It was about 2 weeks ago that UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, who heads the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and whom ultimately is tasked with implementing the recommendations for dealing with illegal file-sharing as outlined in the Digital Britain report, reportedly ordered his staff to come up with plans for a crackdown on illegal file-sharers that includes giving ISPs the power to disconnect repeat offenders ala a “three-strikes” graduated response system.

It was denied at first, but later BIS confirmed the plan after determining the current timetable for fighting P2P , which stands at 2-3 yrs for a 70% reduction using a combination of notifications and technical measures, would take an “unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action.”

As such it said its “thinking has evolved” on the use of “further technical measures.”

Lord Mandelson has rightly been taking a lot of criticism for the proposal, most notably from UK ISP Talk Talk which says it will “strongly resist” any efforts to force it to act as “Internet police.”

He thus felt it necessary to respond in an op-ed written for the UK’s Times Online.

“While I am still something of a novice when it comes to streaming and downloads, I have been around long enough to know that piracy is wrong,” he writes. “That is why my department decided to consider strengthening proposals to tackle illegal file sharing and downloading.”

Whether he knows it or not that’s precisely the problem. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

First off, file-sharing is not piracy. Piracy implies copyright infringement for financial gain. File-sharing is just that – SHARING. There is no profit motive. It may be a matter of semantics for some, but there’s a big difference.

Secondly, any technical measures to to fight illegal file-sharing are futile at best, an affront to human rights rights at worst (France’s Constitutional Court ruled the Internet is essential for full civic participation in modern society). Imagine the damage done if an entire household loses Internet access.

Lord Mandelson also heaps on the widely discredited jibberish that a single download equals a lost sale, that “taking something for nothing, without permission, and with no compensation for the person who created and owns it, is wrong.”

I guess he hasn’t read any of the studies that conclude P2P actually increases music consumption or that the music industry’s own economist found that overall revenue is up since 2007.

Add to that the fact that a recent survey of UK music fans found that file-sharing was down 22% since 2007 and that the MPAA is enjoying another in a series of annual record breaking profits and you have to wonder what’s really behind its sudden urgency.

Even more startling is his realization that copyright holders have to “provide customers with a good quality, cheap, safe and efficient experience” if they want to lure consumers from P2P, yet insists that it threaten people with Internet disconnection to help “make this happen.”

Threatening people is never a good way to turn file-sharers into customers.

Just ask the RIAA.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

The ZeroPaid Facebook fan page is an easy way to stay up to date on various topics that Zeropaid.com covers including digital music, file sharing, technology and more. It also allows YOU the visitor to post links, photos and videos. Think of it like the forums on Zeropaid but a little more open…

Topic
How has the past 10 years changed the way you purchase and/or listen to music?

Submission Details
We want you to be as creative as possible with your video submission, show us your computers, your stereo setup or how  your garage band when from novice to nerd. Tell us how your life before iPods and MP3 players influenced the way you listen to music today.

This is your chance to voice your opinion on digital music and how file sharing has influenced your purchasing habits using the most popular social networking website.

The winner will be decided based on the following:

• Originality
• Creativity
• Quality

It was almost a month ago that the French National Assembly defied the EU Parliament and passed the controversial “Creation and Internet” law that would create the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet (HADOPI), a new govt agency whose task it would be to sanction those accused of illegal file-sharing.

Offenders were to receive two separate warnings about their illegal activities before losing Internet access for from 2 months up to a year, with the names of the “three-strikers” appearing on a blacklist to prevent ISP shopping.

That law’s now been ruled unconstitutional by France’s Constitutional Council after having been requested by the opposition Socialist Party to rule on its legality.

It concluded that under the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man only a judge should have the power to disconnect individuals from the Internet, arguing that the Internet is essential for the “free communication of thoughts” and therefore full civic participation in a democracy. To curtail basic freedoms will hence require a trial and judge’s order rather than that of a dedicated body (HADOPI).

The court ruling reads:

Under Article 11 of the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789: “The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law “that the current means of communication and given the widespread development of communication services to the public line and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right includes freedom to access these services;

What the Council basically found is that freedom of expression and communication are “prerequisite for democracy” and any attack on this freedom must be “necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the aim pursued.”

The Council did however, find that it’s legal to send warnings to suspected file-sharers on behalf of copyright holders.

Culture Minister Christine Albanel said the law would be “rapidly completed” to transfer the power to cut off Internet access to a judge, rather than a state agency.

Stay tuned.

Sometimes people in this world are better off not saying anything at all when it comes to controversial issues and Steven Marks, general counsel for the RIAA, is just such a person.

Last Wednesday I reported on how Harvard Professor Charles Nesson, who is defending Joel Tenenbaum against charges that he illegally downloaded 7 songs back in 2004, wrote an op-ed piece decrying RIAA lawsuits targeting illegal file-sharers as an “unconstitutional abuse of law,” and that the real problem is the tension between “our antiquated copyright laws and the social reality of ‘digital natives,’” those that have grown up immersed in a digital world.

Now Steven Marks, general counsel for the RIAA, has been given equal time to espouse his views on the the RIAA’s litigation, or what it calls “education,” campaign.

“The record industry is swept up in a sea of change and we have embraced it,” says Marks to counter the charges that it isn’t satisfying consumer demand.

“Let’s be clear: the best anti-piracy strategy is a vibrant legitimate marketplace rich with content and innovative business models. We get that,” he adds.

Oh really?

So was this before or after all the brick and mortar retailers evaporated? The RIAA has never cared about music fans or artists, only how much money it can squeeze per unit. If it has truly “embraced” change then how does it justify charging digital album prices that are the same as those of physical album prices when they lack anywhere near the cost of distribution?

Why does it still insist on DRM protection for many digital music stores when it knows that’s exactly what drives music fans to illegal file-sharing sites?

How about the fact that it’s also oftentimes selection of music that music fans and just isn’t offered by any of the RIAA’s so-called “embracement” projects or partnerships? Record labels only make part of their catalog available for digital downloads, and so long as there’s a gap between the two people will use illegal file-sharing to satisfy demand.

The best part is where Marks sort of glosses over its decade of ineptitude, saying that “four years ago, the industry earned virtually no revenues from digital music services.”

Now who’s fault was that? Napster appeared nearly 10 years ago, and if the RIAA really cared about music fans or artists for that matter, would it have spent 6 years suing everybody it could, up to this very day in fact after it insisted it quit its “education” campaign last August?

Marks goes on to say that “to enable that legal marketplace to reach its full potential, we still need to educate fans about the law and illegal sites that do not compensate artists for their work.” If it wants to “educate” people then why did it fight Nesson’s attempts to have the trial against Tenenbaum broadcast live on the Internet for all to see? What better way to “educate” file-sharers than that? It was a sentiment echoed by District Court Judge Nancy Gertner

“While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, their objections are curious,” she observed. “At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.”

All the RIAA has done has intimidate people, knowing full well that most accused file-sharers can’t afford the costs of mounting a legal defense. Where’s the sense of justice or even the hint of education in that? All lawsuits do, as many artists have pointed out, is alienate music fans and make them turned off to the prospect of supporting them in the future by buying new albums. Would you buy an album from EMI, for example, after having been threatened to pony up $3,000 USD or else?

The music industry needs to find ways to “monetise their behaviour” not discourage it, noted Billy Brag of the Featured artists Coalition recently.

Marks also voices his pleasure that we are on the cusp of transitioning to a “more effective strategy” of fighting illegal file-sharing, “working with Internet Service Providers to forward notices of copyright theft directly to subscribers to point out that their illegal activity has been detected.”

So in other words, the RIAA’s “embracement of change” by creating plans for “innovation and experimentation” in the music marketplace means an intrusion into the privacy of those same music fans they claim to be listening to? How does filtering and monitoring the transfer of files between people online strengthen the music industry as a whole?

Again Bragg’s recent comments ring true, as he remarks about efforts in the UK by the music industry there to get ISPs to institute a “three-strikes” system to disconnect illegal file-sharers.

“Stating that a ‘write and sue’ policy will not work is an admission that the current copyright law is no longer fit for purpose in a digital age,” he writes. “The government has pointed out to the BPI that if it wants to crack down on unauthorized file-sharing, the law is already on its side. Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them.”

Bragg points out that the plan is flawed for several reasons. He says not only is it “shameful” to force another industry to prop up failings of your own in another, but also questions how it expects to stay ahead of technology if it’s never been able to do so in the past.

“Any unauthorized file-sharers who fear being caught out can simply encrypt their exchanges,” he adds.

Just to make sure any file-sharers out there think that a switch to monitoring your Internet traffic at the ISP might give you a free pass for past transgressions, Marks makes it clear that the RIAA will show no mercy.

“That doesn’t mean a free pass to those who egregiously downloaded unauthorized music in the past or who refuse repeated offers to discuss a reasonable settlement,” he continues.

Is $3000 plus dollars really a “reasonable” amount to the teenagers and poor college students it mainly targets? I think not. Of the more than 35,000 plus file-sharers targeted by the RIAA less than a dozen have seen the inside of a courtroom. Why? Resources.

Marks also criticizes the fact that Tenenbaum admitted to downloading 7 songs illegally and refuses to answer for it. He says that Nesson is trying to transform the court into a “three-ring circus” for trying to “gut the copyright laws.”

Nesson is simply arguing that when Congress wrote the Copyright Act it never intended to allow copyright holders to target “pro se noncommercial defendants,” those acquiring content for personal use.

He furthers that the real problem in all of this is that antiquated copyright laws have yet to catch up to the realities of our digital age. The tension between “our antiquated copyright laws and the social reality of ‘digital natives,’” those that have grown up immersed in a digital world, is what really must be addressed. Nesson has even recently argued that downloading music without permission of copyright holder qualifies for “fair use” exemption from copyright laws.

“We’ve never once sought maximum damages in our court cases against individual downloaders,” Marks writes. “We let courts and juries decide the appropriate dollar amount for any case that reaches that far stage.”

Nevermind that it doesn’t have to, just ask Jammie Thomas when she was initially found liable for $220,000 for illegally sharing 24 songs.

“And this program has never been about the dollars—we lose money on it and any recoveries are a small fraction of the enormous toll wrought upon the music community.”

Oh really? If it’s never been “about the dollars” then why go out of your way to make sure accused file-sharers don’t get their day in court? If it’s to “educate” then why not get the courts to say so, or to allow your arguments to be watched live by millions for the first time?

It’s just more of the same nonsense from the RIAA and the decade-long “three-ring circus” of its own.

jared@zeroapid.com

The Swedish Court of Appeals has decided to replace the judge that was scheduled to hear Swedish BitTorrent tracker site the Pirate Bay’s appeal of its recent guilty verdict for the facilitation of copyright infringement with a new 3 judge panel.

“The information may be mentioned that none of these are or have been members of any of the groups present in the case,” writes the court in a press release.

It will replace Judge Ulrika Ihrfelt since she had been a member of the same pro-copyright group as was the presiding judge, Judge Tomas Norström, as well as several of the entertainment industry’s lawyers, which is what made the conviction seem biased to many.

Peter Sunde, one of the Pirate Bay admins convicted, has already done a but of digging into the backgrounds of the 3 new judges and has found that they too have associations with the entertainment industry lawyers that could perhaps call their impartiality into question.

Judge Anders Eka, for example, sits on the board of the “Research Center for Media Rights” alongside Monique and Peter Danowsky, layers representing the entertainment industry in the case against the Pirate Bay.

“Note: Not any of OUR lawyers are on that board,” notes Sunde. “But two of the opponents lawyers in the same board. Together with two of their main helpers.”

He adds: “and I have only just started to google for the people.. it took me longer time to write this blog post than to find the information. How come noone else does this?”

Good question Peter.

He keeps asking for a fair trial, nothing more, but all he seems to get is more entertainment industry-tainted govt officials.

I mean the case became a “spectrial” long ago when it was reported that Jim Keyzer, the Chief Swedish police investigator in the preliminary investigation against the Pirate Bay, was hired by two of the entertainment industry plaintiffs after his work had ended.

It seems only natural to have judges finish what Keyzer started.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

WolframAlpha is the first step of what its creators says is the long term goal to “make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone.” The “computational knowledge engine” formulates solutions by doing computations “suing its own internal knowledge base, instead of searching the web and returning links” like search engines such as Google.

“We aim to collect and curate all objective data; implement every known model, method, and algorithm; and make it possible to compute whatever can be computed about anything,” reads the site. “Our goal is to build on the achievements of science and other systematizations of knowledge to provide a single source that can be relied on by everyone for definitive answers to factual queries.”

Named after Stephen Wolfram, the British-born computer scientist, physics prodigy (he earned a PhD at age 20), and lead inventor behind the project, is trying to extrapolate Mathematica, a computational software program used in scientific, engineering, mathematical fields, and other areas of technical computing, for use by a wider audience.

“Wolfram|Alpha, as it exists today, is just the beginning,” it promises. “We have both short- and long-term plans to dramatically expand all aspects of Wolfram|Alpha, broadening and deepening our data, our computation, our linguistics, our presentation, and more.”

Overall, the site’s pretty handy in a more encyclopedic fashion than is Google. Enter “caffeine,” for example, and you get back results that include: molecular weight, formula, 3D structure, permeability, and more.

Here’s a

Try WolframAlpha out for yourself and tell me what you think.

jared@zeropaid.com

The Swedish Association of Video Distributors (SVF) commissioned a survey of some 2,700 people asking what their file-sharing habits are now in comparison to before the April 1st passage of the controversial new copyright law that gave copyright holders the power to obtain court orders forcing ISPs to divulge the personal information of suspected file-sharers.

It found that some 20% of Swedes aged 15-59yo have "cut down on or completely stopped file-sharing."

Perhaps more revealing is that a startling 36% of file-sharers aged 15-24yo said the same. This is the group that’s known to usually be the most prolific file-sharing demographic.

Why the decline? Fear of getting busted of course.

“Earlier people thought that maybe the police didn’t really pay attention to the information in the same way,” one of the respondents said. "But now there are some who are really motivated to do something, and who have showed that they’re doing something. So that makes people little scared and reserved."

Internet traffic is still down almost 50% in Sweden since April 1st, but that figure doesn’t include P2P connections with users outside the country so it’s unclear whether people really are file-sharing less. The study only canvasses 2,700 so like any statistical analysis it’s never a truly accurate picture of the group as a whole.

One things is for sure, and that’s that that file-sharers are afraid of getting busted. With several Swedish ISPs having already announced they’ll stop storing IP addresses that fear may soon evaporate and it’ll be back to business as usual for file-sharers.

The game of whac-a-mole continues.

jared@zeropaid.com

Make sure to check out the contest details to see how you can win!

This may very well become the most ironic stories of 2009 in the copyright debate. The CBC is reporting that French governing party as led by president Nicolas Sarkozy has been sued by an independent band for copyright infringement.

The president and his administration has been well known for trying to ratchet up copyright laws not only in France, but throughout Europe as well. He has pressured and passed the first “three strikes” law that gets a user disconnected based on three formal copyright complaints. Arguably, the three strikes provision was born in France and has since spread throughout the world due to the major copyright industry trying to get other countries to adopt the laws. In fact, the French administration pressured the European union to adopt the three strikes policy, but the provision has since run into several roadblocks including representatives from Sweden who argued that people are dependent on the internet for cultural exchange.

The French president now seems to be hoping that the issue of copyright infringement would go away. He admitted to using the artists song multiple times for a political campaign which goes beyond the scope of an obtained license. So the administration offered to settle the case for a symbolic 1 Euro. The band rejected the offer calling it insulting.

This is, by far, not the first time a proponent to the so-called anti-piracy movement has been under the gun of copyright violations. Last year, Sony BMG France was sued for software piracy and had some of their assets on a property seized by mandated bailiffs. In 2007, BASCAP, an anti-piracy organization, recieved a cease and desist letter for, again, software piracy. Finally, in 2006, the MPAA was accused of pirating the film ‘This Film is Not Yet Rated’

It’s unclear how the this particular copyright infringement case will end, but many who are familiar with the copyright debate and how the three strikes provisions came about will no doubt be laughing at this latest fiasco.

Late last year, Wikileaks obtained a copy of one of the extortion letters sent by the infamous law firm Davenport Lyons. The law firm, at the time, had been sending tens of thousands of these letters which threatened to take the recipients to court if they don’t pay just over 500 pounds. The original goal was to deter alleged copyright infringers, but in a strange twist of fate, the law firm is now actively trying to censor the letter itself claiming that the letter is protected under British copyright law.

The legal threat letters themselves contain a hash value, and IP address and a time stamp that is being used as evidence – flimsy evidence according to many people who have observed the legal side of file-sharing. The reason it is seen as flimsy is that a filename can be called anything and still have the same hash value. Second of all, there is no evidence provided that verified that the file name matched what the actual work was. For all we know, it could have been a 5 minute porn clip rather than a music video. Thirdly, there’s no evidence to suggest that an IP address is linked to an individual. The computer could be used by someone other than the owner of the connection. There could be a wifi connection that other users, including unauthorized ones, could be using that IP address. Finally, a time stamp doesn’t contribute much into proving that a copyrighted work has been uploaded. The alleged incident in question happened over BitTorrent, but no website was given, so who really knows where the evidence was gathered in the first place?

The turn of events seems to resemble the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) deciding that they don’t want the trial broadcasted over the internet. The copyright industry said that the whole purpose of file-sharing lawsuits is to educate the public, yet objected to idea that the case should be broadcasted over the internet. The same sort of contradiction can be seen in the Davenport case. The whole idea is to educate the public, but now they don’t want their own letters being published, claiming it’s copyright infringement.

One might argue that the reason that Davenport Lyons don’t want the letters published in the first place is because they don’t want their letters subject to public or any real legal scrutiny. It’s much easier to attack a single individual singled out rather than attacking a single individual with the public sphere watching. It’s little wonder why the copyright industry has been seen as a bully throughout the years really. If they truly feel they are in the right, why the need to hide their activities in the first place?