some quarters on the WPI campus that the development reflects negatively on the school's image. No university wants to be seen as a hotbed of copyright infringement, regardless of how exemplary its handling of the problem might be. So the idea of publicizing the case probably received few ringing endorsements on campus.

It's to WPI's credit that no one in the administration made any attempt to discourage Dan from reporting the story. At this writing, the story has been filed to the school paper, but it has yet to be published. While I assume it will appear on the paper's Web site at some point, I have posted the full story in my blog to ensure that it does see the light of day.

Related Items
Don Tennant
The untold story of illegal peer-to-peer network activity on campus
Don's Weekly Editorial: The Podcast

What's clear from all this is that universities need to be more proactive in dealing with these file-sharing networks. WPI didn't dissuade Dan from writing the story, but there should have been more of an effort to deter students from illegal downloading in the first place.

That means more than the passive act of posting an acceptable-use policy. It means a zero-tolerance policy backed by an ongoing education campaign that makes it more difficult for students to rationalize the acceptability of copyright infringement.

Don Tennant is editorial director of Computerworld and InfoWorld. Contact him at don_tennant@computerworld.com, and visit his blog at http://blogs.computerworld.com/tennant.

Editorial: Unmasking P2P secrets on campuses

p2pnet news » Blog Archive » Canadian copyrights: five myths

"Seems to me that these myths aren't just limited to Canada....."  -- Stephen

Canadian copyrights: five myths

p2pnet news view | Politics:- Last week, James Rajotte, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, told a Public Policy Forum conference on intellectual property that Industry Minister Jim Prentice hopes to introduce the highly contentious copyright bill within the next few weeks.

The announcement, which comes just days after the United States raised copyright with Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the SPP meeting in New Orleans, suggests that the concerns of business, education, and consumers may be cast aside in order to pacify U.S. pressure on the file.

Indeed, the decision to press ahead with copyright in a manner that Liberal Industry critic Scott Brison recently labeled as “anything but transparent” is particularly troubling given concerns that the bill may be based on five myths that are frequently raised with respect to Canadian copyright.

1. The Importance of Copyright. In recent months, there have been increasing attempts to link copyright reform with the government’s broader innovation agenda. While copyright and intellectual property policies are unquestionably important in this regard, an innovation strategy depends upon far more than just copyright reform. A vibrant venture capital community, competitive tax structure, highly skilled workforce, and world-class communication infrastructure all play a critical role in investment decisions and the commercialization of new innovation. In fact, the World Economic Forum recently pointed to excessive red tape in establishing a new business and the high costs of Internet and wireless access as the weakest part of Canada’s “network readiness.”

2. Consultation and Reform. Given the slow pace of copyright reform, it is natural for some to mistakenly believe that Canada has widely consulted on reform with little to show for it. In fact, the opposite is true. The last national consultation on digital copyright reform took place in 2001, a time that pre-dates the introduction of the now-ubiquitous Apple iPod and the emergence of popular sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Flickr. Although critics decry Canada’s “outdated” copyright laws, the reality is that there has been a steady stream of reforms over the past two decades. The Copyright Act faced major overhauls in the late 1980s and 1990s, with smaller amendments in 1992. Moreover, Canada passed new copyright laws related to Internet retransmission in 2002 and anti-camcording legislation last year.

3. Canada in the World. A consistent theme in recent years has been the characterization of Canadian copyright law as “outdated, weak, or ineffective” in comparison to the rest of the world. Much of this criticism comes from the U.S., which has consistently placed Canada on its Special 301 list of countries with intellectual property laws that merit “watching.” Yet these inflammatory claims do not withstand even mild scrutiny. The U.S. Special 301 list includes nearly 50 countries representing 4.4 billion people (about 70 percent of the planet) and 13 of the top 20 countries worldwide as measured by GDP. Viewed in that light, Canada is in good company.

Moreover, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada’s intellectual property protection fourth in G8, ahead of both the U.S. and Japan. That ranking may reflect the fact that there are many areas where Canadian law is actually far stronger than the U.S., including our more limited fair dealing provision, the existence of crown copyright, the significantly higher copyright fees for broadcasters and educators, as well as Canada’s the heavy reliance on copyright collectives.

4. Copyright in the World. Among the most troubling claims associated with copyright are the assertions that Canada must follow the U.S. model in order to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet treaties. Nothing could be further from the truth. In recent months, New Zealand passed copyright legislation that includes far more flexibility that the U.S. model, while Israel - well known for an innovative technology sector - rejected the need for WIPO reforms altogether. Canada has the ability to craft a “made in Canada” solution that meets our needs but rejects reforms that have had negative effects on research, security, and consumer rights in other countries.

5. Copyright Consensus. Advocates of immediate reform argue that copyright is too contentious to achieve a broad consensus and that leadership is therefore needed to push ahead with legislation despite the opposition. However, a closer look at the publicly held positions of many key stakeholders reveals that there is an emerging copyright consensus in Canada. Artists groups (Canadian Music Creators Coalition, Appropriation Art), business groups (Balanced Copyright Business Coalition), education groups (Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Federation of Students), and consumer groups have largely coalesced around principles that include a rejection of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, preservation of user rights, greater flexibility within fair dealing, and the targeting of clear cases of commercial counterfeiting. Such an approach benefits creators, users, and the business community and therefore holds the promise of a consensus-based roadmap for reform.

Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]

p2pnet news » Blog Archive » Canadian copyrights: five myths

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Sony BMG's hypocrisy: company busted for using warez

 

Sony BMG's hypocrisy: company busted for using warez

By David Chartier | Published: March 31, 2008 -

Sony BMG is no stranger to piracy. As one of the most vocal supporters of the RIAA and IFPI antipiracy efforts, the company has some experience hunting down and punishing consumers who don't pay for its products. The company is getting some experience on the other side of the table, however, now that it's being sued for software piracy.

PointDev, a French software company that makes Windows administration tools, received a call from a Sony BMG IT employee for support. After Sony BMG supplied a pirated license code for Ideal Migration, one of PointDev's products, the software maker was able to mandate a seizure of Sony BMG's assets. The subsequent raid revealed that software was illegally installed on four of Sony BMG's servers. The Business Software Alliance, however, believes that up to 47 percent of the software installed on Sony BMG's computers could be pirated.

These are some pretty serious—not to mention ironic—allegations against a company that's gone so far as to install malware on consumers' computers in the name of preventing piracy.


While PointDev is claiming €300,000 (over $475,000) in damages in its suit against Sony BMG, Agustoni Paul-Henry, PointDev's CEO, says (from a Google translation of a French report) that this is more about principle than money: "We are forced to watch every week if key software pirates are not [sic] on the Internet. We are a small company of six employees. Instead of trying to protect us, we could spend this time to develop ourselves."

Paul-Henry thinks Sony BMG's piracy of PointDev's products is the fault of more than just a single employee (again, translated): "I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software he needs, he will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another."

Certainly, one wonders what led to Sony BMG to steal PointDev's product in the first place. It's a safe bet that the company can afford to pay for the necessary licenses, which leaves sheer laziness as the most likely culprit. In any event, it's absolutely inexcusable for a company that has been at the forefront of the antipiracy fight, going so far as to surreptitiously install rootkits on its customers' PCs.

Further Reading
  • 01net - The French site that reported the lawsuit
  • Found via Zeropaid

Sony BMG's hypocrisy: company busted for using warez

Friday, February 29, 2008

The Post

 

The RIAA one year later

As recording industry wages nationwide war on piracy, OU falls off the map

Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
Last Modified: Thursday, February 28, 2008, 2:02:37am

David Hendricks / Campus Senior Writer / dh100006@ohiou.edu

As the recording industry’s nationwide legal battle against college music sharers enters its second year, Ohio University — once ground zero in that campaign — is no longer under fire.

Identified last February by the recording industry as the recipient of more music sharing complaints than any other university, OU shelled out more than $75,000 last summer for a device that scans data crisscrossing its network for copyrighted media.

Copyright complaints plummeted from 716 during Fall Quarter 2006 to 77 during Fall Quarter 2007. Threats of litigation from the Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry trade group that coordinated the crackdown, stopped altogether.

“There has been a very dramatic change at Ohio University,” said RIAA President Cary Sherman.That change began last February, when the The Associated Press published the top 25 recipients of the RIAA’s copyright complaints. OU topped the list with 1,287.

“This is not a list any school wanted to be on,” Sherman said, adding that widespread publication of the list put pressure on universities.

Before the end of that month, OU would top another RIAA list, this one more serious.

Six days after the AP article, the RIAA sent 400 letters to 13 universities; one in eight went to OU. In each letter, the RIAA alleged that a university Internet address distributed copyrighted music and asked each school to forward the letter to the person responsible.

Unlike copyright complaints sent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which warn of potential legal liability for the university, these letters demanded unspecified settlements from individual network users within 20 days. The letters threatened lawsuits if the recipients did not respond or refused to settle.

OU, like most universities, forwarded the letters.

When the University of Wisconsin-Madison refused to forward 15 letters to its students in March, the RIAA responded by upping the number of letters to 66 across the University of Wisconsin system. Record companies filed lawsuits against the unnamed network users and forced the university to turn over student names and other information.

This month, the RIAA sent 401 more letters, none of which went to OU. In all, the RIAA has sent 5,404 letters to universities and commercial Internet service providers nationwide. More than 2,300 recipients have settled. The RIAA has filed lawsuits against 2,465 people who either did not respond, refused to settle or were not forwarded the letter. Of the 100 OU students threatened with lawsuits, 80 settled.

Lawsuit Machine

Thousands of DMCA notices are sent to universities and commercial Internet service providers each month. The notices, which warn ISPs that someone using their network is violating copyright law, are an important weapon in the RIAA’s war on piracy.

Several companies have sprung up to send DMCA notices on behalf of major movie studios and record labels for a fee.

One of those firms, California-based MediaSentry, works with the RIAA to send DMCA notices on behalf of major record labels and gathers evidence for use in copyright infringement lawsuits. Together, MediaSentry and Colorado-based law firm Holme Roberts & Owen form the backbone of the RIAA litigation campaign.

MediaSentry, HRO and smaller, regional law firms that handle cases in each state all referred Post inquiries to the RIAA, which has been tight-lipped about the campaign — refusing even to confirm its widely known association with MediaSentry. Court filings, though, have revealed the basics of that arrangement.

In a sworn statement filed this summer in federal district court, an RIAA vice president explained that MediaSentry combs file-sharing networks for music files copyrighted by RIAA members. When it finds a user sharing such files, MediaSentry downloads them and records the sharer’s Internet provider address.

Any resulting copyright infringement lawsuit hinges on the RIAA’s ability to link that IP address to an individual computer and its owner — something only an ISP, in this case the university, can do.

Those files are passed to the RIAA, which listens to each song to determine whether the file contains copyrighted music, according to court filings. Once satisfied, the RIAA creates a list of about 10 copyrighted songs marked “Exhibit A.”HRO sends Exhibit A, along with a form letter, to the college or university tied to the IP address. The RIAA asks that the college or university match the IP address to the student and forward the letter.

Each letter warns that unless the recipient settles copyright infringement allegations within 20 days, he or she will be sued in federal court. The letter encourages recipients to visit p2plawsuits.com, where they can settle online with a credit card.

Students who settle within 20 days usually pay at least $3,000, Sherman said, adding that the RIAA has not made an exact figure public. After she was sued, one OU student paid more than $10,000 to settle.

“The easier you make (copyright) infringement, the more people will do it,” Sherman said. “The whole program here is deterrence. The more people you can send a notice to … the more likely it is that the people they know will know someone that was sued.”

OU received 100 letters during the last academic year and chose to forward them to students. Of those, 80 settled, according to the RIAA.

One man gave up his truck’s title to pay his daughter’s settlement. Several students interviewed by The Post said they were not sure if they could afford to pay both the settlement and tuition.

Eight students who did not settle were sued in Ohio’s federal district courts after OU was forced to hand over their names during the summer in response to a subpoena. One student unsuccessfully challenged the subpoena; his name was turned over Nov. 30.

Five cases are ongoing. Another student settled and a seventh, who failed to respond to the lawsuit, had a $6,750 default judgment entered against her. Record companies have asked that their eighth case be dismissed. One lawsuit could cost OU its starting varsity baseball catcher.

“I am a college student who is trying to better myself and if I have to pay this I am going to be forced by my father to drop out of school,” wrote Chris Klimko, a junior criminology major and starting catcher for OU’s baseball team since his freshman year. “I do not have their music, and I do not want their music. If they were trying to get people to stop listening to their music, they succeeded.”

Action at OU

OU administrators scrambled to respond after the RIAA figures were released last February.

“Up until now, we filed judicial charges only against students deemed to have engaged persistently in illegal file-sharing over the computer network,” wrote Kent Smith, vice president for Student Affairs, in an e-mail to students. “However, in light of increased reports of the problem, all newly-reported, alleged first-time offenders will be referred to University Judiciaries in a manner consistent with our existing policy.”

Previously, students temporarily lost Internet access and received a warning if it was alleged they had shared media using peer-to-peer software.

Leadership changes in OU’s central information technology division resulted in an abrupt policy reversal.

Shawn Ostermann, then interim chief information officer, did not change the university’s stance on peer-to-peer software during Winter Quarter 2007, despite an increase in DMCA notices. He cited legitimate uses of the software and was concerned that banning a type of traffic from the campus network would damage academic freedom.

OU banned all peer-to-peer traffic the following quarter under its new CIO, Brice Bible. At the time, OU said it would issue exceptions for those with a legitimate need to use peer-to-peer software. That ban would draw widespread condemnation. OU began to look for a better option.

Audible’s Magic Box

Colleges and universities across the country are turning to special software to wipe out, limit or monitor peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks. OU began testing one of these devices last year and spent more than $75,000 to purchase one.

CopySense, a special computer sold by California-based Audible Magic, uses patented software to create audio fingerprints for copyrighted media. It compares those fingerprints to audio passing over OU’s network and disconnects computers sharing files with matching fingerprints.

OU paid $59,950 for the CopySense device and an additional $15,585 for support, maintenance and a year of database updates, which keep the device loaded with fingerprints for newly released music.

After CopySense was installed, the number of DMCA notices OU received dropped dramatically.

Each notice lists the copyrighted file and how long it was available. None of the 77 files listed in DMCA notices sent to OU during Fall Quarter 2007 was available for more than two seconds. During the same time during the previous academic year, before OU purchased CopySense, some files were available for several weeks.

DMCA notices received during Fall Quarter 2007 were probably generated in the seconds before CopySense disconnected the offending computer from OU’s network, said Sean O’Malley, OU’s information technology communications manager. Record companies have not sued any OU student for copyright infringement that occurred during Fall Quarter.

The Post

Monday, January 14, 2008

How to curb piracy - Los Angeles Times

 How to curb piracy - Los Angeles Times

How to curb piracy

Appealing to consumers' better nature may be a more effective way.

December 23, 2007

In the latest version of what has become a biennial ritual, Hollywood studios and major record labels are pressing Congress to crack down on copyright infringement. In particular, they want the Justice Department to prosecute more cases, local police and sheriffs deputies to launch more investigations, and lawmakers to provide tougher penalties for civil and criminal infringers. The difference this go-around, though, is that they've got company. Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a coalition of manufacturers, software firms and labor unions has joined the entertainment industry in lobbying for a measure dubbed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 -- PRO-IP for short.
It's not surprising to see concern about piracy spread beyond copyright holders. As the markets for more products go global, more brands are being counterfeited in developing countries, and more knockoffs are finding their way into the United States. Consumers have an interest too. Although bootlegged music and movies pose only an economic threat, counterfeit drugs, brake shoes and chargers can be lethal.
Still, tougher penalties don't seem to be the right answer to the problems caused by piracy. In fact, they may only make the public less receptive to the entertainment industry's message about the value of copyrights and society's need to protect them.
We may not accept the coalition's outsized estimates of the damage inflicted by counterfeit and bootlegged products, but we don't dispute for a moment that piracy is widespread, growing and, for many commercial infringers, immensely profitable. Each year, billions of songs, TV shows and movies are downloaded or streamed online for free without the copyright owners' permission. Some of those are lower-quality bootlegs, others are pristine copies -- some even in high definition. The sale of counterfeit physical goods is brisk too, on streets and in markets around the world. The inventory consists of just about anything with a recognizable brand, character or star, from daily necessities such as detergent or pharmaceuticals to luxury goods.
The general public and intellectual property owners share an interest in reducing this kind of parasitic crime. Consumers are being harmed by shoddy fakes, and the underground economy of piracy helps support a broad spectrum of crimes and criminals. That's why it makes sense to put more effort into enforcing existing laws against piracy, selling counterfeit products, fraud, unfair business practices and the importation of illegal goods.
The proposed legislation (HR 4279 and SB 2317), however, would do more than just direct more resources into enforcement. It would provide for greater penalties for infringing copyrights and trademarks, which already are subject to stiff, even draconian, statutory damages -- amounts that copyright and trademark owners can claim even when the infringement causes no measurable loss. Those increases threaten to undermine the efforts by intellectual property owners to win the hearts and minds of the millions of people who routinely violate their rights.
Advocates of tougher penalties say the current ones don't provide enough of a deterrent. The situation with music piracy teaches a different lesson. Surveys show that most people who download music illegally know they're violating the law, yet they're confident they won't be caught. That's why millions continue to do so in the face of penalties of up to $150,000 a song. If that isn't a deterrent, what penalty could be?
Consider the recent case of Jammie Thomas, a single mother in Minnesota whom the major record companies accused of making 24 songs available for others to copy online. The jury found her liable and set a penalty on the low end of the available range -- $9,250 a song. The result was a $222,000 judgment that, in spite of Thomas' piracy, generated a wave of sympathy for her and outrage at the labels.
The most important task for intellectual property owners is to convince the public that it's wrong to support piracy, whether it be through "sharing" works online or buying cheap fakes from a street peddler. It's a tough sell that starts in the schools and the marketplace, not on Capitol Hill.

How to curb piracy - Los Angeles Times

CTV.ca | New levies proposed for iPods and memory cards

CTV.ca | New levies proposed for iPods and memory cards 

New levies proposed for iPods and memory cards

Updated Sat. Dec. 22 2007 8:52 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Consumers could potentially be hit by a new tax on electronic storage devices such as iPods and blank memory cards in 2008.

The federal Copyright Board has given its approval for a special levy on iPods and other digital players because they can be used to copy movies and music.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, the non-profit agency that represents the music industry, wants to make sure that artists get compensated.

Small tariffs are currently in place for such items as rewritable CDs and cassettes. The CPCC first requested a levy on removable electronic memory in its 2003-2004 tariff proposal.

The Copyright Board initially concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a new tax; however, the CPCC noted the growing popularity of digital memory devices is cause for concern. A hearing in April will reexamine the proposed levies.

"Our surveys show the vast majority of copies that people put on their iPods come from sources other than legitimatly purchased copies," said David Basskin, the Director of the CPCC.

According to a CPCC media release, "During the period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, 25 per cent of all the content copied onto electronic memory cards, including cards of all formats and capacities, was music, and 14 per cent of respondents copied only music."

The proposed levies range in price including:

  • 85 cents for rewritable CDs and MiniDisc
  • $2 for 1 GB removable electronic memory cards
  • $25 for a digital audio recorder between 1 and 10 GBs
  • $75 for digital audio recorder of more than 30 GBs

Don Butcher, the Canadian Library Association's executive director, says the CLA is concerned over the proposed levies because they assume illegal behaviour on the part of consumers.

"It's almost de facto criminalizing all Canadians. We just don't think that's right. The whole issue of those tariffs on blank media makes an assumption we think is a faulty assumption," he said.

"We don't think Canadians are out there deliberately infringing on people's copy right. We think that in fact Canadians are law-abiding."

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the measures may be counterproductive.

"Normally, you do the crime and then you do the time. In this case the government is going to hit us first so people will asume it's OK to download music without paying for it," Williamson said.

The surcharge won't come into effect immediately. Retailers are fighting the tax in court, saying the Copyright Board has no right to impose an extra fee on top of the price of iPods and other audio players.

Libraries concerned about new legislation

Meanwhile, the CLA says pending copyright legislation is unbalanced and does not reflect the concerns of some 21 million library users and registered librarians across Canada.

Butcher said that in recent weeks thousands of troubled Canadians have voiced their concerns over proposed legislative reforms to the Copyright Act.

"Whether it is through library blogs, Facebook groups, or at the library front desks, we are getting the message that Canadians want a fair and balanced copyright approach," he said.

"Just one simple Facebook group on copyright gained 30,000 members in a few short weeks with another Canadian joining the group every 30 seconds. There have been public rallies in Calgary and Toronto. The government needs to listen to average Canadians."

The new legislative reforms will likely meet the demands of the Canadian Recording Industry Association by making it illegal to download or share songs on the internet without paying a fee.

Amendments would also apply to the circumvention of technologies that protect against infringement and "persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention or who, without authorization, distribute copyright material."

The CLA says these amendments make the same mistakes as the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"American law makes no differentiation in penalty between a counterfeiter circumventing technical protection measures for illegal profit and an individual circumventing technical protection measures to make a single copy," a release from CLA said Friday.

The reforms to the Canadian Copyright Act were promised by the Harper government in the Speech to the Throne.

The new legislation was to be tabled earlier this month; however, the government failed to do so before Parliament took a break for the holidays.

The CLA's main point of contention hinges on user rights to access information as outlined in the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada judgment in CCH Canada Ltd. v. The Law Society of Upper Canada.

The law society was sued for providing a request-based photocopy service for its members. The high court ruled that single copies made by the library did not infringe on copyrights.

"Our challenge is with the Hollywood lobbyists and the recording industry who are trying to take rights away from ordinary Canadians," Butcher told CTV.ca on Friday.

The CLA would like to see the government address illegal behaviour rather than trying to catch up with ever-evolving digital technologies.

"It comes back to intent. When you buy a music CD, copy it six times and give it or sell it to your friends, well that's wrong. That's infringing," Butcher said.

"Downloading a music CD onto your hard drive isn't illegal, it's what you do afterwards that may or may not be illegal."

However, the CRIA says the music industry is being hit hard by the ongoing problem of what they call music piracy, the illegal peer-to-peer sharing of music files.

CRIA's figures show sales of music CDs, DVDs and other formats fell 35 per cent in the first quarter of 2007 compared with the same period a year earlier.

According to digital media measurer, Big Champagne, more than 1 billion songs are swapped for free every month on file-swapping networks.

Aside from music, Butcher advocates that digital information is essential for people with physical, learning or perceptual disabilities.

"People can take this digital information and they can copy it and manipulate it into alternate forms that people with disabilities can access. It opens up a whole world of information for those three million Canadians who can't access traditional print," he said.

With a report from CTV's Robert Fife

CTV.ca | New levies proposed for iPods and memory cards