ZeroPaid.com » file sharing

RIAA’s VP of Strategic Data Analysis Issues Statement On Megaupload Shutdown

Jon Kaykin — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:46:19 +0000

RIAA's VP of Strategic Data Analysis believes that the shutdown of Megaupload and other P2P file sharing sites is mandatory and will decrease file sharing. Truthfully, it will upset many. Megaupload's shutdown by the Justice Department has caused a lot of controversy regarding piracy and whether file sharing sites like Megaupload should exist. One of the major supporters of the shutdown was the Recording Industry Association of America, naturally because they handle copyrighted music and want to make sure that no "unauthorized content including music, movies, and other copyrighted works" is shared. The shutdown led the RIAA's Vice President, of Strategic Data Analysis, Josh P. Friedlander, to issue a statement on their blog, titled Why Closing Megaupload Matters. Although, the post is aimed towards Megaupload, it mainly points out why they believe closing P2P services is important, alluding to Limewire's shutdown. Supposedly, the shutdown of Limewire, according to the NPD group, decreases the use of P2P file sharing but really, with all the P2P file sharing sites out there, I find it hard to believe there is a decline in use. Friedlander also points out, "Digital music sales that had been flagging jumped in the month immediately after the Limewire shutdown, and have remained stronger ever since (note that while the Beatles did go on iTunes in November of 2010, they only account for a small portion of that sales increase, and current music sales went up even more than catalog). When Billboard looked at the data after the Limewire shutdown it said “The spike in sales was immediate, noticeable and lasting." A chart of the sales spikes in 2011 can be seen below. While this evidence may support the shutdown of P2P file sharing sites, the problem is that it doesn't matter. Shutting down these sites will not, as Friedlander says, "encourage users to go to legitimate sites," rather it will make them upset and angry, as in the case of Pirates of Catalonia, a political party in Catalonia that supports intellectual property reform, open access to culture and knowledge, transparency and Direct Democracy. They have announced a collective civil action in Spain against the FBI because the shutdown has caused many users to lose files containing personal information and this may have violated Articles 197 and 198 of the Spanish Penal Code. It's understandable that many artists (and there record labels) want to be compensated for their hard work but in the case of many Megaupload users who lost their important personal files, action against the unlawful seizure of those files must be taken. Many have spoken out regarding the shutdown of Megaupload and many P2P file sharing sites such as Filesonic, Fileserve, FileJungle, UploadStation, 4shared, VideoBB, VideoZer, UploadBox, and Uploaded.to have shutdown their services to the U.S. As I stated above, regardless of the shutdowns, people will continue to use P2P file sharing sites and they will collectively rise up to keep the sites around. See Also: 10 Alternatives to LimeWire Jon@zeropaid.com | @jkaykin

American Prosecutors Censor ZeroPaid Reporter!

Drew Wilson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:03:59 +0000

While over one hundred thousand websites and millions of people were taking a stand against a potential American censorship by copyright regime thanks to SOPA and PIPA, ZeroPaid's very own Drew Wilson, for the first time, has officially become a victim of censorship by copyright.

The BBC is reporting that one-click hoster MegaUpload was shut down over piracy accusations. From the report:

Federal prosecutors have accused it of costing copyright holders more than $500m (£320m) in lost revenue. The firm says it was diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material. Investigators denied a link to recent protests against proposed piracy laws, according to the Wall Street Journal. The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand along with two other employees of the business at the request of US officials. It added that three other defendants were still at large. "This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime," said a statement posted on its website.

Back in 2010, when authorities and the content industries were trying to cut off payment processes to MegaUpload, MegaUpload spoke to ZeroPaid, saying in response to being called a rogue website, “Megaupload is a legitimate business operating within the boundaries of the law. In five years of operation we have not been sued by a single content owner. If the RIAA or MPAA would have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now. We suggest that they attack us within the legal system and stop labeling us until they have something to show.” That apparently doesn't seem to matter much at this point with the owners of the site being arrested and the website forced offline. The question is, where does that leave MegaUpload's users? I, for one, have used MegaUpload to spread my music around. Under my DJ name, DJ Frozen IceCube, I've used the site on numerous occasions to allow access to my own personal music I've made. Examples of this include my tracks Kinda Distracted, Phantoms of London and Constructing Light. All of these tracks and more were posted to MegaUpload - a site now shut down by American prosecutors. For years, I have been following cases of censorship by copyright. I've advocated that copyright abuses are a major problem that shouldn't be ignored. Now, as of today, I am officially a victim of censorship by copyright. While I can easily find other one-click hosters to host my music, that does not fix the underlying issue I now have with American authorities. American authorities, plain and simple, are censoring artists who have legally produced and uploaded their music for free for others to listen to. This action is blatantly anti-competitive in that if I independently upload my music, I am under the threat of having my music censored under the guise of copyright infringement. Make no mistake, I am far from the first victim and I certainly will not be the last. The content industry will not stop censoring legitimate free speech until the competition is strangled and destroyed and only they have the exclusive power to decide who can reach an audience and who can not. To add insult to injury, they will use government resources, and therefore, taxpayers money, to push their anti-competitive agenda. I am Drew Wilson, I am a reporter and music producer, and I am now officially a victim of America's censorship by copyright tactics. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

French Report – Legal Punishment for Filesharing as Severe as Manslaughter

Drew Wilson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:14:08 +0000

One of the criticisms of copyright laws has, for some time, been that the punishment is far too severe for the crime being committed. This debate is nothing new and it seems to be heating up in Europe right now. One French news site decided to compare the penalties of file-sharing to the penalties of other offenses. The results? They are a little scary.

The report comes from Numerama which was inspired by a recent conviction in Sweden. They asked, if someone could be put in jail for 3 years for file-sharing, what other crimes could someone commit and get either an equal sentence or less? They said (Google translated, original) said that the answers pretty much speak for themselves and I, for one, completely agree. Two things to keep in mind: this is all about French law and the laws are sourced nicely (job well done to Numerama in that department for sure). Here are some of the offenses that could earn you a jail sentence similar to that if you were convicted of copyright infringement on a file-sharing network:

Manslaughter
Repeatedly sending death threats on a transfixed medium
Conducting biomedical procedures on someone without the consent of the patient
Theft
Breach of trust
Some forms of obstruction of justice

Here are some of the offenses that could land you in jail for less time:

Sexual exhibition in a public place
Harassment in order to obtain sexual favors
The desecration of a corpse in a cemetery/attacking a corpse
Third party identity theft (note: this wasn't entirely clear in the translation, but we are presuming that the translation meant "third party" since it simply says "by a third")
The abandonment of a child/infant
Making sexual advances to a minor whether electronically or otherwise (if the minor is 15 years old or younger)
Destruction of other people's property
Serious offenses related to animal abuse

I'm looking through this and I really wonder what is wrong with a legal system that says that if you are caught sharing copyrighted works, you could get a sentence as long as someone who killed someone. I personally can't see how it should be possible in the first place. Still, this has always been an extremely effective way of showing just how extreme the penalties have become for something so trivial as someone having a copyrighted work in their shared directory. I'm a music producer myself and I have always been all for the sharing of my works online for free. I think that even if I were hardcore all for copyright, I would have a hard time, at the very least, trying to explain to the public why someone who made sexual advances to a minor should serve less time than someone who is uploading an album on the Gnutella network. The thing is that with a lot of these offenses in the list are offenses where people are being directly harmed. For me, I don't think anyone could make a convincing case that file-sharing is a crime that is as bad as killing someone. Such comparisons have been made before. One great example in the US was looking at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - the largest oil spill in US history. According to one report, BP was facing a $21 Billion fine. Looking at the damages for infringement one can find out that the BP fine presented in that particular report can be the equivalent to downloading 140,000 songs or 70,000 songs in the case of willful infringement. In any event, I think for French people, this really does put into perspective how high the penalties are for infringement. The day we start placing intellectual property on a higher level of value than life itself is the day I think society needs to seriously re-look at our values. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Judge Slashes Jammie Thomas Fine to $54,000

Drew Wilson — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:57:25 +0000

The case is at least 4 years old now, but that doesn't mean it's over. Jammie Thomas trial was described as a "first of its kind" trials where a file-sharer was sued for sharing music in the US. Now, a new development has unfolded in this long-running trial which may very likely be seen as a major blow to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

If you are caught sharing music on a P2P file-sharing network, and you go to court and lose, what exactly should the fine be? Citing the minimum and maximum statutory damages doesn't count, the court needs a specific amount. That's become the real hitch for the court system for a very long time now. How does one prove an exact dollar amount that fits the crime of non-commercial infringement? The reality is, and that's been abundantly clear in this case, there is no solid argument to prove that the non-commercial file-sharing causes "x" amount of dollars in damage. In 2009, Jammie Thomas was fined $1.92 million for sharing 24 songs. The fine was not satisfactory for all parties in the case and Thomas appealed. The question of how much the fine should be has haunted the courts ever since. Recently, the EFF pointed to the latest ruling in the landmark trial, citing the following in the judge's ruling:

[A]n award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first‑time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file‑sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

It is unclear if the RIAA will appeal this decision and further drag out this case. Major rights holders are pushing to censor the internet to the detriment of internet and national security instead among other things, so the file-sharing lawsuits have really become an outdated practice - even to the record labels by now given their different (flawed) approach to the internet these days. So, whether or not the RIAA will cut their losses at this point or vow to fight on remains to be seen. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

New Zealands Three Strikes Law was Pushed, Bought and Paid for by the US – Wikileaks

Drew Wilson — Mon, 02 May 2011 00:31:34 +0000

The slow trickle of leaked diplomatic cables from Wikileaks may not be in the headlines as much as it was when it started, but revelations keep pouring out of the website. Recently, new diplomatic cables published on the site revealed just how, not only influential the US was, but just how much control the US had over the passage of the three strikes law in New Zealand.

If there wasn't any anti-American sentiment before in New Zealand, there certainly will be for some after new diplomatic cables were published revealing the role the US had in pushing for a three strikes law in New Zealand. The New Zealand's new three strikes law was the most controversial copyright laws in the country and one of the most controverisal in the world. While the law was being proposed, debate was fierce. The law sparked repeated blackout protests where websites would black out their website logo's in protest of the law since it is widely seen as a censorship law more than a copyright enforcement law. Last month, in spite of major opposition and protests, New Zealand passed the law anyway to the dismay of the New Zealand population. Now, thanks to Wikileaks, we can see just how far back the United States was pushing New Zealand to pass that law in the first place. A diplomatic cable that was sent clear back in 2005 shows that the US was offering up money to put in new copyright laws. The cable was very detailed about the budget cost at the time:

Total costs: NZ $533,000 (US $386,158) Start-up costs: NZ $78,000 (US $56,510) Salaries: NZ $215,000 (US $155,768) Operating costs: NZ $240,000 (US $173,880) Start-up costs (NZ dollars): Furnishings $25,000 IT costs (equipment) $45,000 Sundries $8,000 Salaries (NZ dollars): Unit head $90,000 Intelligence and policy development $60,000 Licensing and enforcement officer $40,000 Administrative support $25,000 Operating costs (NZ dollars): Accommodations (rental, utilities) $55,000 IT support $15,000 Legal costs (investigation, prosecution)$75,000 Training (internet piracy, law) $50,000 Travel costs $35,000 Employer liabilities $10,000 NOTE: In U.S. dollars, legal costs would be $54,338 and training costs would be $36,225.

In another cable in 2005, we see the US saying that establishing fair use type laws being a bad idea:

The New Zealand government has proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 that would allow format-shifting, or the duplication of sound recordings to another format for a purchaser's private use without the copyright owner's permission. The amendments also would extend to all communication works a provision in the Copyright Act that permits time-shifting, or the recording of a broadcast or cable program for private use solely for the purpose of viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time or for making a complaint. The amendments were proposed and released as a cabinet paper in June 2003, after a review of how digital technology had affected the country's copyright law (see Paragraph 13). Legislation incorporating the amendments is being drafted and is expected to be introduced in Parliament in April. (ref D) As the International Intellectual Property Alliance noted in its Special 301 submission, these exceptions to copyright protection would send the wrong message to consumers and undermine efforts to curb unauthorized copying of CDs in New Zealand. They would cost the industry in revenue and profits and discourage innovation. However, Associate Minister of Commerce Judith Tizard still is discussing the issue with the music industry and has expressed a desire for a solution that satisfies all parties, although the format-shifting and time-shifting exceptions remain for now as proposed in the cabinet paper. We will continue to work with the government and industry on this issue. In the meantime, with discussions ongoing, we believe a Special 301 listing over this issue would not be helpful.

It's ironic that they would view fair use provisions like this as something that would discourage innovation since fair use in the US brings in billions to the economy. The only innovation that comes out of restricting these types of activities are ways of skirting the laws more than anything else. The question the New Zealand government is this: Should the government be passing laws that encourages innovation for future law breakers or should the government be passing laws that encourage innovation for people who contribute to society legally? That's ultimately the choice the New Zealand government faces when considering broader exceptions to copyright. In 2008, there was another diplomatic cable which showed the US considering how they would apply pressure to New Zealand:

Post recommends that New Zealand (GNZ) not/not be placed on the Special 301 List in 2008. The country's overall commitment to the protection of intellectual property (IPR) is relatively high as compared to most countries cited in the Special 301 review. Despite the slower than anticipated pace of legislative progress, the government remains committed to updating its intellectual property laws to ensure compliance with international standards, with planned revisions of the Patents Bill and the Copyright Amendments Bill ("New Technologies and Performers' Rights Bill") progressing through the legislative queue. Some momentum has been lost over the past year due to slowdown in the legislative agenda as the Government shifts its attention to upcoming elections in 2008. Though New Zealand generally provides adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IP) under current law, Post will continue to engage Members of Parliament, the Ministry of Economic Development and local IP industry in order to press our concerns that pending legislation reflects international IP standards and passage occurs in a timely fashion. To date issues raised about the draft Copyright Bill by IP industry are being considered by the government and will be monitored by Post. It's reasonable to anticipate a renewed commitment to the passage of IP legislation by the GNZ post election cycle. Placing New Zealand on the Special 301 list at this stage may prove to be counter-productive as it likely will result in a defensive rather than consultative exchange.

Michael Geist, recognizing the similarities between Canada/US relations and New Zealand/US relations in this case, commented, "That recommendation is striking when compared to the regular placement of Canada on the list, despite very similar laws." Later, in March, 2009, there was discussion specifically about the section of the copyright bill related to the three strikes law:

On February 23, five days prior to the full implementation of the ISP provisions (sections 92 a and c) in the new Copyright Bill, Minister of Commerce Simon Power suspended the ISP sections of the law from coming into full force for 30 days (end of March 2009). The Minister's action will give the IP rights holders represented by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) and the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) additional time to negotiate with the ISP trade association, the Telecommunication Carriers Forum (TCF) a mutually agreeable code of practice for terminating the internet access of users accused of infringing copyrights. Once the code of practice is adopted, the government will monitor its efficacy during the first six months after the law's enactment.

A month later, a diplomatic cable was sent noting the fierce rise in opposition to the three strikes law:

The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 was originally scheduled to go into full force on February 28, 2009 but in the weeks leading up to the deadline, public interest groups raised a chorus of concerns claiming that the law's requirement to terminate internet subscribers who allegedly "pirated" digital copyrighted materials over the internet would infringe on due process, freedom of speech and the public's right to access information. The negative publicity led to demonstrations staged in front of Parliament, organized by a group called the Creative Freedom Foundation. The publicity drew the attention of some minority party politicians who hoped to ride a new populist wave. The United Future Party's leader Peter Dunne wanted Parliament to strike section 92A entirely from the new copyright bill through an arcane legal maneuver which would have required the Governor General to quash the provision. ACT Party leader Rodney Hyde also joined in the chorus calling for repeal of the section while he castigated the previous Labour government for its "poor" drafting of the Bill. Both United and ACT are current members of the National led coalition government. In reaction, a core panel was formed within the Cabinet consisting of the Commerce Minister Simon Power, Communications/IT Minister Steven Joyce, Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman and Attorney General Chris Finlayson to develop a game plan and dampen the negative publicity. Meanwhile, Dunne had been asked by Simon Power to consider reformulating the provision in language more acceptable to the ISPs instead of stripping the law entirely of its content. The response developed by the four ministers and announced by Simon Power as lead was to suspend section 92A for 30 days during which time the IP rights holders would hammer out a code of practice with the Telecommunication Carriers Forum (TCF - industry association representing NZ's major ISPs - Telecom, Telstra, Vodafone, Kordia and Callplus) which would serve as the regulatory foundation for section 92A. The law would then go into force at the end of March and after 90 days it would be reviewed as to its appropriate application.

In response to the uprising for drafting such a poorly conceived law, the cable goes on to make the following recommendations:

Throughout the final stages of the law's (near) implementation, the Embassy continued to met with IPR stakeholders and GNZ officials to ascertain progress and encourage resolution. To determine how a "workable" section 92A provision can be secured, Econoff met with Rory McLeod, Director at Ministry of Economic Development (MED) with responsibility for IPR within GNZ along with Paula Wilson, Deputy Director for Trade Negotiations at MFAT, and was given assurance that the government remains committed to redrafting Section 92A. Embassy will continue to stress with GNZ officials the need for a shorter rather than protracted timeline for the redraft and will ascertain the details of a notice and comment period for public submissions once released by GNZ. During this hiatus we've proposed holding DVC(s) between NZ and U.S. interlocutors to possibly help with drafting and as a public diplomacy tool to dispel public misperceptions about proper role of IPR protection. U.S. agencies have the benefit of 10 years worth of experience in enforcing the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act that may serve useful to New Zealand officials in their effort to implement section 92A.

What's most hilarious about this is the fact that the embassy is citing the DMCA as a ten year success. Bruce Lehman, the architect of the DMCA, acknowledged as far back as 2007 that the DMCA was failure where blame solely rests on the shoulders of the RIAA for failing to adapt to a modern marketplace. It's very unnerving the idea that not only was the US basically lobbying New Zealand to implement very bad laws, but also citing unrelated examples and casting failed policy as success stories. It defies logic. By May, another cable showed that the US was working with the MPA and other players to try and force the issue of passing a three strikes law:

Econoff learned from Tony Eaton of the NZ Motion Picture Association (MPA) that Minister Power met on May 12 with Eaton, Campbell Smith, CEO of the Recording Industry of NZ (RIANZ), Brett Cottle, CEO Australian Performing Rights Association NZ and lawyers from the Copyright Division of the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) to discuss Power's three-step plan to re-draft and enact section 92A by end of 2009.

Apparently, the three step plan was already hammers out. The first step would be to put together a preselected panel of copyright law experts they deem worthy of redrafting the law. The second step "will be a consultative period among MED, the IPR rights holders and the NZ telecommunication firms (i.e., the NZ internet service providers - ISPs) to be concluded no later than September 2009." The third step would be to implement the recommended content to 92A. In essence, it sounds like they wanted to stage something that seems impartial so as to make the process seem more legitimate. Would government officials implement different policy if somehow the policy recommended was different than the three strikes law? Doesn't sound like it:

Minister Power has made it clear to MED officials and to industry reps that the GNZ has no intention of going back on its commitment to strengthen NZ's copyright regime. He expressed privately that he wants to avoid some of the hysterical public reaction that accompanied the last attempt to revise S92A. His plan looks to be well thought out and with the input from a panel of top IPR experts the new provision will avoid the earlier criticism of poor draftsmanship. The Embassy in the meantime has repeated its offer of assistance to GNZ officials to offer consultations with USG copyright experts through a DVC.

In short, if you criticized the three strikes law, you were simply being hysterical. Overall, if you opposed the law, you seemed to be looked upon as merely an opposition force. The good news is, the citizens of New Zealand were not alone with receiving this kind of attitude from their own government. Just look at the attitude given to Canadians when they discovered that they didn't like what they saw in the copyright laws being pushed by American interests. Overall, I think it is infuriating the way the US has conducted themselves on copyright on the international stage. In New Zealand, they are even pushing the country to implement laws even the US wouldn't dare pass themselves because of it's over-restrictiveness. I think Americans would be equally offended if, say, Chinese diplomats went to the US and dictated what laws should be passed on, say, internet laws for instance. If the US government wants to know why there is so much resentment directed to the US, maybe they should look at how the US is dictating law-making in other countries as one example why people in other countries are so fed up with American influence in the first place. With revelations like this, you'd think that governments all over the world exist only to pander to US interests at the expense of their local populations. I think, for many people in countries outside of the US, it should be shocking how little governments utilize their sovereign rights to control what goes on in their own countries. I'll be blunt on this matter. If the US waltzes in to your country and demands the country implement a three strikes law, do yourselves a favour, grow a spine and tell the US to "[insert adjective here] off". [Special thanks to Michael Geist for gathering these cables] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

New Zealand Passes Three Strikes Law

Drew Wilson — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:07:36 +0000

Is merely accusing someone of a copyright transgression enough proof to convict someone of copyright infringement? As far as New Zealand is concerned, it apparently is thanks to a recently passed copyright bill.

News has surfaced that the controversial three strikes law (The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Bill) in New Zealand has passed. Back in 2009, when the three strikes law was first introduced in legislation, there was a major outcry from free speech and internet activists. Many websites, showing solidarity against the controversial law, began blacking out their websites to show that this law amounts to censorship. This is because three accusations would be enough to disconnect and ban someone from the internet. Whether copyright had actually been infringed was beside the point. In March of 2010, it was revealed that those merely accused of copyright infringement faced up to a $15,000 fine (roughly $10,500 USD) as well. Debate later carried on through the year with supporters arguing that disconnecting someone from the internet wasn't unusual even though, at the time, France hadn't even passed their own three strikes law. How many other countries had or considered such laws at the time? South Korea is the only other country that I am aware of which passed a three strikes law in 2009. So, if one were to consider disconnection laws as 'not unusual', it would require a very liberal use of the term 'not unusual' at best. Meanwhile, those arguing against a three strikes law say that the internet has been very ingrained in our society. One can, for example, pay bills online or do other forms of banking online. In some countries, the internet is what people turn to for political discourse (i.e. commenting on a politician's blog). Sometimes, people need the internet to attend an online course that is often offered by educational institutes. These are just a few examples of how people sometimes require the internet. Unfortunately, it seems, the public outcry of the many for the most part was largely ignored (save for some very minor concessions on the law) in favour of the few multi-national corporations as it has passed the third reading. Tech Liberty has an interesting roundup of all of the developments in the bill at this point. Among the improvements is better privacy for internet account holders (essentially, the ISP is the middleman for sending e-mails back and forth between right holders and the accused). Another improvement is that the accused is now permitted to dispute accusations. The flaws found in the bill is that it's essentially guilt until proven innocent. According to AFP, the penalty of $15,000. Whether or not that is on the first accusation or the third is unclear from that article:

The new law allows for penalties of up to NZ$15,000 ($12,000) to be paid to the copyright owner and if this is ineffective offenders can have their Internet account suspended for up to six months.

The unnerving part is the fact that this will no doubt encourage multi-national corporations to pursue such laws in other countries. The excuse of international norms is an old trick used by these corporations to convince lawmakers to pass ill-conceived laws such as the three strikes laws. A three strikes law has been known to be a national security risk by some in the intelligence community because it encourages development of tougher encryption and other forms of communication that is more difficult to trace. This means that monitoring the internet for any potential terrorist activity would be far more difficult for those hoping to stop terrorism over the internet. In short, a three strikes law has the potential to increase the strength of terrorist organizations. What will be interesting to see is how things play out in New Zealand in the weeks after this law comes in to power. How many false accusations will surface (deliberate or not)? Will a copyright tribunal wind up being gummed up by tens of thousands of disputes whenever rights holders decide to do their copyright dragnets (re: Viacom vs. YouTube)? Will politicians lose support as a result of supporting such a law? Just how bad in practise will this law really be? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

French Minister Uses Non-Existent Benefits to Sell LOPPSI 2 Legislation

Drew Wilson — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 03:05:04 +0000

LOPPSI 2, the surveillance legislation in France, has been making headlines recently given that the legislation has re-entered political debate in recent weeks. The Interior Minister reportedly was out in the media telling everyone that one of the benefits of LOPPSI 2 is that it would stop cell phone theft in its tracks. Critics point to one tiny little problem with that sales-pitch - it doesn't exist in the legislation in its current form and blocking stolen phones is already possible.

LOPPSI 2 is a piece of French legislation that would make it legal for police to upload malware to suspected criminals and file-sharers alike without a court order without the users knowledge. When the story broke in 2009, it, at minimum, raised a few eyebrows. Many were quick to blast the legislation, saying that the legislation goes way too far. More recently, the legislation was back in the public spotlight in France and the Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux recently went in to the media to sell the benefits of LOPPSI 2 (Google Translation):

"Given that, I decided to take several measures," he announced. Among them, a measure "very important is that in the context of Loppsi 2, to be finally adopted at the end of the year, we change the system phones. Until now, when there had a phone stolen, they could block the SIM card. Now we can lock the phone. " "That means it will be much less attractive, naturally, to steal a phone. That's what happened 20 years ago with the radios. There were thefts of car radios, and we found ways techniques to discourage. "

In short, if LOPPSI 2 is passed, it would make stealing cell-phones/smart phones/iPhones less attractive because companies can then block the SIM cards and lock down the phone. Numerama, a French news site covering the story, points out that there is one problem with this comment, LOPPSI 2, in its current form, doesn't even discuss the theft of portable phones. Instead, there would have to be an amendment put in to make this purported benefit true. Another critic of the legislation pointed out (Google translation) that the blocking of SIM cards on stolen phones is already possible in the first place. So even if an amendment was introduced in to LOPPSI 2, there wouldn't be any added benefit on this front in the first place. Whether or not you are a fan of such intrusive surveillance laws, it's very hard to defend such a style of selling a law to the public. Trying to tell people of non-existent benefits of a proposed law is, at best, showing a sense of general ignorance to laws you helped to create in the first place and, at worse, is pushing a direct lie out in to the public. If you're going to sell the law to the public based on benefits, you'd think it is best to sell it on benefits that are actually in the legislation. We know all about what happens when lawmakers try and sell legislation they appear to know little about. Jim Prentice, when he was trying to sell Bill C-61, Canada's copyright legislation that ultimately died on the order-paper, kept telling Search Engine that a lot of what was being asked was "very technical" and wound up hanging up in the middle of the interview. Experts suggested that this was the result of the then minister not understanding the very bill he was in charge of. One thing is for sure, it didn't help him ease tensions amongst Canadians over the contentious "digital locks" or anti-circumvention law controversy. While the countries and political situations are more than likely different between Canada's Bill C-61 and France's current LOPPSI 2, it's not a stretch to suggest that the benefits of not knowing what is in the very legislation you are selling to local voters are similarly absent in both cases. Given that the French government has already forced the issue on the passage of the three strikes law (AKA HADOPI), I would say that the situation in France with regards to LOPPSI 2 is more distressing given that Canada is currently in a minority government situation - meaning that if the opposition isn't happy with what is being tabled, it can be voted down because there are more representatives in opposition than in the governing party. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on the overall privacy and surveillance debate in France though. It's unlikely that this revelation will quiet criticism towards the government though. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

HADOPI Blamed for ISP Rate Hikes in France

Drew Wilson — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:23:19 +0000

The goal of The High Authority for the Protection of works on the Internet (HADOPI) is to stop piracy, but French internet users are learning that the only thing HADOPI has effectively stopped is low rates for an internet connection. "Free", one of France's largest telecom company admitted that ISP rate hikes were "inevitable".

If you are reading this news story and reside in France right now, be prepared to pay more for the connection to view these articles. That's according to Free (Google Translation), one of the largest ISPs operating in France. The three strikes law is now being blamed for the increase in rates. One package was cited as an example. Before the new web laws took effect, users paid €29.99 (About $40.06 US). The rates went up by €5.99 to €35.98 (about $48.06 US) after HADOPI became law. A central point in all of this was explored back in August last year when it was discovered that HADOPI would cost nearly €50 million or nearly $64 Million per year (authors note: to replicate the '€' on a US keyboard, hold "alt" and type 0128 on the numpad with num lock turned on). Later on, we found out that such a figure was actually conservative and costs could be way higher. ISPs and the government were locked in a fierce debate over who should pay for it. While, by law, the government said it would pay for it, some are saying that the French government is doing what it can to delay payments, thereby forcing the ISPs to foot the bill in the end. More recently, we learned that record labels were upset that the government wasn't warning all 50,000 users each day and that the government is trying to get all the way up to warn up to 10,000 users per day. HADOPI defended these actions by arguing that HADOPI isn't set to auto-pilot. Currently, some suggest that HADOPI is only currently warning 2,000 users per day. What's ridiculous is the fact that, now, those who aren't pirating material are also being punished for these laws as well. Meanwhile, pirates are migrating to more secure sources, so the only people HADOPI is really punishing are non-pirates and pirates who don't know what they are doing. I would submit that this is just another sign of just how broken HADOPI really is. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Spanish Web Censorship Supporter Calls Opponents Dictators, Cowards and Likens Them to Terrorists

Drew Wilson — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:55:07 +0000

There are very few times we see someone who supports restricting copyright laws that are so direct, but Alejandro Sanz probably should win an award for most direct and honest opinion (and maybe rather asinine as well) of those who don't agree with his point of view on matters. Still, it appears to be quite a good indicator of just how tense the debate over Spanish web censorship has become. Maybe the defeat of the web censorship bill has only served to infuriate foreign interests as well as those who side with them.

The Sinde Law, a law that would allow the Spanish government to censor any website they deem to contain pirated material, was defeated in a government vote shortly after Wikileaks revealed that such laws were brought forth due to, what some would argue, foreign (US) interference. In spite of the law being defeated once it was brought to a vote, the minister responsible for the law vowed to pass the law anyway, regardless of any difficulty she may have passing it after it was defeated once already. Supporters of web censorship were apparently furious about the defeat of the legislation. One supporter, Alejandro Sanz in particular, took his comments quite far by likening some of the opponents to the Taliban, calling some opponents to web censorship dictators and even calling politicians who voted against the legislation coward. From the posting in question (Google Translation):

When I learned that he had rejected the law Sinde wrote in my Twitter about this, and this time, some politicians had acted cowardly and hypocritical, I keep it. I think many of them, knowing that it was a just law, voted against it because of convenience or cowardice. Either reason is unfortunate but apart from this, which of course is my opinion, the worst part is that I immediately started to receive via Twitter all kinds of insults and abuse. Some even dared to say that I do not pay taxes, others I just blurted out that Curran, in order to bully the typical arguments of zebra crossing. These misplaced are those who believe that my work and that of all workers in the music industry more and theirs are not supporting the others, who are the worst. I mean the Internet Taliban, they are glad that a hacker sites close to anyone who is in favor of this bill or against anything they think ie, is the new fascism, new dictatorship of the Lords of the Red and many politicians have joined them. This protects the pirate, the procurer of stolen songs (is white, black, eighth notes and sixteenth note), here yesterday and voted to protect the right to pirate music to keep her brothel opened and voted against the artist. ... and our rights ... Do you know how many jobs have been lost in the music because of the Taliban and their cronies, with the complicity of much of our society including many of our politicians? ... Look, this is very simple: music, culture, our cultural future depends on what we protect, we care, I feel like all of us and we demand our leaders to protect him, if not, get used to the deteriorating cultural, social impoverishment , and the Taliban. ... Because they never let them play their feuds, their parallel world where anything goes, where there are no laws ... your world ... and will lead to perverse anarchy. You will see what they want for their future generations. Turn and repeat, political masters in Spain, with respect to the music industry you have behaved like cowards and hypocrites and have done a disservice to the culture of our country. I hope you reconsider and become part of the solution. There is still time. ...If not prepare to be hostage to the Lords of the network to the rest of their lives, and oh, time ... puts everything in place.

Apparently, some supporters of Spanish web censorship really enjoy their ellipses. In all seriousness, what I find ironic here is the fact that those who chose to dislike the idea of the government saying what is or isn't right for public are the very people this person is calling the dictators here. I think there is a point that one could cross where such extreme support for restricting copyright can be an impediment to the very cause they are fighting for simply because, at least, in this case, it doesn't sound like they are able to handle defeat in a mature manner. Going so far as to insinuate that the Taliban are against web censorship is certainly a bit extreme to put it mildly. Even calling those who have the power to pass such legislation in the first place names certainly isn't very helpful. One can really only hope that Sanz isn't really representative of the businesses, including foreign ones, point of view. The group Sanz targeted in particular, the Asociación de Internautas (Association of Internet Users), issued a response (Google Translation may contain NSFW language) to this colorful opinion: Víctor Domingo already replied to Miami from the website of the most active association in defense of the network that have Spanish Internet users, members or nonmembers. We are facing a campaign contemptible about Lords of Industry to those who never needed a speaker, a forum, a radio, a newspaper or a television for personal insult and promote their work outside the free market. Issuers of government grant, do not forget that there is a big key to the multinational network (Spanish version): FM and a select few. But more serious, more serious is that the culture minister has said that you liked the article the singer Alejandro Sanz. Of course, in that same interview shows his respect for Fernando Trueba and his announcement of fiscal disobedience. What all of this will do for the debate of web censorship is unclear. What we do know is that tempers are really flaring over this. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

RIAA Wants Mastercard to Cut Off MegaUpload

Drew Wilson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:21:39 +0000

In a move seemingly inspired by the US government pressuring credit card companies and online payment services to cut off Wikileaks, the MPAA and RIAA are reportedly trying to get Mastercard, and presumably other credit card companies, to cut off sites like MegaUpload and other file-sharing and streaming sites. Some observers suggest that this is part of a new strategy for the conglomerate organizations.

A report is surfacing that the Recording Industry Association (RIAA) and the Motion Picture association of America (MPAA) are in talks with Mastercard and, presumably, other credit card companies and transaction services, to cut off cyber lockers and streaming sites. Explicitly mentioned was MegaUpload, a cyberlocker that hosts large files too large for e-mail. "MasterCard in particular deserves credit for its proactive approach to addressing rogue Web sites that dupe consumers," Mitch Glazier, executive vice president of government and industry relations said on behalf of the RIAA. "They have reached out to us and others in the entertainment community to forge what we think will be a productive and effective partnership." Cyber lockers often offer their services for free, but also offer premium services for increased bandwidth and an increase in multi-file download as well as the removal of wait times imposed. What's interesting is that Mastercard does earn profits from various transactions that happen daily. If Mastercard, American Express and Visa cut off their services to such businesses, these businesses can merely switch to other payment methods like Flattr and other smaller overseas payment methods off of US soil. What's also interesting in all of this is that there's very little that separates MegaUpload and YouTube given that MegaUpload has a system for removing copyrighted material. In essence, MegaUpload already respects the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law YouTube also respects. The only difference is that MegaUpload hosts all kinds of files whereas YouTube streams videos. Both make money off of files whether infringing or not, yet YouTube seems to be able to operate with less negative stigma than MegaUpload. The only people that seem to stand to lose out on this deal is Mastercard and any other payment services who agree to cut off their services to these sites. Why these services are going along with this is actually somewhat baffling given that COICA, the law being cited in all of this, hasn't even passed the Senate or Congress at this point. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.