tagged w/ RIAA
-
News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch frequently tweets about how web pirates are destroying the entertainment business by stealing its content and preventing studios from making a profit. But a report by Floor64's Michael Masnick, released by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, shows the opposite is true: The entertainment industry is not being killed by the world wide web. In fact, it's exploding: "Through a decade of economic and technological upheaval, the entertainment industry grew 50 percent while consumers increased spending on entertainment," claims the report.News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch frequently tweets about how web pirates are destroying... more
-
-
-
Please sign my Petition on Whitehouse.gov site
http://wh.gov/BPU
Being in the Music Industry i think that Copyright should be enforced no doubt however with the SOPA and PIPA legislation in office that would put the internet in a major situation.
I feel they should do like what google does for malware sites put up a warning that "this site might contain" illegal downloads or music sharing and do you want to enter the site it would be up to the users to either enter the site or exit the system. There should be a warning but i think the current bill that is going through congress wont be suitable.Please sign my Petition on Whitehouse.gov site
http://wh.gov/BPU
Being in the... more
-
-
-
-
R3zn8D
-
added this
-
23 days ago
- |
-
Today is the SOPA internet blackout! Show your support, and sign the petition! Help combat online censorship, boycott those who would censor our internet for financial gain.
Sign the petition:
http://americancensorship.org/
Censor your avatar on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+:
http://www.blackoutsopa.org/
http://twibbon.com/cause/Censored—Stop-SOPA-Protest
If your are a webmaster, participate in the blackout, post an article/image to spread awareness:
http://sopastrike.com/
Blackout images stored here!Today is the SOPA internet blackout! Show your support, and sign the petition! Help... more
-
-
R3zn8D
-
added this
-
23 days ago
- |
-
As heat continues to build around the controversial and contentious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), one site is taking matters into its own hands to out opponents of piracy as pirates themselves.
YouHaveDownloaded .com is a site that keeps track of everything you have downloaded from file-sharing sites and torrents. The site tracks IP addresses (an identifying number given to computers attached to the Internet) that use sites such as the BitTorrent network. It then matches these IP addresses with a list of files that have been downloaded.
Logging into YouHaveDownloaded .com will do a quick cross-check of your IP with the site’s database of potentially pirated downloads and show you your potentially criminal download history. More impressively, you can use the site to look up other IP addresses, torrent hashes or specific files.
At time of writing, the site has a database of nearly 54 million users (IP addresses), more than 118,000 torrents and more than 2 million files.
While this sounds like trouble for illegal downloaders, the site, designed as an open tool for anyone to use, is actually being used to bust people that support stricter online piracy laws.
SOPA is a bill designed to curb and punish online copyright violations. It has been supported by media companies, especially those in Hollywood and the film business. The bill, however, would impose tough penalties on websites for any kind of copyright infringement even if it was uploaded externally. The classic example is that a video on YouTube of Justin Bieber singing another artists song without permission would not only land Bieber in court but also put YouTube at risk of shut-down. The bill has turned into a fight between Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
YouHaveDownloaded .com, however, is showing that the bill’s supporters aren’t so innocent. TorrentFreak, a BitTorrent blog, recently revealed that IP addresses seemingly coming from Sony Pictures, Universal and Fox had been illegally downloading content, ZDNet reported
All three companies are members of AFACT, a coalition of companies fighting copyright infringements. Continued at....
Continued at http://mashable.com/2011/12/15/you-have-downloaded-sopa/As heat continues to build around the controversial and contentious Stop Online Piracy... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
1 month ago
- |
-
Too little, too late, we're afraid. For the past decade or so, the RIAA (amongst others) have spent every waking hour figuring out how to best sue and frighten every internet-connected human that even dares think about an illegal download. Now that said practice has failed miserably, it's finally resorting to something sensible. The entity announced today that AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have teamed up with the RIAA and MPAA in order to agree upon a six-stage notification system that'll electronically alert internet users whenever their account is used for wrongful downloading. It's actually not all that much different than the systems that have been in place at Suddenlink for what feels like eons, but at least this creates a standard protocol that the whole lot can adhere to.
Oh, and before you ask -- under no circumstances will any of these notices result in termination of your broadband connection. There's no way an ISP would agree to such a thing, and indeed, they haven't here. The full run-down can be delved into below, but it's worth noting that no extra "watching" procedures are being put into place; your ISP will only drop you a line if a content overlord asks 'em to. Good times, no?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/08/isps-agree-on-copyright-alert-system-plan-to-notify-you-to-dea/Too little, too late, we're afraid. For the past decade or so, the RIAA (amongst... more
-
-
Right on the heels of a rash of copyright lawsuits, comes the news that your Internet Service Provider may soon become an attack dog for the film and recording industry, according to an online report. Major U.S. ISPs including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are reportedly close to an agreement with the entertainment industry to monitor how you use your Internet connection and punish you if you step out of line. The plan, which has not been finalized, calls for a "graduated response" to stop users from pirating video, music and other copyrighted content. Punishments can include bandwidth throttling and restricted Web access, according to CNET.
Here's how the plan would work: rights holders keep an eye out for copyright material being traded over peer-to-peer file sharing such as BitTorrent. The companies would then identify the pirates trading the material (presumably by IP address), and alert the ISP about the scallywag sailing their digital shores. The ISP would then send you a notice called a Copyright Alert, CNET says, warning you about your actions.
Reeducation camp
If you fail to heed the warning (and any potential subsequent warnings) you would then be subject to restrictions on your Internet service, as mentioned above, until you stop trading in copyrighted files. If that wasn't bad enough, the ISP could even go so far as to ask you to participate in a program that educates you on "copyright law and the rights of copyright holders."
There's no word on what the process would be for reintegration after you complete copyright reeducation camp. But I'm guessing your ISP restrictions won't be lifted until you declare your love for Big Brother and the Party.Right on the heels of a rash of copyright lawsuits, comes the news that your Internet... more
-
-
The Recording Industry Association of America is pushing for a new California law to help stop the piracy of CDs and DVDs. The proposed legislation would grant law enforcement officials authority to conduct warrantless searches of DVD and CD manufacturing plantsThe Recording Industry Association of America is pushing for a new California law to... more
-
-
(No pic from the web because John would probably try to find the copyright owner and sue me)
The article discusses the porn copyright lawsuits that are being filed by John Steele of wefightpiracy .com Steele | Hansmeier PLLC. Mr. Steele is best known for his 1-800-DIVORCE ads and family law firm in Chicago. What I find interesting about the article is how it mentions that Steele and his partner spent $250,000 developing software to track illegal Bittorrent activity. He also assures people in the article that his software appears to be flawless as it has never had a false positive so far. I guess that this is just the digital age, but I find it strange how an attorney is being allowed to sue people based on data coming from software that he needs to work so he can get a return on his investment. Seems like a conflict of interest. Or rather, a blatant violation of due process. Mr. Steele does not charge for his services, which means he needs the software he paid to make to consistently produce evidence that will result in a payday. The accuracy of the evidence is irrelevant, since he and his employees maintain exclusive control over it.
The "evidence" he sends to people is a printout which lists one's IP address and ISP. The same evidence is what was placed into a spreadsheet and submitted to ISPs to get the mailing addresses of subscribers. One's IP address and ISP name is publicly available information, so the evidence he submitted is half verifiable and half potentially made up. I contacted him and requested the name of his software and explanation of how it works. He said he is not required to prove anything to anyone. I have a feeling he is using proprietary software so he can try to toss out trade secret arguments in hopes of avoiding an investigation into his spreadsheet producing software.
An IP address can be manipulated and/or hijacked but he does not want to explain whether or not his software takes that into consideration. Alot of bad software can end up on a person's computer when searching the web, especially free porn sites. So what we have is a guy using his custom unproven software to sue people for $3,000 or more dollars for allegedly downloading a single porn film. I'm not sure how he justifies that price, especially since a person could sign up for pay sites that offer full access to 1000s of videos for usually about $1 per day. I realize that porn studios are struggling, but suing people for choosing to watch your video over the plethora of free porn on the internet is no way to attract customers. If someone rips an entire site, that could justify the fine. However, if a person happens to come across one of your films, watches it, and then decides that the chance to get hundreds more videos just like it for $20 a month....you have a new customer. A ten second clip will never win a person over. (You might be losing members, but that is probably because a lot of people are struggling and a porn membership simply is not as important as the electric bill or food or water or rent.) Or, you can go with John Steele who can generate a list of IP addresses who he can demand thousands of dollars from. He said his software has never been wrong. Trust him, he's a lawyer
http://www.koreaherald.com/lifestyle/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20101124000596
An individual disputing Mr. Steele's claim that his software has never had a false positive.(The use of flawless in the title should not be considered a direct quote.). He/she states that his mother is being falsely accused. In the above article, Mr. Steele even tries to joke about the possibility of a false positive: "“All you have to do is sue a priest who’s never owned a computer and this is a major PR problem,” he said. (the link to the article is directly above this so don't try to sue me John):
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/es6uw/my_mom_got_a_letter_from_an_attorney_today_about/
I would think that if the reddit article information is accurate, then threatening someone into paying you $3000 in order to make "evidence" from software you claim is flawless in terms of producing the desired result(guilty every time....I mean it always catches actual criminals[sarcasm in case someone needs clarification])(why pay $250k for it if it wasn't? You would lose money that way) disappear would mean you are committing blackmail. Of course, lawyers have their own rules sometimes.....
(One last important point I forgot to point out:
"
Steele said the porn industry is trying to avoid the highly publicized mistakes the music industry trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America, known as RIAA, made in its fight against piracy. Among other things, he said his firm’s software has so far had no “false positives” like those that gave the recording industry black eyes."[In my opinion, what he probably really means is that everyone has cracked under his threats so far.]
-from the fully cited KoreaHerald article
Take note of the fact that the article states that the RIAA's methods utilized for searching for pirates occasionally resulted in false accusations. The RIAA spent $58 million going after pirates and only made 2% back(http://gizmodo.com/#!5587306/the-riaa-spent-58-million-suing-file-sharers-got-2-back)
Mr. Steele and his partner spent about $250k in developing the software that is the basis for their evidence. They must have quite the programming team to be able to make flawless software for .004% of the cost of the RIAA's lengthy campaign)
I should point out that Mr. Steele's settlement letters tend to start out with "our agents noticed illegal activity on an IP address associated with you(not exact quote since there might be a copyright on the letter)." Our agents is the equivalent of saying our employees. People he pays to find evidence for him, have apparently never made a mistake so far. Mr. Steele even includes an assumption of guilt towards the bottom: "While it is too late to undo the illegal file sharing associated with your IP address, we have prepared an offer to enable our client to allow both parties to avoid the expense of a lawsuit."
Basically, we have a lawyer who is saying you are guilty because my employees say you are, so pay me or else
In the comment section below are some links and information about the tactics of Mr. Steele and other attorneys engaged in mass letter "blackmail" campaigns. Before anyone decides to settle, I recommend reading some of it. Unfortunately, there are lawyers looking for a quick pay day on both sides of many cases so informing oneself is often times the best route. The courts seem to be protecting Mr. Steele and his extremely questionable methods, so I sincerely suggest requesting a jury trial if you have the means. Despite Mr. Steele's client demanding one in one of his complaints, Mr. Steele would have quite the uphill battle arguing any of these cases based on merit
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that Mr. Steele files the exact same complaint every time. I just reviewed Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does and the wording and formatting is identical to Hard Drive Productions v. Does. He uses a form settlement letter and a form complaint, and then tries to pretend like he isn't just fishing for cas h
NOTE1: Anyone can PM me anytime if you would like some suggestions as to how to address issues with Mr. Steele.
NOTE2: New John Steele address:
Prenda Law Inc.------------Prenda Law of Chicago---Steele Law(John's divorce firm)
1111 Lincoln Rd----------- 161 N Clark St.-------------161 N Clark St.
Suite 400---------------------Suite 3200------------------Suite 3200
Miami Beach-----------------Chicago-----------------------Chicago
33139-------------------------60601-------------------------60601
Phone: 305-748-2102-----Ph.:312-880-9160-----------Ph.:312-893-5888(No pic from the web because John would probably try to find the copyright owner and... more
-
-
The New York Times
November 15, 2010
Apple Strikes Deal to Sell Beatles Catalog Online
By BEN SISARIO and MIGUEL HELFT
For the next generation of Beatles fans, the wait could soon be over.
Apple is expected on Tuesday to announce that it has finally struck a deal with the Beatles, the best-selling music group of all time, and the band’s record company, EMI, to sell the band’s music on iTunes, according to a person with knowledge of the private deal who requested anonymity because the agreement was still confidential.
Depending on the terms of the deal, customers for the first time will be able to buy “Please Please Me,” “Hey Jude” or “A Day in the Life” online rather than on a CD and perhaps even as individual tracks. While the move to digital does not quite rival the band’s first trip across the Atlantic to appear on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, it is an acknowledgment that online purchases dominate the music industry’s sales strategy.
Apple and EMI declined to comment, and representatives of the Beatles and Apple Corps, the band’s company (not to be confused with the technology company), could not be reached.
One of the last major holdouts against selling its music digitally, the Beatles are the ultimate prize for any music company, a group that has held on to blockbuster sales four decades after breaking up — it has sold more than 177 million albums in the United States alone, according to the Recording Industry Association of America — and held on to untouchable cultural prestige.
Since opening its iTunes music store seven years ago, Apple has reshaped the music industry and become the largest music retailer in the United States. But the Beatles catalog had always eluded the company and Steven P. Jobs, its tenacious chief executive.
Still, while getting access to the Beatles catalog has plenty of symbolic significance, it is unlikely to bolster the company’s bottom line.
“It is very symbolic because Steve Jobs is a huge fan of the Beatles,” said Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies, who has been following Apple for more than two decades.
But for all the success of Apple in becoming the largest distributor of music on the Internet, the iTunes store is not a major source of profits for the company. Apple executives have said that iTunes is roughly a “breakeven” operation.
“The music itself is a vehicle to allow them to sell more iPods and iPhones, which is where they make real money,” Mr. Bajarin said.
And despite the deal’s symbolism, its financial value for the Beatles is uncertain. About three-quarters of all albums sold in the United States are still CDs, and physical albums remain far more profitable for record companies than downloads.
Apple did its best to tease the industry — and Beatles fans — with a mysterious message on its Web site on Monday, saying that an “exciting announcement from iTunes” — one “that you’ll never forget,” no less — was coming on Tuesday at 10 a.m. Eastern time. As sharp-eyed bloggers read the tea leaves on Apple’s site and news reports began circulating — a possible reference to a Paul McCartney song, another to the semaphore symbols on the cover of the Beatles’ album “Help!” — calls began to ricochet around the music industry that the deal might be for the digital holy grail.
Mr. Jobs has tried to make a deal with EMI and the Beatles many times before, but negotiations have always broken down, usually accompanied by a flurry of online rumors, accusations and conspiracy theories. Further complicating the relationship between the parties, Apple Corps, the Beatles’ company, and Apple, the computer company, had been embroiled for decades over trademark disputes.
In the past, Paul McCartney has said that a deal for the Beatles’ digital music would have to be approved by all the band members or their heirs.
Like AC/DC, Bob Seger and a few other major acts that sell old albums in large numbers, the Beatles stand to earn far more money from sales of CDs than downloads. But with each new compilation or reissue, like the remastered versions of Beatles albums that went on sale last year, Beatles fans have shown their willingness to buy their favorite music again and again; in the 2000s, only Eminem sold more albums in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Terms of the deal, including the pricing of the songs, could not be learned. For years, Apple insisted on selling all songs for 99 cents. But in 2009, after intense pressure from the music industry and sometimes rancorous negotiations, Mr. Jobs agreed to terms that the industry called “variable pricing.” Apple now sells songs for 69 cents, 99 cents or $1.29.
As news of the deal spread throughout the music industry on Monday, many wondered if the Beatles would get s a special pricing deal.
The publicity bonanza of a major iTunes announcement could be just the thing to get fans excited. Millions of fans can already listen to their favorite Beatles albums on their iPods, iPhones and other digital music players, since they have been able to transfer tracks from their CDs to the digital devices.
“Anybody that hasn’t managed to come up with a digitized version of the Beatles’ song by now never liked the Beatles,” said John Perry Barlow, a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead and the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties organization.
But Mr. Barlow said that having the Beatles catalog on iTunes could help introduce younger listeners to songs that have become part of our collective cultural heritage.
“That music is timeless,” Mr. Barlow said. “It’s probably some of the most remarkable songwriting created by humans and there are new generations coming along that don’t already know these songs.”
Mr. Barlow the deal also represents a personal victory for Mr. Jobs.
“Steve Jobs has finally become the dominant Apple,” he said.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/16/business/16beatles_337-span/16beatles_337-395-articleInline.jpgThe New York Times
November 15, 2010
Apple Strikes Deal to Sell Beatles Catalog... more
-
-
Limewire, one of the world's biggest file-sharing websites, has been shut down by a US judge after a four-year legal battle.
In a huge victory for the record industry, New York District Judge Kimba Wood issued a permanent injunction, ordering the service to stop supplying its software and to block the sharing of unauthorised files.
The 17-page ruling requires LimeWire to 'disable the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality of the software.'
The decision puts an end to one of the world's biggest services for allowing consumers to share music, movies and TV shows for free over the internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which filed the copyright complaint against Lime Wire and its founder Mark Gorton in 2007, will now seek damages that could easily top $1billion.
RIAA lawyers told the judge that LimeWire cost the record labels about $500 million a month in lost revenue by helping users swop more than 3 billion songs a month.
They claimed Limewire's software had been downloaded from the pirates' site more than 200 million times, and 98.8 per cent of download requests were for unauthorised files.
They described Limewire's actions as "rampant" copyright infringement on a "massive scale".
LimeWire has said it has more than 50 million monthly users. These users accounted for 58 percent of people who said they downloaded music from a peer-to-peer service in 2009, a survey by NPD Group showed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324487/LimeWire-shut-Victory-record-industry-U-S-court-closes-file-sharing-site.html#ixzz13epJ3qiiLimewire, one of the world's biggest file-sharing websites, has been shut down by... more
-
-
http://www.techdirt.com/images/topic_copyright.gif
With the Senate trying to rush through COICA(http://bit.ly/9VfrsA), the online censorship bill that ignores history(http://bit.ly/drBRPg) and appears to violate both the principles of the First Amendment and due process, a bunch of concerned citizens have been speaking out(http://bit.ly/cJfMXx) against the bill, and asking the Senate not to rush it through without at least holding hearings about the massive problems with the bill.
Considering the serious concerns raised by the bill, you would think that everyone would be fine with holding such hearings. But, of course, when you know damn well that the bill almost certainly isn't Consitutional and its sole purpose is to censor upstart competitors and technologies that threaten your business model, you probably are less thrilled about hearings. And, so, it should come as no surprise that, at the end of this National Journal article about the request for hearings, the RIAA makes one of its more ridiculous statements in a while(http://bit.ly/drb3Cp) (and that takes some doing):
> "The answer from these self-styled public interest groups can't always be 'no.'
> Congressional and administration leaders have made it clear that doing nothing is
> no longer an option. If these groups have a better idea than the meaningful,
> bipartisan approach like the one put forward by Chairman Leahy, we welcome their
> ideas on how to insure that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one
> where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish."
Of course, the answer isn't always "no," but the answer absolutely can and should be "no," when the proposal involves censoring websites, removing due process, and favoring certain legacy industries over new technologies.
But the really ridiculous part is the claim that, without this law, "foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish." Just what are these sites, and which Americans are "at risk" from them? So, let's see if the RIAA can tell us which Americans are put at risk by which site -- and I'm sorry, but your inability to adapt your business model to a changing market does not put you "at risk." So, once again, it's time for the RIAA to answer a straight question: which sites are putting Americans at risk, and how will this law protect them?http://www.techdirt.com/images/topic_copyright.gif
With the Senate trying to rush... more
-
-
Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” may have topped the box office generating lots of Oscar buzz, but Academy Award nominations are the least of Mel Gibson’s problems ever since recordings surfaced of him screaming obscenities and death threats at his ex-girlfriend. Plus Tom Cruise in “Mission Impossible IV”, Larry King's replacement and much more.Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” may have topped the box office... more
-
-
Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” may have topped the box office generating lots of Oscar buzz, but Academy Award nominations are the least of Mel Gibson’s problems ever since recordings surfaced of him screaming obscenities and death threats at his ex-girlfriend. Plus Tom Cruise in “Mission Impossible IV”, Larry King's replacement and much more.Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” may have topped the box office... more
-
-
While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement. Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.
After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.
He states, "This is theft, clear and simple. It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."
The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web. Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."
According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad. Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues. Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."
Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.
Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.
The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details. It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts. It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."
The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas. The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.
The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."
Such efforts have shown mild success. After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty. The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations. The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.
The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement. It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.
Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects. One thing's for sure, though. Top politicians on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts
Guess were starting a war on media piracy next?While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking... more
-
-
Fox's Glee sounds like a fun bit of TV, and it's true to life in that it features lots of scenes in which people who care passionately about art end up copying the works they're inspired by, and share their copies. But what does it mean for Rupert Murdoch's Fox to bring us all these positive messages about remixing the culture around us as a natural part of life and creativity, even as Rupert and his family are travelling the globe, calling every act of copying theft, declaring that fair use is illegal and will be eliminated, and that every use of work, no matter how trivial, must be compensated?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/09/glee-vs-copyright-do.htmlFox's Glee sounds like a fun bit of TV, and it's true to life in that it... more
-
-
In a decision that could mean sweeping changes to file sharing in the United States, a federal court has found the company that operates file-sharing service LimeWire liable for copyright infringement, according to court records reviewed by CNET.
U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood, for the Southern District of New York, on Tuesday granted summary judgment in favor of the music industry's claims that Lime Group, parent of LimeWire software maker Lime Wire, and founder Mark Gorton committed copyright infringement, engaged in unfair competition, and induced copyright infringement.
"The evidence demonstrates that [Lime Wire] optimized LimeWire's features to ensure that users can download digital recordings, the majority of which are protected by copyright," Wood said in her 59-page decision. "And that [Lime Wire] assisted users in committing infringement."
The court decision could represent the biggest threat to online file sharing in years. According to a survey by the NPD Group, LimeWire users account for 58 percent of the people who said they downloaded music from a peer-to-peer service last year. At CNET's Download.com, the LimeWire software has been downloaded more than 200 million times. In the last week along, the software was downloaded nearly 340,000 times.
Wood's ruling could at the very least mean a shift in the downloading habits of millions. The logical next step by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the four largest recording companies, is to get a preliminary injunction and force Lime Wire to cease LimeWire's file-sharing functionality.
LimeWire responded predictably with strong opposition to the judge's decision and said it looks forward to a scheduled June 1 status conference with Wood.
"LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission," it said in a statement.
What may spell serious trouble for creators of music and video Web sites in the future is Wood's decision to hold Gorton personally liable. If the ruling stands, it could set a precedent that might dissuade other entrepreneurs from challenging the entertainment sector's copyrights when developing new technology.
The RIAA has said it is entitled to the maximum statutory damages, which is $150,000 for each registered work that was infringed. The number of infringing works they could try to claim is likely in the millions.
The RIAA first filed suit against Lime Group in August 2006 and a month later the company filed a countersuit, claiming the top labels engaged in unfair business practices designed to scare away Lime Wire's users.In a decision that could mean sweeping changes to file sharing in the United States, a... more
-
-
We've all seen the studies trumpeting massive losses to the US economy from piracy. One famous figure, used literally for decades by rightsholders and the government, said that 750,000 jobs and up to $250 billion a year could be lost in the US economy thanks to IP infringement.
A couple years ago, we thoroughly debunked that figure. For years, Business Software Alliance reports on software piracy assumed that each illicit copy was a lost sale. And the MPAA's own commissioned study on movie piracy turned out to overstate collegiate downloading by a factor of three.
Can we trust ANY of these claims about piracy?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rssWe've all seen the studies trumpeting massive losses to the US economy from... more
-
-
No, it's not what you think: a swash-buckling extra-legal pirate hunter with a musket, a clipper ship and letters of mark stalking the coasts of Somalia. It's about copyright piracy. And it's kind of sinister.
The British Secretary of State is proposing legislation that would give his position the ability to create anti-piracy legislation without Parliamentary debate. The goal is to crack down on copyright infringement in a big way.
Cory Doctorow at Boing-Boing broke the story:
This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.
This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.
This comes as some see the music industry starting to recover from a hard decade of battling piracy. The Economist wrote last week that though sales across the industry are down a third, the music business is adapting successfully. And moving beyond suing the pants of off random downloaders. Viacom's chief counsel told a group of Yale law students that suing P2P users "felt like terrorism".
Well it certainly seems like the Brits are gearing up for the sort of extralegal powers we're used to over here with our War on Terror. ...But...wait...that's backward...the terrorists are....the lawyers? Ah, somebody'll figure it out.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- Why 14.6% of America can't afford enough food - Real Recovery
- The last Supreme Leader of Iran
- Problems facing California prisons: Cell phones
- US, China to work on clean energy - No bill this year
- Did airport slaughter scene get Modern Warfare 2 banned in Russia?No, it's not what you think: a swash-buckling extra-legal pirate hunter with a... more
-
