Controversy has taken hold in Australia recently over what happened to a 60 year old man now charged for child abuse. The report comes from the Sydney Morning Herald which says that Chris Illingworth liked a viral video posted on YouTube so much, that he re-posted it on a similar website known as LiveLeak.

Apparently, the act of re-posting that particular video was enough to get his house raided by police. Apparently, the video was originally broadcast on US television, but authorities said that since the video was re-posted by an Australian, the Australian is subject to Australian law. Authorities also said that the child was being abused even though the clip depicts the child laughing and smiling by the end of it.

The report also says that the Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA) has contacted the defendant and offered to help defend him.

It’s unclear what authorities were looking for while raiding the defendants house.

It is no secret that the copyright industry likes to talk about morals when it comes to unauthorized downloading. Unfortunately for members of the MPAA, morals might be playing against them now. The New York Times has learned that Ryan Kavanaugh, the chief executive of Relativity Media was arrested recently.

The article says that the charges include drunk driving, speeding and driving with a suspended license.

Relativity Media is no small fish in the movie industry, financing virtually every movie studio, the biggest being NBC Universal with the recent $3 Billion deal, the previous deal funding the movie “Changling”.

The MPAA has already been having difficulties with cash – a seemingly direct result of the financial crises hitting the United States hard. We investigated how hard a little over two months ago and the outlook wasn’t looking good. Obviously, with such a big player in the financial department being detained isn’t going to help much.

Perhaps the MPAA also thought it was finally in the clear with moral conflict when they were accused of pirating “This Film is Not Yet Rated” two years ago – maybe not anymore.

Coincidently enough, the company made a $550 million dollar deal with Sony Pictures Entertainment, a company already under a lot of bad PR.

A French arm of Sony had a nightmarish story earlier this year. We broke the story that Sony was sued for software piracy and had their assets seized in France. The story brought back memories in the file-sharing community of a previous scandal known as the Sony Rootkit Scandal. Some suggested that it was a form of karma coming back to haunt the company. Sony had to settle class action lawsuits in several countries including Canada.

This latest blunder may not be of the same magnitude of Sony getting sued for software piracy, but it could continue a long list of memorable blunders the copyright industry has been involved with.

The bill (.doc) says that everyone who signs up with an “interactive service” must demand users full name, address and valid electronic mail address.

The bill also states that any “interactive service provider” that runs afoul of this faces a $500 fine on the first offense and a $1000 fine for each subsequent offense.

An early report suggests that the lawmaker intends to cut down on cyber-bullying and online harassment with these new laws. He concedes that enforcement of the bill would be difficult.

Of course, the proposed laws might be ill-conceived given the recently dropped case against Wikileaks which touched on anonymous postings regarding shady dealings with a bank.

At this time, it is unclear whether or not this bill has a snowballs chance in blank at passing and changing the first amendment rights of the US Constitution.

Hat tip: Privacy Digest.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Lawmaker_Wants_to_Ban_Anonymous_Online_Postings_Verified’;

The video argues that there is a reasonable expectation on Canadians part to expect that acts such as format shifting and time shifting is legal in Canada. The video suggests that under Canadian copyright laws, it is illegal to rip DVDs, record a TV show and put what is on a VHS to DVD.

All these acts are known as either format shifting or time shifting. It uses humor, but is also to the point on a few reasons why consumer advocates actually want a copyright reform bill tabled just as badly as some pro-restricting copyright lobbies. On many issues, though, the positions are as different as east and west.

The recent revelation won’t quiet critics of conventional email, more like give them more ammunition to say that email was never private. According to the report posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the access was not authorized. It led the FBI to subsequently destroy the records they didn’t want, blaming it on an “apparent miscommunication”. The paper can be found on the EFFs website (PDF)

The document itself says the following:

In late February 2006, a surge in data being collected by the FBI’s Engineering Research Faculty (ERF) was identified by ERF personnel. As a result ERF investigated the issue and recognized that the collection tools used to collect email communication from the subject of the investigation were improperly set and appeared to be collecting data on the entire email domain. Due to an apparent miscommunication, the private internet provider accidentally collected mail from the entire domain and susequently conveyed the email to ERF. FBI informed the private internet provider of the error and instructed them to reset their filters to collect only those communications from the subject of the investigation’s e-mail address.

The New York Times covered the story and provided the following:

The episode is an unusual example of what has become a regular if little-noticed occurrence, as American officials have expanded their technological tools: government officials, or the private companies they rely on for surveillance operations, sometimes foul up their instructions about what they can and cannot collect.

The problem has received no discussion as part of the fierce debate in Congress about whether to expand the government’s wiretapping authorities and give legal immunity to private telecommunications companies that have helped in those operations.

But an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because surveillance operations are classified, said: “It’s inevitable that these things will happen. It’s not weekly, but it’s common.”

One thing is for sure, even email domains that tout superior privatizing systems might not be so secure in ensuring the privacy of their customers. Late last year, stories surfaced over Hushmail not being that private after all. For email providers selling privacy as a feature for their emails, these revelations strike a blow to their ability to sell privacy in the first place, though could be great news to companies offering a secondary layer of encryption over emails – whether or not they work is another story entirely. This goes over top of the debate on just how much privacy a person is entitled to when online in the first place – at least in the United States.

They feel copyright issues have been steered too much by the music industry in the past and that should change. IPPR deputy directory Dr. Ian Kearns feels “it is not the music industry’s job to decide what rights consumers have that is the job of the government.”

Intellectual property laws are currently being looked at by government in Britain, but changes certainly need to be made to laws such as this that keep someone from utilizing the music they bought. Now that we are in a digital age, intellectual property laws could change to reflect personal use.

DRM has taken such a hold on the music industry that libraries and other archive systems are having a hard time making things available that before were no issue. Digital Rights Management technologies, which restrict the sharing of music or other intellectual property, are bashing attempts to preserve electronic content.

When attention is called to these matters in the US, maybe the music industry will realize there are some issues to take into account when considering DRM and other like-services. We are moving fast with technology and the laws need to move just as fast to keep up.

Lik-Sang had legal action pushed to them and it was ruled that it was illegal for the firm to import the Japanese version of the PlayStation 3 into Europe ahead of it’s release, officially due in March of ‘07. Gamers have had issue with Sony delaying the release of the PS3 in Europe but Sony claims the delay is only because of lack of stock for vital components.

Lik-Sang, tail between their legs, announced that it was going to close down on Monday, following legal action from Sony, and then took a last moment dig and named the top directors by name…for the public to see…and claimed they had purchased products from them in the past, illegally.

Sony felt this was further proof that Lik-Sang had no values by publically releasing client names, but many feel this was fair. Why would a Hong Kong import/export firm be of interest to Sony directors? They probably were like anyone else, and wanted products they could not yet gain access to in Europe.

Interesting game plan, Sony, in claiming you were only doing it to protect clients. Even more interesting, Lik-Sang, for disclosing private information right before closing your doors. Can you say “passive/agressive”?

(link to Lik-Sang is the official letter released on the site about the closure)

Russian laws do not actually apply to digital media, currently they only affect physical media. The RIAA attempted to shut down AllofMP3, but that resulted in no response from Russian prosecutors.

It is currently unknown wether or not AllofMP3 pays artists or record labels, but chances are good they are not. The German government declared AllofMP3 an illegal website, because they have no agreement with copyright holders.

Sites like AllofMP3 and MP3Search (a similar Russian service) pose a great threat to the RIAA-controlled sites like iTunes and Napster. Currently the RIAA wants to raise prices of songs on iTunes from 99 cents, which some say is absolutely ridiculous.

Russian music charges only about 10% of non-DRM protected music, in many cases you can purchase a full music album, in digital format, for under $2. The new Pink album is selling for only $1.63, while on iTunes it sells for no less than $9.99.

Not only are prices betters with services like AllofMP3 than iTunes, but all songs can be purchased in various formats, ranging from WAV-rips (highest quailty), to MP3 (typical P2P quailty) and in formats like OGG, which is considered a high-quality compression, much better than MP3.

Users are really getting more ‘bang-for-the-buck’ by purchasing from the Russian music services. Better prices and ability to do what they wish with their paid-for music. And at this point, it appears, the RIAA cannot do a single thing to stop it.