Ever since the story broke that ASCAP was accusing organizations like Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge, of undermining copyright, it set off a firestorm both in creative circles, copyright observation circles and even amongst ASCAP members. Now, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has weighed in.

The concept is simple: the music industry forms several "collecting societies," which then offer file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say a total of $5-10 per month (after all, services like Rhapsody sell all-you-can-eat music for around $10 per month, so we know the rate should be below that). So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway—share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer—without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download and share whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog

The larger of the two surveys, by the Pew Foundation, polled approximately 2,800 selfselected American musicians (Madden 2004). The Pew surveys (a group of 3) claim to be "the first largescale study that looks at artists’ and musicians’ use of the [I]nternet and their views on copyright" (ibid., 11). The specific survey relevant to the present paper queried 2,755 musicians "recruited via email notices sent to members of various music organizations, through announcements on those organizations’ Web sites and through flyers distributed at several musicians’ conferences" (ibid., 33). (While this is a predominantly selfselected group, there is no evidence that this skewed the results in any particular direction.) Of these musicians, "94% say they are songwriters, 90% say they are musical performers and 46% say they consider themselves music publishers (in addition to being either a songwriter, performer or both)" (ibid.). The first theme that emerges from the Pew survey is that musicians are quite tolerant of many activities that the publishing corporations label "piracy" and that fall into gray areas with respect to current understanding of "fair use." Nearly all feel that making a copy of music for one's personal use whether from a broadcast, a recording, the Internet, or a book is allowable (ibid., 37), and they split nearly evenly on whether making a copy of a CD or a movie for a friend should be allowed. (However, nearly all feel that selling copies of copyrighted material should be prohibited.) Similarly, strong pluralities feel that making samples of their work available for free downloading has helped their careers; but they are evenly divided on whether filesharing services benefit or hurt them. The most successful of the polled musicians (the "Success Stories") have more conservative views on these issues, but even they are far more tolerant than the big producers. For example, only 35% of the Success Stories say that filesharing services are generally bad for artists. Similarly, a significant plurality (but not a majority) 9 feel that making even personal copies of copyrighted material should be forbidden. Despite these generally liberal attitudes, twothirds of the polled musicians say that copyright holders should have "complete control over a piece of art once it is produced" (ibid., 36). We will return to this surprising datum in the final discussion. However, while "61% of those in this sample believe that current copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists’ rights, [...] 59% also say that copyright laws do more to protect those who sell art than to protect the artists themselves," the latter echoing the comments in (Greenfield and Osborn 2004). Finally, musicians, even the Success Stories, do not generally support the actions by the RIAA, which has been prominent and aggressive in pursuing what it calls illegal copying. 60% of all the musicians polled, and even 43% of the Success Stories, think that the RIAA's campaign against online music sharers will not ultimately benefit musicians and songwriters (Madden, 48). The only identified group that believe the RIAA's campaign will benefit music creators are the 138 (5%) of the polled musicians who say that their careers have "only been hurt" by free downloading, and even in this group, only 68% support the RIAA (ibid.). One of the most interesting aspects of the Pew survey is its direct comparisons between musicians and the general public on these issues (Madden, 4244). One might expect musicians to be less likely than the public to condone activities such as recording a personal copy of a TV show or burning a copy of a music CD for a friend, but the survey found the opposite. For example, 90% of polled musicians, and 73% of general artists, agree that copying music from a CD you own to your own computer should be legal, but only 66% of the general public agree (Madden, 44). However, the differences were generally not large.

Dear ASCAP, I have been a composer member of ASCAP for several years. I was disgusted by your grossly one-sided letter soliciting my contribution to your "Fund for the Arts." ASCAP has consistently misrepresented the purpose, the history, and the facts of copyright -- not to mention the mission and activities of Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other public-interest organizations -- apparently in order to fatten its royalty stream deprive musicians of the ability to use each other's work, and prevent listeners from enjoying music to which the law and the history of copyright entitle them. I recently completed a research paper on music copyright that backed up my reading of this situation. I have sent a copy of this letter and your letter, and a contribution of $100 each, to Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, and EFF. Sincerely, L Peter Deutsch

We've been hearing lots about Canada's new copyright reform bill (Bill C-32) and it's already caused quite a stir. Since it is so new, very few people have had a chance outside of government to read through the new legislation. So, we here at ZeroPaid hope to help fill that gap by giving the bill a thorough going over (as is the tradition it seems) and picking out things that are of interest.

11. (1) Section 18 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) Subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), a sound recording maker’s copyright in the sound recording also includes the sole right to do the following acts in relation to the sound recording or any substantial part of it and to authorize any of those acts: (a) to make it available to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public and to communicate it to the public by telecommunication in that way; and (b) if it is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the owner of the copyright in the sound recording.

19. (1) If a sound recording has been published, the performer and maker are entitled, subject to subsection 20(1), to be paid equitable remuneration for its performance in public or its communication to the public by telecommunication, except for a communication in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 15(1.1)(d) or 18(1.1)(a) and any retransmission. (1.1) If a sound recording has been published, the performer and maker are entitled, subject to subsections 20(1.1) and (2), to be paid equitable remuneration for its performance in public or its communication to the public by telecommunication, except for any retransmission.

(2) For the purpose of providing the remuneration mentioned in this section, a person who performs a published sound recording in public or communicates it to the public by telecommunication is liable to pay royalties

23. (1) Subject to this Act, copyright in a performer’s performance subsists until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the performance occurs. However, (a) if the performance is fixed in a sound recording before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation of the performance in a sound recording occurs; and (b) if a sound recording in which the performance is fixed is published before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the earlier of the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first publication of the sound recording occurs and the end of 99 years after the end of the calendar year in which the performance occurs.

(1.1) Subject to this Act, copyright in a sound recording subsists until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation of the sound recording occurs. However, if the sound recording is published before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first publication of the sound recording occurs.

(2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person to provide, by means of the Internet or another digital network, a service that the person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service. (2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider (a) whether the person expressly or implic- itly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement; (b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement; (c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement; (d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so; (e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and (f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.

21. Section 29 of the Act is replaced by the following: 29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.

Mosnews is reporting that the Russian interior minister is calling for an abolishment of any forms of an anonymous internet. He suggests that businesses should monitor all of the internet registrations to reduce the number of anonymous internet users. From the report:

“Violators of the law should stop abusing the openness of the Commonwealth of Intependent States’ borders,” Rashid Nurgaliev was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying Thursday.

“They should not hide in the territories where the legislation of the states pursuing them is not valid,” he said at the CIS Interior Ministries meeting in Yalta.

“Russia’s Interior Ministry has acquired enough experience fighting cyber-criminality to provide the necessary help to its CIS colleagues,” Nurgaliev said.

Of course, like the situation in pretty much every other nation around the world, tracking internet users and reducing online anonymity could prove difficult with the prevalence of services such as Tor and other anonymizing services available today.

Still, there’s an eerie resemblance to the often used argument in many other countries that says, “If you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to worry about.” While ignoring that there are legitimate reasons for people to use an anonymous service such as reporters covering sensitive issues, it also resembles the argument that only criminals would want to use such services. If this still seems to be an issue a world away from countries like the United States and bares little influence, there was a rather recent case known as the Calixte case might ring a bell where police seized someones computer on the basis of computer expertise – the police lost that case. To use an anonymous service does require a certain amount of expertise and just because you use such services doesn’t automatically make you a criminal.

While the student in the US can be thankful that his case won in the courts, it’s unclear whether Russian citizen rights will win out here.

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.

Despite the clampdown on protesters, images and video continue to leak out onto the internet documenting clashes between protesters and police.

In the beginning, China wanted to show the world that they are not restrictive on local media outlets. Another image China has been wanting to show off to the world during the Olympics is that China is harmonious. With Tibet uprisings, protests, clashes with the police, blacking out of foreign media showing the demonstrations and preventing foreign journalists from entering areas around Tibet, the protests have become a public relations nightmare for the Chinese government. As it stands right now, trying to look like an open and harmonious society has become little more than a dream at this point in time. This week, things are not improving for this ideal imagery either.

Just last week, reports surfaced that China is posting wanted ads in major Chinese web portals for 21 rioters.

It seems that the clampdown is continuing as an article in the Guardian shows:

A senior Chinese government official has said that he welcomes closer international ties to develop the country’s burgeoning digital media sector, but also delivered a stark warning to foreigners not to use “internet issues” to meddle in China’s “internal affairs”.

[...]

These misunderstandings have arisen for reasons including a “lack of knowledge” of Chinese government policies by foreign companies or cultural differences, Mingzhao added.

“[We are] willing to draw useful lessons from other countries to improve ways of building and regulating the internet,” he said, before adding a strong word of caution. “Any attempt to use internet issues to interfere in China’s internal affairs is definitely opposed”.

A day after this report was published, interestingly enough, another report pointed to how the government has ordered the shutdown of 25 entertainment websites.

The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, or SARFT, said in a statement on its Web site Friday that officials have completed a two-month audit on video entertainment and video sharing Web sites based on the new rules and decided to shut down 25.

Another 32 have been slated to be “punished” – although it wasn’t immediately clear what that entailed. Popular video sharing Web site Tudou.com was one of those listed for punishment. The list included few major players.

According to the report, under the Chinese rules, Chinese websites are prohibited from “broadcasting video that involves national secrets, hurts the reputation of China, disrupts social stability or promotes pornography”

A rough Google translation of the original news release can be found here.

It seems ironic how tightening control on websites that ‘damage Chinas reputation’ in of itself is damaging China’s reputation – maybe even more so than if there wasn’t a ban in the first place. It may remind some of the plight of the recording industry where they tried everything in their power to shut down p2p services only to have it overwhelmingly promoted instead of stopped.

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

The generic security camera has been around for years now. The private sector has made use of these cameras – namely stores that sell products – to stop activities like shop-lifting, vandalism and other forms of crime within the store setting. Today in North America, the security camera on the premises of a store or a house can be an acceptable thing – yet, what about in public places?

One of the first countries in the North Western hemisphere has made use of the CCTV camera in public places on a wide scale is Britain. The idea is to reduce crime, but some might say that the use of such cameras on a large scale encroaches on privacy. It has left many to wonder why now, every movement must be monitored. It is impossible to go from one end of London to the other without being seen in these cameras. For some, the thought of that type of society can send a chill down the spinal chord. So has the use of CCTV cameras spread?

The answer is yes. The Washington Post reported that 73 cameras went live. The report also noted:

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said she thought the department wasn’t making the most of the technology and was missing opportunities to more quickly solve crimes — or even stop them in progress. “I thought, ‘Why the heck aren’t we watching them?’ ” Lanier said.

And so, for about 40 hours a week, a small team of officers in the department’s Joint Operations Command Center watches the live feeds from 10 to 15 of the cameras. They choose locations based on the latest crime trends — focusing, for example, on areas in Southeast Washington beset by gun violence.

The District is following cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, where police have actively monitored live camera scenes for years.

The United States isn’t alone in North America. Last year, an uproar happened over the plans of installing 12,000 CCTV cameras in Toronto, Canada – in the transit network to be more precise.

What does it all mean? Are several first world countries planning on just going into an Orwellian police state with privacy being banished if you go out in public or is it simply a case of protecting civilians from crime? ZeroPaid decided to try and find the answers from the Open Rights Group, a civil liberties organization based in Britain to find out more information.

“The Open Rights Group have done very little work on CCTV in our short history.” Becky Hogge told ZeroPaid, “For some deeper study of the issues, and especially in terms of the comparisons you are seeking to make with US practice I would direct you to Liberty’s recent report ‘Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in Britain’ which has an excellent chapter (“Visual Surveillance”) on CCTV, together with some key recommendations with which we are broadly in support.”

The report contains a number of interesting points:

The experience of visual surveillance may have an impact on individuals: having a chilling effect on their willingness to take part in public activities, or behave freely in, or enter spaces covered by CCTV cameras. The presence of a large number of cameras, the sense of being continuously under surveillance, increases the risk of this reaction. The technical capacity of a scheme would also raise potential privacy issues if it recorded sound, for example, or allowed camera operators to speak to passers-by through loudspeakers. There is a need for clarity over the purpose and scope of individual schemes, to avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions on behaviour, something in which everyone has a common interest. Unnecessary surveillance may also have an adverse impact on freedom of movement.

Images of individuals captured by cameras may amount to ‘personal data’,
and the actions of searching and cross-referencing images with other information for the purpose of identification of an individual will amount to ‘personal data processing’

Most important is the requirement for fair and lawful processing; this requires that data be processed for limited purposes and not in a manner incompatible with those purposes. This principle is behind requirements for signage and a range of control room practices in public visual surveillance systems. The processor of images (whether the public body itself or a security company contractor) is responsible for ensuring that processing is carried out lawfully.

In other words, it’s not only a simple question of whether or not these actions would have an adverse impact on privacy as well as freedom of movement, but would the capturing, recording and identification of someone captured through a CCTV camera may count as the processing of personal data – not to mention if there is a system of oversight in place.

The organization that conducted the survey also notes, “There is one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK. If you live in London you are likely to be on cameras 300 times a day.”

So, naturally, London can prove to be an excellent city to look at when one has questions regarding CCTV cameras – a city that can be known for having the “ring of steel”. It appears that they also have an FAQ on CCTV cameras. Here’s a few interesting notes from the FAQ:

Strathclyde police in Scotland recently claimed a 75 per cent drop in crime following the installation of a £130,000 closed circuit TV system in Airdrie. Not only are people delighted because they are no longer afraid to go out shopping, say local police, but even criminals welcome the chance to prove their innocence by calling on evidence from the cameras.

The logic, and the statistics, are superficially impressive, but some analysts are not convinced. In a report to the Scottish Office on the impact of CCTV, Jason Ditton, Director of the Scottish Centre for Criminology, argued that many claims of crime reduction are little more than fantasy. “All (evaluations and statistics) we have seen so far are wholly unreliable”, The British Journal of Criminology went further by describing the statistics as “….post hoc shoestring efforts by the untrained and self interested practitioner”

What the public thinks of CCTV:

The extent of concern was highlighted by the outcome that more than fifty per cent of people felt neither government nor private security firms should be allowed to make decisions to allow the installation of CCTV in public places. 72 per cent agreed “these cameras could easily be abused and used by the wrong people”. 39 per cent felt that people who are in control of these systems cold not be “completely trusted to use them only for the public good”. 37 per cent felt that “in the future, cameras will be used by the government to control people”. While this response could be interpreted a number of ways, it goes to the heart of the privacy and civil rights dilemma. More than one respondent in ten believed that CCTV cameras should be banned.

In short, CCTV cameras could merely displace crime, not eliminate it. Statistics could be skewed to be in favor of those who want to put more cameras in place around various cities, and there is underlying concern for civil rights overall. The debate has not ended on whether or not it actually reduces crime at all and, above all, such systems are rather expensive to begin with.

Interestingly enough, probably the best way to summarize the debate is with what Cory Doctorow has said on a number of occasions, “Technology giveth and technology taketh away.”

Further Reading: Liberty’s page on CCTV Cameras.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/gadgets/Under_Surveillance_CCTV_Cameras_In_North_America’;