Tomorrow the exact text of the bill is expected to be made public, but according to early reports, the legislation will open all doors for a digital police state where alleged pirates will be crucified by private companies.

Judging from some of the plans that leaked earlier today, the endless lobbying efforts of the entertainment industry by anti-piracy outfits including IFPI and the BPI have definitely paid off.

Cory Doctorow has the scoop on BoingBoing and he told TorrentFreak that the information comes from someone “very close to the Labour government” who he trusts implicitly.

If accurate, the new legislation will be a disaster for the privacy of all Internet users while giving unprecedented powers to the entertainment industry. Under the new bill the Secretary of State would be able to pass secondary legislation without Parliamentary oversight in order to protect rights holders.

Three reasons are given:

1. The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements. (for example, he could authorize jail terms for file-sharing, or create a “three-strikes” plan that costs entire families their Internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

3. The Secretary of State would get the power to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement” (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright “militias” can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

The leaked information mainly shows that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce all kinds of draconian measures without Parliamentary oversight. More details on concrete policy dealing with alleged file-sharers and the proposed three-strikes system have yet to be announced.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

“It requires very strong and concrete evidence to have these people convicted. We simply could not lift the burden of proof,” said Antipiratgruppen lawyer Mary Fredenslund when explaining the decision to Politiken.

In just a year, four cases against alleged pirates have come before the High Court in Denmark and the overall result for the copyright holders has been negative. Three of the defendants were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, and in the one case where a file-sharer was convicted, the defendant had confessed.

Defense attorney Per Overbeck says that in addition to these outcomes, cases against two of his clients have been dropped in recent years. “Antipiratgruppen has acknowledged that they can not get people convicted without either catching them in the act or threatening them to confess,” Overbeck said. “In practice, this means that without a confession there is no case,” he added.

Per Overbeck and Antipiratgruppen’s assessment that recent High Court rulings make it virtually impossible to get individuals convicted for illegal file sharing are supported by a recent Government report from the Ministry of Culture.

According to the report, IP-addresses can only be used to identify the person paying for the Internet subscription, not the person who actually downloaded the files. The courts have ruled several times that in terms of evidence, an IP-address alone is insufficient to prove guilt.

In one case a defendant walked free after arguing that that someone else must have accessed his wireless router to download copyright infringing material.

Despite these legal setbacks for copyright holders in Denmark, it is worth noting that Danish anti-piracy tracking company DtecNet remains the main partner of the RIAA and other music groups in countries where governments are looking to implement three-strikes policies to get alleged file-sharers disconnected from the Internet.

The evidence DtecNet gathers also consists of just an IP-address. Indeed, there is no known anti-piracy method to discover who is sitting at a particular keyboard, on any particular computer, at any given time.

In the on-going trial of AFACT v iiNet, DtecNet gathered the evidence used in the case. Under cross-examination a computer forensics investigator – who was previously a key witness in the 2004 KaZaA trial – admitted that any ISP account could have multiple users in the same household, and could have other unauthorized 3rd-party users if a wireless router was compromised.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

With a vote of 407 in favor, 57 against, with 171 abstentions, EU lawmakers sent the package back to the Council in May, due to concerns that Internet users would not have their rights sufficiently protected.

After all night negotiations the deadlock was broken after a compromise agreement was reached. Internet users in all 27 EU states will be entitled to be put through a “fair and impartial procedure” (although what that means exactly is far from clear), including the right to be heard in response to allegations before being subjected to the ultimate sanction – disconnection.

Christian Engström of The Pirate Party helped to shape the modified text that was accepted in a unanimous vote last night.

“The Telecoms Reform Package neither demands nor prohibits the implementation of three-strikes legislation to disconnect alleged file-sharers by member states,” Engström told TorrentFreak, adding that if they do implement such measures, they will have to be within the parameters of the directive.

As reported by Engström, the exact text reads:

3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process.

Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

Engström said the vote for the text was a positive surprise as he thought this agreement would never happen. Although in an ideal world it is not everything he could have hoped for, it is a big step in the right direction.

“We would never have been able to achieve this without all the work that the community of net activists has put in,” he further notes. “We have shown that ordinary citizens working together can make a difference. And this is only the beginning. The Internet community has begun to flex its muscles.”

Engström told TorrentFreak that although he is happy with the outcome, there are still many battles to be fought. “Nobody should be disconnected from the Internet in an open and free society,” he said.

The European Parliament and Council is due to make a decision on the Telecoms Reform Package in late November, with the laws coming into force early 2010. Member countries will then have 18 months to pass the legislation into their own national laws.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

While the public is denied access to drafts of the controversial agreement, lawmakers continue to receive input from anti-piracy lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA. Today, the 6th round of ACTA negotiations have started in Seoul, South Korea, where representatives from the U.S, the European Union, Canada, Australia and several other countries will discuss the treaty’s content.

As happened previously, parts of the document have leaked out to the public and they reveal that the agreement’s scope is even more far-reaching than previously expected. The Internet chapter of ACTA has very little to do with counterfeiting, but adopts many of the same policies that anti-piracy lobbyists have been calling for.

Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence or a court order. If ISPs won’t do so, they will be held liable for the copyright infringements of their customers.

Similarly, all participating countries have to adopt a ‘notice and takedown’ policy where copyright holders can request ISPs to remove infringing materials, again without having to provide solid evidence or proof that they actually own the copyrights. When ISPs don’t comply with the requests they will be held liable, which means that they will be seen as pirates themselves.

Unfortunately, all parties involved in the negotiations refuse to make the ACTA plans public, effectively preventing any constructive input from the public. Yesterday, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) petitioned President Obama to change this situation and be transparent about the agreement that will affect millions of people. Until that happens we can only fear the worst.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The Danish company is not limiting its services to the RIAA though. It is also working with an Irish ISP to support their “3 strikes” regime, and in Australia the company also conducted investigations against alleged pirates.

Apart from their pirate tracking activities, DtecNet also has a business intelligence unit to help their entertainment industry clients “Understand what’s happening and where, and to develop smarter strategies to guide their development, marketing, retailing, distribution and investment initiatives.” The intelligence unit utilizes its insights into the file-sharing community to help out, but unfortunately the unit is not that knowledgeable.

In fact, the whitepaper (pdf) that was published by the DtecNet unit and mirrored all around the web during the last 24 hours, clearly shows that they have no clue about BitTorrent.

In the paper that deals with the recent downtime of the Pirate Bay tracker and how this affects BitTorrent usage, they make several false claims, draw bogus conclusions and report inaccurate statistics. Bogus reports from anti-piracy companies are nothing new, but this is definitely one of the worst we’ve ever seen thus far, and it is already being cited by several respected news outlets.

Let’s take a look at some of the things DtecNet claims and why these claims are bogus, inaccurate or just plain stupid.

Claim: — “After Swedish authorities forced the Internet disconnection of The Pirate Bay, online piracy worldwide dropped substantially on BitTorrent networks as file traders scrambled to find replacement trackers.”

This claim is based on a graph presented by DtecNet (see below) which shows that the number of infringements recorded by the company dropped significantly. This is of course a direct effect of the Pirate Bay tracker downtime. Companies like DtecNet use the tracker to find and report pirates and if it goes down there are less recorded infringements. However, there is no evidence that piracy went down. Most BitTorrent transfers were working fine due to the wonders of DHT (trackerless torrents), including the ones that were using only the Pirate Bay tracker.

Claim: — “The impact of the shutdown is strongly obvious, [...] file trading on BitTorrent, easily the world’s most popular peer-to-peer protocol, dropped virtually overnight by nearly 80 percent.”

This second claim is even more absurd because it suggests that BitTorrent usage dropped by 80 percent based on a graph of recorded infringements. Remember, DtecNet doesn’t track any BitTorrent traffic data. The only thing that their data proves is that, because of the tracker downtime, DtecNet was unable to connect to some of the trackers listed in their database of torrents. Again, the torrents might have worked just fine for users because of DHT.

Claim: — “Over time, infringements through that network [BitTorrent] began to rise again as new trackers became available.”

This seems to suggest that after the Pirate Bay trackers went down several new trackers have appeared, which is simply not true. In fact, DtecNet uses OpenBitTorrent and the Denis Stalker tracker as an example in their paper, two trackers that are hosted on the same network as The Pirate Bay tracker. The only reason the number of recorded infringements began to rise is that these trackers also suffered downtime from which they recovered. DtecNet however seems to be unaware of the relation between the three trackers.

Claim: — DtecNet has created a nice graph (below) that “illustrates the chaos the shutdown caused among various BitTorrent tracker networks, and how more recently the situation appears to be clarifying itself as users find new favorite sites.”

The only confusion we see here is at the DtecNet offices. The company apparently fails to understand that a tracker is something different than a site. There is absolutely no indication that BitTorrent users were looking for new sites (note that The Pirate Bay site was still up), but even if they were this does not mean that there will be any changes in the usage of the various trackers.

Claim: — “About two weeks after the Pirate Bay shutdown, two of the successor trackers – OpenBitTorrent and DenisStalker – temporarily shut down, possibly because they could not handle rising demand.”

This claim is almost hilarious. As pointed out earlier, OpenBitTorrent and DenisStalker are hosted on the same network as The Pirate Bay. It takes no genius to figure this out, and this should be especially obvious for an outfit that deals with BitTorrent trackers on a daily basis, trying to catch pirates. So, the two successor trackers did not collapse under the increased load at all, they went down together with The Pirate Bay.

We could go on for hours refuting pretty much every sentence in the report and we are not the only ones who dispute the know-how of DtecNet’s self-proclaimed business intelligence unit. P2P expert Dr. Pouwelse of the Tribler team at Delft University of Technology looked into the report as well and told TorrentFreak: “They are completely technically incompetent, they are just trying to get sensational press coverage, or both.”

“Mixing up terms like trackers versus website and failure to do basic homework like DNS lookups means they would fail our master course in P2P. Their work suffers from a fundamental methodological error: what our company can’t see does not exist, thus we can make wild absolute claims on a complex global phenomena,” Pouwelse said.

Companies such as DtecNet are earning millions of dollars from the entertainment industry thanks to their piracy tracking activities and the business intelligence they claim to offer. Considering this position it is striking to see how little they actually know about what’s going on, and we fear that this amateurish white paper might actually lose @DtecNetBI some customers, instead of adding new clients to their portfolio.

Chances are, DtecNet will be responsible for gathering evidence against British file-sharers so that Peter Mandelson can have them kicked off the Internet in 2011. Nice to know that important job will be in safe hands.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

However, none of this stopped the lobby groups, or the politicians looking to push for the ruling.

In the EU, the amendment, which would protect against 3-strikes laws by requiring due judicial process to occur before any sanction (such as cutting off Internet access), has been substantially watered down. Meanwhile, in France the Constitutional Court has ruled in favor of a slightly modified version of HADOPI – their legislation which includes a 3-strikes sanction.

On Tuesday, the Parliament gave up on Amendment 138, which had been voted on twice by the assembly, gaining a majority both times. The amendment was supposed to protect the rights of citizens from being treated as guilty upon the accusations of an industry group, and punished based on the same. It read;

Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

Instead, they are now considering a version which does not guarantee the right to an effective and timely judicial review.

Christian Engstrom, the Pirate Party’s MEP, commented on the amendment in his blog. He included the differences in text that have been made since Tuesday (bold denotes added text, strike-through indicates removed) in a meeting between three negotiators for the European Parliament and representatives for the Council of Ministers.

The changes included the removal of the judicial guarantee, that any measures should come only after a fair an impartial procedure (and should now just ‘respect’ such things), and the ACTA-like inclusion of ‘National Security’ clauses.

He summarized things simply, saying: “It shows utter contempt for Parliament by totally ignoring everything it says. The Council plans to bypass Parliament and once and for all prove that it is they who make the decisions, end of story.”

Meanwhile, France’s highest Constitutional Court has approved a slightly modified version of HADOPI. While initially blocked last September, a change to require a judge to sign off on the disconnection action (rather than the Agency itself) has meant it passed the Court. However, such court measures will be ‘fast tracked’ rather than given full judicial process, a situation the New York Times describes as ’similar to traffic violations’.

This has angered many, including (of course) the Pirate Party. Laurent Le Besnerais of the Parti Pirate and Pirate Party International called it “a huge blow for Internet Freedom.”

“In June 2009, this same Council declared that Internet access is a fundamental right which cannot be restricted without judicial process,” he told TorrentFreak. “Today, the council gives a judge the right and responsibility to pronounce a closure of Internet access to anyone suspected of having shared illegally. Furthermore, the suspect will have to prove his innocence, which creates a presumption of guilt.”

With the flip-flopping over these measures, it can only be seen as a greater boost for the European Pirate Parties in future elections. However, since much of the party works and draws its support online, there is the risk that members could start having their net connections cut off. With evidential standards so low, would it really be beyond the realms of possibility that political critics of these plans could end up being cut off at the say-so of those they oppose?

If all goes as planned the agency will be staffed next month, with letters starting in the new year, and terminations starting as soon as next summer. How long the law will stay once the innocent start being punished is harder to predict. As with IPRED, the people the law aims to deal with will just use seedboxes, VPNs, and open WiFi hotspots instead of their home connections.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

This week alone we’ve had an Early Day Motion from a member of Lord Mandelson’s own party, and more recently ISPs have talked about the futility of the suggested legislation.

Mandelson reportedly started pushing it after a meeting with Hollywood mogul David Geffen, and was apparently uninterested in the whole situation prior to the meeting, although that claim was flatly denied.

Now, the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group (apComms) has released its own findings to its more broad consultation, and it’s not good reading for 3-strikes proponents.

There were significantly fewer responses than for other similar consultations, although the scope was much wider. It was also much more open, without assumptions or leading questions. It was, in fact, fairly neutral and seemed to be concerned with gathering information, rather than trying to solicit support for a predetermined policy. Most appropriately, it was titled “Can we keep our hands off the net?”

The topics covered included dealing with ‘bad traffic’ (which includes copyright infringement, P2P and botnets), behavioral advertising (such as Phorm), online privacy and child pornography procedures. Finally it dealt with the issue of who should foot the bill for Internet traffic, and whether network neutrality should be codified. The first and last questions are of particular concern to TorrentFreak, and the conclusions make for interesting reading.

On the subject of P2P and copyright enforcement, they came to the following conclusions;

58. We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.
59. We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.
60. We think that it is inappropriate to make policy choices in the UK when policy options are still to be agreed by the EU Commission and EU Parliament in their negotiations over the “Telecoms Package”. We recommend that the Government terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions.

Network Neutrality and actual bandwidth availability was also a concern, with the following recommendations being made;

212. We recommend that Ofcom keep the issue of “network neutrality” under review and include a section in each annual report that indicates whether there are any signs of change.
214. We recommend that Ofcom regulate to require ISPs to advertise a minimum guaranteed speed for broadband connections.

We know that many of our UK readers will be happy with the last recommendation, especially after a study by OFCOM earlier this year found that many subscribers were seeing an average of 40% of their connection’s advertised speed. A more appropriate advertised speed will also prevent many BitTorrent clients from being setup for speeds they can’t actually achieve.

If you thought that such open minded, clearheaded and competent recommendations couldn’t have come from elected officials, well, the good news is they’re not all luddites. ApComms’s Joint-Chairman, Derek Wyatt MP was formerly Head of Programmes at WireTV, before becoming the director of BSkyB’s Computer Channel (later ‘.tv‘), leaving when he was elected to government. Other executives of apComms include a former BT researcher (Chris Mole MP), and Dr Nick Palmer MP, who has studied AI at MIT.

An extremely well-educated and technologically literate group making these recommendations should help carry some weight. Whether or not it will be enough to convince the Peter Mandelson’s and Sion Simon’s of the government, remains to be seen.

The full report is available here.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Up until yesterday, Lily was one of the most prominent supporters of a proposed 3 strikes regime to deal with alleged file-sharers – crucially one which would ultimately lead to disconnection from the Internet for those accused. However, this put her at odds with the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) who felt that disconnections are too draconian.

Yesterday, despite saying that she would not attend due to a feared media scrum, Allen attended a meeting in London of around 100 musicians including representatives from FAC in order to find some common ground to move forward.

The artists took a vote and instead of backing up Allen’s disconnection calls, went for a more palatable option – maintaining a basic level of Internet access for alleged pirates but throttling their bandwidth so that file-sharing would become impractical.

“Our meeting voted to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter, and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringers’ bandwith to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic e-mail and web access functional,” said the artists.

Lily Allen closed down her anti-piracy blog yesterday after just a few days in operation, claiming that the abuse she suffered there was too great to continue. Nevertheless, despite the fact she has backed away, the artists said they wished to express support for her anti-piracy campaign.

“We are trying to find a proportionate response to a real problem that is damaging our industry. I hope it will convince the record labels that this is a way of sending a message to file-sharers,” said Billy Bragg of FAC.

With Lily’s crowd, the Featured Artists Coalition and also UK Music likely to support throttling instead of disconnections, there appears to be a unified voice forming from the artists.

However, while we predict that Internet users will fail to respond to threats (even reduced ones such as throttling), there will be even stronger objections to the stance taken by the artists yesterday from the Big Four labels.

Having ruled out going after individual file-sharers in court, they have put all of their eggs in a single basket which relies on ISPs taking disconnection action against alleged pirates. It is hugely unlikely that they will support these watered-down proposals but we won’t have to wait long to find out. According to The Times, the labels will meet this morning and are expected to draft a letter to Lord Mandelson shortly.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Seven weeks ago, the Canadian government launched the first national copyright consultation since 2001. The consultation, which has featured town hall meetings, by-invitation-only roundtables, an online discussion forum, and an open submission process, has attracted considerable interest with over 4,000 submissions to date.

While the overwhelming majority of those submissions have called for balanced reforms that would strengthen fair dealing, create a liability safe harbour for intermediaries, and link any new anti-circumvention rules to actual copyright infringement, there is reason for concern.

There are only six days left in the consultation and the thousands that have spoken out for fair copyright – the students, teachers, Internet users, software programmers, privacy advocates, librarians, and a growing number of creators – now find themselves under attack from two sides.

On one side stand well-known copyright lobby groups such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association, the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, and the Entertainment Software Alliance. These groups largely represent foreign interests and have consistently called on the Canadian government to adopt the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act as its legislative model.

They invariably claim that Canada should be embarrassed by the current state of copyright law and propose solutions that involve a combination of DMCA-style anti-circumvention rules, a three-strikes and you’re out system that could see users cut off from the Internet, and a rejection of any new flexibilities within fair dealing.

To support those positions, the groups turned out en masse for a public town hall meeting in Toronto late last month, resulting in multiple interventions from record label executives (four from Warner Music alone). Packing the room ensured that there was virtually nothing heard from education and consumer groups, many of whom could not even attend the town hall since all the tickets were scooped up in less than five days.

Standing on the other side are copyright creator groups such as Access Copyright and the American Federation of Musicians. Access Copyright opened the consultation by ominously warning its members that “users outnumber us” and claiming that the debate is dominated by people do not believe that authors should get fair compensation for digital and other reproductions of their work (so far five out of 4038 submissions have called for the elimination of copyright).

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Musicians circulated an email to creator groups calling a leaflet distributed by an opposition Member of Parliament “disgusting” since it supported stronger fair dealing. These groups are pushing for an expanded levy system and have been quick to criticize users that don’t agree or offer up alternatives.

Faced with these vocal lobbying efforts, Canadians have just a few days left to ensure that their voices are heard. The town halls and roundtables are now over. The best way to speak out is through the online submission process that takes only a few minutes to complete. Authors such as Cory Doctorow and David Collier-Brown, technology companies such as Tucows, and groups such as Project Gutenberg Canada, the Documentary Organization of Canada, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations have all already done so.

Now is the time for Canadians concerned with copyright to add their voices. Websites such as SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca, CCER.ca, Vancouver Fair Copyright, and Digitalagenda.ca provide tools to learn more about the issues and process submissions. If you already know what you want to say, simply send an email to info@copyrightconsultation.gc.ca. Once you have spoken out, tell your friends, send the submission to your local Member of Parliament, and raise awareness that the consultation deadline is Sunday, September 13th.

Many Canadians felt anger and frustration when the government introduced DMCA-style legislation in 2008. The next six days provide a great opportunity to do more than just complain. They offer the chance to help influence the next copyright bill. Don’t wait – speak out on copyright today.

—

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

True music enthusiasts simply want to consume, sample and discover as much new music as they possibly can, and the most straightforward and convenient way to do this is through file-sharing networks. Music pirates are just regular consumers really, and they love music just as much as anyone else.

The music industry fails to realize this though and has declared war against their main source of revenue, which resulted in UK plans to disconnect alleged file-sharers. Instead of finding ways to please the changing demands of music fans in the digital era, they have chosen to defend their old models and punish the fans instead.

This trend is worrying artists, the people who actually produce the music but who are never heard when new legislative measures are drafted. Unlike the big labels they don’t want their fans to be punished for a ‘problem’ that was created by a lack of innovation from the labels.

The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (Basca) and the Music Producers Guild (MPG) have joined forces to prevent a three-strikes disconnection regime being implemented.

In a statement the broad alliance of musicians, producers and songwriters criticizes the new UK anti-piracy plans, which they labels as illogical and “extraordinarily negative”. With this move they go directly against the wishes of the major record labels who are represented by the IFPI and BPI.

Unlike the musicians, the labels are advocating stringent measures to prevent the industry from going bankrupt. To back this up they feed the legislators with dizzying numbers. Statistics that have been fabricated by the music industry itself, and blindly accepted by the UK Government.

However, in reality the anti-filesharing antics of the major music labels only continue to further alienate fans from their artists. Most musicians oppose the label’s strategies and rightly so. Music is thriving more than ever before, but now consumers and fans are taking over the distribution role.

Eventually the labels might have to give up the distribution component that has been their core business for years on end. This paints an uncertain future for the labels and that might be one of the main reasons why they are so resistant.

Luckily there are some smaller labels out these that realize that file-sharing should be embraced, not fought.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

BitTorrent: Attacked by Copyright Holders, Crushed by Courts, but Needed for Innovation.

The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites continually find themselves on the defensive. Copyright holders repeatedly threaten and sue them. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P’s vital role in fostering innovation. I would like to change that.

In my book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, I examine (1) why copyright holders continually seek to quash new technologies, (2) why courts fail to appreciate P2P, and (3) why we should lament these developments.

First, I trace the long history of copyright holders reacting with alarm to new technologies that threaten their business models. John Philip Sousa bemoaned the introduction of the player piano, which would lead to “a marked deterioration in American music.” Jack Valenti warned that the market for copyrighted movies would be “decimated, shrunken [and] collapsed” by the VCR. And the recording industry, lamenting a decline in CD sales, has sued numerous P2P services.

In fearing the potential of the new business models, copyright holders offer a classic example of market leaders that fail to appreciate disruptive innovation. A decade ago, the recording industry responded to Napster, which was striving to be “the online distribution channel for the record labels,” not by striking a deal that would have seamlessly transported the industry into the digital era, but by suing it. While the record labels may have won the battle in shutting down Napster, they began to lose the war, as former users migrated to other P2P networks.

Nor are copyright holders the only ones that fail to appreciate the new technologies. Courts also do. Why? Because of an innovation asymmetry. Courts downplay the future benefits of new technologies and overemphasize copyright owners’ present losses. Copyright owners offer evidence of losses from infringement on a silver platter.

In contrast, non-infringing uses are less tangible. It is difficult to put a dollar figure on the benefits of enhanced communication and interaction. And when a new technology is introduced, no one knows all of the beneficial uses to which it will eventually be put. I offer numerous examples of this (including, just to pick two, the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell thought would be used to broadcast the daily news, and the phonograph, which Thomas Edison thought would “record the wishes of old men on their death beds”). This asymmetry, combined with costly litigation (which ensnares small technology makers in a web of complex tests and unaffordable lawsuits) explains why courts do not sufficiently appreciate P2P.

This lack of appreciation threatens innovation. As this site’s readers are well aware, BitTorrent and other P2P protocols offer revolutionary forms of interaction and distribution. By breaking up large files into many small pieces, BitTorrent speeds up transfer, allowing the distribution of numerous works, such as home movies, independent films, TV shows, video games, educational videos, computer software, and high-resolution images. Just a few of many examples discussed on this site that have utilized BitTorrent include (1) computer manufacturer Asus, which offers fast, cheap software updates, (2) the airing of a high-definition movie in Norway, and (3) FrostWire’s offering of a service that promotes music of new artists.

Courts’ failure to appreciate P2P and BitTorrent threatens to stifle the development of new business models that attempt to free participants from the shackles of traditional distribution methods. Independent artists would find it much more difficult to break away from mainstream record labels if they lacked an inexpensive method of rapidly and widely distributing their work. Independent filmmakers would no longer be able to reach the masses, instead having to rely on boutique movie theaters or direct DVD mailings.

And of course, we can only see the tip of the P2P innovation iceberg. To pick two of countless examples, in my book I explore potential P2P benefits in providing alternatives to the Google search engine and cloud computing.

In short, the trend—as typified by developments such as the Pirate Bay decision, Malaysia’s order to shut down the tracker LeechersLair, exorbitant statutory damage awards, and various “three strikes” legislative proposals—is to clamp down ever harder on any technology that could contribute in any way to copyright infringement. But in squeezing technologies in this infringement vise, courts and copyright holders threaten to suffocate P2P innovation.

Michael’s book ‘Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law’ is available on Amazon.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

After a mountain of bad publicity, the ISP released a statement admitting that it had been “exceeding the expectations of copyright owners, the media and internet users.” Announcing a change in policy, Karoo said in future it would provide customers with three written notifications before their service was temporarily suspended.

Although this rethink was fairly well received, at TorrentFreak we wanted to find out more. How does Karoo – indeed any ISP – know that it is acting on accurate information from the copyright holders when it chooses to accuse its customers of acting illegally on their behalf? How does an ISP know that the anti-piracy companies haven’t made a terrible mistake?

We put this question to Karoo and after a few back-and-forth emails, finally received back a rather interesting statement, which included the following paragraph:

“Going forward, we will provide customers with three written notifications to make them aware that a copyright owner has alleged that their internet account has been used to infringe their copyrighted material. These letters do not accuse the customers of any wrongdoing and will offer help and support so that those customers whose internet access is being used unknowingly are able to address it.”

So far so good, but what about the earlier threat of 3 strikes and disconnections? What about the accuracy of evidence from the anti-piracy tracking companies?

“We will no longer suspend a customer’s service unless we receive a court order from a copyright owner taking legal action. As a result it is the responsibility of the legal system, not Karoo, to ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the copyright owners.”

Common sense prevails. Well done Karoo, you got there in the end. But we still haven’t had our question answered.

How does an ISP know that they are acting on accurate information when passing on copyright warnings to its customers or threatening disconnections?

If any ISP anywhere in the world is prepared to answer this important question, please feel free to get in touch. We’ve asked a few already with no success – we’re starting to think this issue is a very delicate one indeed, judging by the apparent reluctance to answer.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Details of the arrangement have been fairly limited but now an apparently leaked document gives a unique insight into the private deal put into place to allow Eircom to avoid further expensive legal action at the hands of the music industry.

The document passed to TorrentFreak, titled ‘Briefing Note on Arrangement Between Eircom and Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) with regard to Copyright Infringement March 2009′ begins by giving some background to the deal and why it was implemented.

Listing ‘Key Points of the Draft Protocol’ the document promises that Eircom will not monitor its customer activities or install equipment to achieve the same, and will not provide any customer details to any 3rd party “including the record companies” while adhering closely to laws concerning data protection.

The Evidence

The document explains that IRMA will supply Eircom with IP addresses and evidence to prove infringements. The document specifically lists not just uploading infringements on peer to peer networks but strangely, downloading too. Quite how downloading will be proven will remain to be seen.

Under the agreement, IRMA will supply the following information in their infringement notifications:

1. Details of copyright holder (name and address)
2. Why the notification is being sent (i.e. setting out the breach of copyright)
3. Details of the actual copyright work infringed (artist, song, title and album title)
4. The IP address along with a time stamp to show when the investigation was initiated
5. A time stamp to indicate when the investigation was completed
6. Details of the P2P application used by the alleged infringer
7. The hash value of the infringed copyright work

The document says that the information provided by the record companies “will be of the same type as that used in the three previous disclosure actions in the Irish High Court involving the parties,” noting that Eircom will not act on a notification which does not carry the information listed above.

Additionally, Eircom has requested that IRMA provides independent certification to show that notifications have been lawfully obtained, including “reputable annual independent certification that the necessary legal, I.T., entity level and regulatory controls relating to the obtaining, generating and processing of data by Dtecnet [the anti-piracy tracking company tasked with monitoring infringers] (or any other supplier engaged by the record companies) have been complied with.”

Handling the ‘Graduated Response’

On the first strike, Eircom will inform its customer there has been an accusation of copyright infringement. On the second accusation the customer is warned that he risks being disconnected if there are further allegations. The final step is detailed in the document as follows;

On a third occasion of being detected as infringing copyright, and having reviewed the position, the subscriber will be served by Eircom with a termination notice and, subject to extenuating circumstances arising, will be disconnected thereafter.

So what measures are there to safeguard Eircom’s customers from errors, unfounded disconnections or other mitigating circumstances?

According to the document, at all stages in the process Eircom’s customers will have the right to complain if they feel they have been “inappropriately or incorrectly identified as infringing copyright,” and will be dealt with using the ISP’s existing broadband support systems. Additionally, this section seem to provide a little room for maneuver in certain circumstances;

Eircom has also reserved the right to remove a customer from a particular level or not to effect a disconnection where Eircom has received representations or complaints and believes that the infringement as alleged has not taken place or where there are particular extenuating circumstances which would make the disconnection of the customer unjustified.

Eircom will engage with that person at all times to ensure that there is a full understanding of the issues and that any accidental or unintentional infringement can be identified and remedied.

Dealing with the ultimate sanction – disconnection.

Disconnections will only be carried out when Eircom is “totally satisfied that there is clear evidence of sustained copyright infringement, that the alleged infringing person has had sufficient opportunity to explain its circumstances and that all possibilities that the person was a victim of accidental infringement have been eliminated.”

If the main conditions are met, Eircom will then disconnect its customer based on two elements – a TOS violation (copyright infringement is not allowed on Eircom accounts) and the ISPs legal obligation to disable access to infringing content on ts network, once it has been made aware of it.

Blocking Websites

There had been rumors that Eircom had agreed to block some websites i.e The Pirate Bay, but according to the document, Eircom has not agreed to implement a website filter – on copyright grounds at least. However, as part of the settlement it was agreed that Eircom would not oppose a court application by IRMA to force it to block The Pirate Bay specifically but no other sites are mentioned.

Time will tell if the details above constitute the final agreement, but the framework seems entirely consistent with the way the music industry wants ISPs to handle infringement. This deal with Eircom will be one to watch closely.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Eircom felt this agreement would put it at a competitive disadvantage, so part of the deal would see IRMA go after Ireland’s other major ISPs too. IRMA kept that promise by going after two other ISPs – BT Communications Ireland and UPC Communications Ireland. IRMA said it targeted these ISPs since their customers share the most music.

Unlike the weak Eircom, UPC and BT say they will not go over and above their obligations under the law and have refused to capitulate to the music industry monopoly – IRMA controls 90% of recorded music in Ireland.

So next month sees Eircom become the anti-piracy partner of IRMA. It will begin acting on the inspired decision to punish its own customers, based upon allegations of copyright infringement from the music industry. On an initial allegation, Eircom’s customers will receive a warning on their bill. On a second, they will find that their connection has been slowed “to a snail’s pace” and on a third, its Internet blackout time.

All this without the need for a court either – President Sarkozy would give his right arm for this kind of unconstitutional power.

So why exactly did Eircom get into bed with IRMA when the European E-Commerce Directive clearly states that ISPs are not responsible for the data they carry?

According to some – surprise, surprise – it’s all about money. While Eircom could’ve gone through with its defense in the court case against IRMA, these things take time and can drag on for months or even years. This is the last thing Eircom needs in its current position.

The ISP is at least $5.6 billion in debt, has had five owners in the last 10 years and is currently the subject of yet another takeover bid by Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a unit of Singapore state investor Temasek Holdings.

Problematic outstanding litigation isn’t particularly attractive to prospective buyers, so the decision to settle with IRMA could have been viewed as a sensible one by Eircom, even at the risk of losing some customers.

However, according to Eircom spokesman Paul Bradley, there has been “no measurable loss” of customers moving to Ireland’s other ISPs but of course, Eircom hasn’t disconnected anyone yet. Rest assured when they do, the number moving to other ISPs will be almost identical to the numbers they disconnect.

Giving money to a company that rates your business as secondary to the needs of someone else’s business, copyright infringement or not, seems like a good situation to avoid.

Sign up with UPC here or BT here and help to finance their battle against the bullies from IRMA.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Instead of notifying its customers that they have received a letter from a copyright holder, with the claim that their IP-address is associated with illegal downloading – Karoo customers are immediately disconnected without any prior warning. As we reported last year, Karoo doesn’t even allow users to have an open router.

Andrea Robinson is one of the Karoo customers who was accused of downloading illegally, Terminator Salvation in her case. She lost her Internet connection and the only option she has to get her Internet access reinstated is by signing a form sent to her by Karoo, which says she admits guilt.

“The form basically said ‘if I admit my guilt you’ll reconnect me’. So I didn’t sign it and walked out. I’m still not reconnected,” she told the BBC. With Karoo being the only ISP in her neighborhood she is now left with no Internet, and clueless what to do about it. According to the BBC she is not the only one, as there are similar cases at Karoo dating two years back.

In the United States there is one ISP that employs a similar strategy – Cox. When Cox receives a takedown request from a copyright holder, it will disconnect the customer associated with the IP-address, if they don’t admit to being guilty. If a customer receives three takedown requests their Internet is cut off entirely.

The real problem with Karoo and Cox’s methods lies in the fact that they act upon accusations made by anti-piracy organizations who employ evidence gathering methods that are shoddy, to say the least.

In the UK, the BBC consumer show Watchdog revealed how easy it is to point the finger (and pull the plug) on the wrong person. For Karoo this means that these wrongfully accused customers will lose their Internet access, unless they admit to an offense they were not involved in.

Since Karoo is the one and only Internet provider in the area, some will feel that they have no alternative, and they will sign the “guilty” form just to get back online. The anti-piracy groups must be proud of Karoo and their reckless tactics but the ISP should stop to consider the future. Monopolies don’t last forever and the Internet has a long memory.

Update: After today’s reports Karoo decided to change their policy. Instead of disconnecting alleged pirates directly, they will operate a a three strikes and you are out rule.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Last year the chief of ISP iiNet Michael Malone labeled Conroy as “the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [Internet] industry has existed,” and this year the ISP pulled out of filtering trials, saying the filter would not work.

But criticism of Conroy don’t stop there. The proposed filtering system championed by Conroy – ostensibly for the protection of minors – isn’t even supported by those whose interests it claims to protect.

Last week Save the Children, Civil Liberties Australia and the National Children’s and Youth Law Center urged the government to abandon plans for Conroy’s filter saying that it will neither protect children from viewing explicit material, nor stop child pornography from being distributed. Let’s hope Conroy listens to these groups, because he doesn’t seem to listen to anyone else who says his plans are going nowhere.

Last night Senator Conroy unveiled a report entitled Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions while promising the government will “facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorised file sharing”.

So what kind of imaginative, creative, pioneering ideas and solutions are available for Conroy to nurture and facilitate? From the report;

One solution proposed by copyright owners is a “three strikes” or “graduated response” proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP’s customers who are suspected of unauthorised file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation. After multiple notices, a series of escalated steps could be taken with respect to the customer’s account.

The “copyright owners” who submitted this proposal includes anti-piracy group AFACT, currently engaged in hugely expensive legal action against prominent ISP iiNet, blaming it for the copyright-infringing activities of its customers.

Good luck to Conroy in “facilitating” meaningful discussions between these outfits in the future. Their relationship must be at an all-time low already, and getting lower with every dollar-sapping court appearance in these difficult financial times.

But it’s not just the entertainment industry’s relationship with ISPs that’s proving problematic when attempting to find a “solution” to the piracy issue, it appears that ISPs have no time for Conroy either. Last week the Senator was awarded the accolade of “Internet Villain of the Year” by ISPs at the 11th annual Internet Industry Awards, even beating France’s President Sarkozy to the title.

Solving the piracy “problem” is hugely difficult and complex and will only be made more so by the already faltering relationships between parties who appear to have little respect for each other, even before the process begins.

The full report can be downloaded here (.pdf)

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

After outrage in the Internet community coupled with resistance by ISPs led to a failure to reach agreement in the allocated period, Prime Minister John Key announced that the law would be have to be delayed. In the end not even a delay would be enough to reach consensus and it was announced that Section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 would not come into force on 27 March as scheduled, but instead would be amended to address areas of concern.

Prime Minister Key set Minister of Commerce Simon Power to work on a replacement and today he put those proposals to the cabinet.

The main development is that ISPs will no longer be expected to perform the role of ‘Copyright Cops’ for the entertainment industries. Instead, that role will be performed by New Zealand’s Copyright Tribunal which at least at this early stage appears to offer those accused some kind of due process via an independent body.

The bad news is that the fraught with difficulty and disproportionate response of disconnections – aka ‘3 Strikes’ – is still on the table. The new framework is proposed as follows;

Step 1: In the event that a copyright holder records an infringement of its rights by an Internet user (unauthorized uploading), they will be required to send an initial infringement notice to the corresponding ISP. Once the account holder is identified by matching the alleged infringing IP-address with customer records, the initial infringement notice will be passed to him or her, via the ISP.

Step 2: Should there be another infringement, the above process would be repeated but this time the account holder would also receive a ‘Cease and Desist’ notice. At this point an account holder would have the opportunity to respond to copyright holders.

Step 3: If after issuing a Cease and Desist notice infringements continue, the copyright holders can then apply to the Copyright Tribunal to require the corresponding ISP to hand over the personal details of the account holder. Interestingly copyright holders can already achieve something similar, simply by going directly to the courts.

Step 4: At this stage copyright holders are free to issue a complaint with the Copyright Tribunal, who will in turn notify the account holder that an additional complaint has been made against him or her. The account holder is then given the opportunity to put their side of the story and move to mediation. In this instance costs would be shared and a government-approved mediator would be provided. Should this step fail the Copyright Tribunal would decide from a range of penalties such as fines or ultimately, disconnection.

Of course, the above is not without its issues.

Right now New Zealand’s Copyright Tribunal, a body operating under the Ministry of Justice is a small concern used to dealing with smaller, more manageable copyright disputes. Indeed, currently it has only three part-time staff. It’s going to need more resources if it’s to deal with these cases effectively.

However, Matthew Holloway from The Creative Freedom Foundation believes the tribunal system could be workable;

“It’s not necessarily an unsolvable problem. It could make sense to initially restrict the number of complaints by dealing only with certain scales of infringement. The scale could be adjusted in time. This would be similar to the approach within Canada where the police have said that certain small scales of infringement won’t be investigated because they simply don’t have the resources.”

The discussion document for the amended Section 92a will be open for submissions until August 7.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

They had taken a similar stance to that of the European Parliament, deeming the proposed “3 strikes” regime for dealing with illicit file-sharers unconstitutional. They said that individuals must have a fair trial and striking an individual from the Internet is something only a judge can do after a hearing.

So now in modified form the bill is back. Moving the decision to disconnect file-sharers away from the Hadopi agency to the courts, the new version of the law addresses the objections of the Constitutional Council by presenting “3 strikes” cases to a judge, who will fast-track decisions in around 5 minutes per case.

The new structure is as follows. When an individual is warned about an infringement for a third time, the Hadopi agency will report the offender to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, issue a fine of up to 300,000 euros, or even hand out a 2 year jail sentence.

ISP account holders who find themselves accused over the infringements of a 3rd party could be found guilty of “negligence”, risking a maximum 1,500 euro fine and a 4 week disconnection.

The revamped bill was adopted today by the French Senate and in the next few weeks will head to the National Assembly for its adoption.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

After condemning the wearing of burqas by Muslim women in France and labeling it a “sign of subservience,” he moved on to HADOPI – France’s controversial anti-piracy law which aimed to implement “3 Strikes” for alleged pirates.

Earlier this month the Constitutional Council, France’s highest legal authority, deemed Internet disconnections unconstitutional, and stopped the law.

Speaking to both the Senate and the National Assembly in a joint session at Versailles Palace just outside of Paris, Sarkozy was clearly undeterred. During a 45 minute speech, he turned to the issue of Internet piracy, stating;

“How can there be areas of lawlessness in areas of our society? How can one simultaneously claim that the economy is regulated but the Internet is not so? How can we accept that the rules that apply to society as a whole are not binding on the Internet?”

Sarkozy went on to say that by championing HADOPI, he’s not just protecting artists.

“By defending copyright I do not just defend artistic creation, I also defend my idea of a free society where everyone’s freedom is based on respect for the rights of others. I am also defending the future of our culture. It is the future of creation.”

In pressing for HADOPI, Sarkozy said he will “go all the way.”

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

On the issue of standards of evidence, all responses received considered on their merit. We expect there to be differences in opinions and in information respondents choose to submit in support of their position. However we do not rely solely on such submissions or a single information source when deciding policy. …We use a range of sources to enable us to cross check and investigate claims to develop our own understanding and arrive at our own conclusions. We would always seek to collaborate or cross-check key points of information. Additionally if a party deliberately provided false information they would risk losing all credibility within Government on future consultations or discussions.

Just as a guide, here are some clear mistakes and ‘distortions’ in the submissions provided to the BERR, that we hope they have taken into account.

1 The estimated figures.

Estimated loss figures are commonplace, usually expressed as “in [year], [group] lost [amount] due to piracy”. However, in just about every case, such figures are estimated, based on a set of unlikely assumptions and figures which will maximize the claimed loss. In addition, no supporting data or the methodology used to determine the figure is ever given, even if requested. If the basis for determining the figure can not be clearly expressed, it should bring into question the validity of the claim made from it.

A prime example of the unreliability of these unsupported figures came in January 2008, when the MPAA admitted that at least one figure in their often-quoted LEK study was three times the intended figure (and who knows what the actual figure is). No independent determination of the accuracy of this revised figure can be made, as the data behind it still has not been published.

2 The echo-chamber

In one of the more curious aspects of the way the copyright industry conducts itself, companies are members of multiple groups. Sometimes these groups are a further part of other groups. For instance, ‘Television Against Piracy’ contains members from US studios. These same studios are members of the MPAA, that also filed a response. The MPA(A) is also a member of the ‘Alliance Against Intellectual Property Theft’ which filed the same brief as the British Video Association. These last two also have some of their members submit individual reports. The same is as true for the ISPs as for the rightsholder organizations. Counting responses from organizations that are represented multiple times, gives increased weight to their opinions in contrast to those that played fair and didn’t attempt to swamp the process with shell organizations like a two-bit tax-evader.

3 Redefinition of terms

Terms like “copyright theft” and “illicit P2P” are designed to give preconceptions to the reader, in much the same way the term ‘Intellectual Property’ has come to be used in recent times to encompass copyright patent and trademark law. The only time “copyright theft” can make sense, however, is for the copyright itself to be taken from its owner, rather that the right be infringed. Illicit P2P also does not exist, as the technology is legal, as is the use of it. It is only in certain circumstances that it is found to be in violation of the law, and then only after the specific case has been judged so via the judicial process. Similarly, the “graduated response” (apart from being illegal under European law) system promoted by several respondents should be more accurately termed ‘The Because We Say So response‘.

There are also technical redefinings of terms. One response (BVA/AAIPT) talks of 18,000 Nintendo Wii and 14,000 XBox ‘game files’. However, assuming the files were in the standard scene release format (multipart rars) at only 50 rars per game, that takes the Wii total down to 360, and XBox titles down to 280. Many games are split into more than 50 parts, dropping this down more. In this case, by redefining a segment of a file as a separate file, the impact of the statement can be vastly increased.

4 Illegal Activities

This should be a no-brainer. No activity is illegal until so decided, either in a court of law or by the accused admitting guilt on that particular occasion. Absent either of these, there is no illegality under the British system of presumption of innocence. The impetus for this consultation stems from the pleas to circumvent this basic system of justice by companies that want to gain rewards without any increased cost.

5 Technological filtering doesn’t work

As we saw first-hand with Comcast, attempts to disrupt a protocol can have unintended consequences. One of the respondents is a company that provides filtering systems, but the ineffectiveness of their system with the dominant P2P was described here a year ago. The filtering even of static streaming content using such systems has also taken a blow in the US with the ruling that such systems must consider context; something no technological system can do. The BBC response also underscored the futility of filtering based on file name, at the end of their contribution, where a screenshot shows a hit for Duffy, in a search for Dr Who.

6 Greater term of copyright requires greater expense for protection

With the worldwide continued copyright extensions over the past decades, the number of works that have to be protected will also increase. Thus the trade-off for increased royalty payments is the increased costs to protect these works generating the payments. In the same way that increasing a factory’s storage time of finished products requires a larger warehouse, the cost increase that comes from it is thus the responsibility of the person responsible for the increase, in this case the rights holders.

7 Rights holders are not creators

Throughout the submissions the assumption that “rights holders = creators” is often made. In some it is stated. However in very few circumstances are the rights holders actually the creative talent. In most cases they operate almost like a bank and a distribution center in one, providing financing and assistance to distribute the product, but not actually involved in the creative process itself. Were the “rights-holders” to cease, alternate sources of financing can and would be sought, as would different ways to distribute the finished product. While the quality of the product may not be the same, creativity will not come to a screeching halt and new methods to do similar things cheaply may be created – spurring innovation in that way.

8 These claims are not new

Many of the claims made are not new. With each new leap of technology the ‘creative industries’ make similar claims; the new technology will end the business and should be regulated, or outlawed, or control should be handed over. It has happened with the VCR, Cable-TV, Radio, even player pianos and the phonograph. Despite these regular (every 20 years or so) prophecies of doom, it has yet to pass. Usually common sense prevails, and the businesses adapt and flourish.

These eight points might be common sense to our regular readers, but the question will be if they have been considered at all by those responsible for the Digital Britain report. We shall shortly see.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.