After praising previous successes, such as the shutdown of Megaupload and the prosecution of several IMAGiNE members, Bitkower explained the evolving challenges copyright holders are dealing with.

From illegal piano rolls in the early 1900s to floppy disks a century later, new technologies have presented new threats, he argued. With the rise of broadband access this process has worsened and the most recent challenge is combating illegal streaming services.

“One new challenge confronting copyright owners and law enforcement authorities is the rise of Internet ‘streaming’ as the dominant means of disseminating many types of copyrighted content online. This activity also derives from advances in technology: in this case, the growth in availability of high-speed Internet to the average consumer,” Bitkower said.

The problem for the Department of Justice and copyright holders is that these services are harder to prosecute. Technically, streaming doesn’t count as distribution but as a public performance, which can only be charged as a misdemeanor.

The administration tried to remedy this in 2012, by implementing the SOPA and PIPA bills, but these were shelved after public outrage. Many people feared that uploading copyrighted YouTube videos could possibly land them in jail and took their concerns to the streets.

However, fast forward a few years and the same plan is back on the table.

“The Administration recommends that Congress amend the law to create a felony penalty for unauthorized Internet streaming. Specifically, we recommend the creation of legislation to establish a felony charge for infringement through unauthorized public performances conducted for commercial advantage or private financial gain,” Bitkower explained.

“It would emphasize the seriousness of the threat that unauthorized streaming poses to legitimate copyright holders, clarify the scope of conduct deemed to be illegal in order to deter potential infringers, and provide the Department with an important tool to prosecute and deter illicit Internet streaming.”

In addition to criminalizing illicit streaming, Bitkower also called for persistent funds to support its international operations. In recent years the DoJ has educated police forces abroad to deal with copyright infringement. This apparently includes training on very basic skills, such as how to connect to the Internet in the first place.

“The program has realized numerous successes, including a Ukrainian police officer who, after receiving training, was able to use a dial-up Internet connection from his home computer to bring down the largest illegal file sharing service in his country,” Bitkower said.

The international program helped to shut down Megaupload, but could also target The Pirate Bay through tools such as “diplomatic and trade-based pressure.” Worryingly, the United States has trouble getting the facts rights, as it believes that the political Pirate Party is connected to The Pirate Bay.

“In addition to the Mega Conspiracy described above, we have seen The Pirate Bay start as a file sharing site for unauthorized copies of works in Sweden, expand to other countries, and even develop its own political party in Europe,” Bitkower noted.

Mistakes aside, it’s clear that the Obama administration hasn’t lost its focus on copyright infringement.

All recommendations are aimed at more prosecutions, more international pressure and tougher punishments for pirates. Time will tell whether they can get Congress to agree this time around.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

What started as a small protest movement by activist groups developed into mainstream news when tech giants such as Google and Wikipedia joined in. Exactly a year ago following months of scattered protests there was a massive Internet blackout campaign.

As a result the balance of power tipped, and Hollywood and the music industry were forced into retreat. Soon after both bills were declared dead but that doesn’t mean that the Internet is more free than it was before.

The irony is that many of the things that were so bad about SOPA are now pretty much common practice, without any new laws being passed. Let’s take a look at three key SOPA provisions:

1. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking payment providers to stop doing business with rogue websites.

2. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking advertising networks to stop doing business with rogue websites.

3. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking search engines to stop linking to rogue websites.

Copyright groups took a lesson from the public’s revolt against SOPA and seem to be putting in more effort applying pressure behind the scenes now. Over the past 12 months we’ve seen more anti-piracy efforts than ever before involving payment processors, advertising networks and major search engines.

PayPal for example has stopped providing services to dozens of cloud hosting and Usenet companies. Copyright holders also have private agreements in place with VISA, MasterCard, CTIA, Monitise, PaySafeCard and PhonePayPlus to strangle finances to “unauthorized sites.”

When services clearly promote copyright infringement these actions may be warranted, but this is not always the case.

The same also applies to advertising networks. Various copyright groups have lobbied for a more strict policy against infringing sites, and this has now paid off through private agreements.

Similarly, copyright holders continue to put pressure on Google asking the search engine to do something about the piracy problem. Google is listening, but copyright holders themselves also upped the ante by asking Google to delete more than 50 million web pages from its search engine.

As we can see, these three examples show how copyright holders are successfully pursuing some of the SOPA provisions without any court getting involved. Again, in most cases these actions are most likely warranted, but it also affects legitimate businesses and free speech.

While it’s certainly worth remembering the defeat of SOPA and PIPA, Internet Freedom Day should mostly be a reminder of the threats that still remain. Those who want to take action against some of the current threats are welcome to take a look at the official campaign page.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Democrat party is, more often, the party of Hollywood, and so it’s no surprise to see them enacting holly-wood favorable legislation. President Obama is also a big music fan, and has drawn many big names in that industry as supporters too. As such, what can we expect from the 113^th Congress?

First, let’s take a quick look at SOPA. Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tx21) in 2011.

SOPA may come around again, as the 64yo keeps his seat with 60.6% of the vote. Nor is it the only internet law proposed by him in this last Congress. He also authored the heavily criticized “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act” requiring ISPs to retain more information on subscribers, for any use by government.

Of the initial SOPA 12 co-sponsors most kept their seats, with three exceptions, all in California. Elton Gallegly did not stand for re-election. Meanwhile two names regular readers are sure to recognize are on the chopping block as well.

First Mary Bono-Mack (R-Ca36), Sonny Bono’s widow who inherited his seat. She pushed strongly for the Sonny Bono Copyright term extinction in 98, adding another 20 years to its length. In a close election, she appears to have lost, provisionally, getting 48.6% to her Democratic challengers 51.4%.

However, the big news is the Howard Berman is out. Often referred to as ‘The Gentleman from Hollywood’, he was pitted against fellow democrat and SOPA sponsor Brad Sherman in California’s 30^th district. Sherman won with 60.5% to Berman’s 39.5%. Berman was also a major driving force behind ACTA and the earlier P2P Piracy Protection Act of 2002 (with Rep. Smith), and other similar legislation.

Of the additional 19 sponsors the bill picked up, another 3 are not coming back in January. Rep. Joe Baca lost the 35^th district of California to another democrat, while Tim Holden [D-Pa17) and Benjamin Quayle (R-Az3) lost in their primaries; both also withdrew their sponsorship in Mid-January.

On the PIPA side, there’s less change, mainly because Senate terms are 6 years, with only 33% being elected each time. Out of Bill sponsor Patrick Lehy (D-Vt) and the 32 co-sponsors, 21(including Leahy), were not up for election.

Of the remaining 14, three did not run for election – Bingaman (D-Nm), Kohl (D-Wi), Lieberman (I-Ct) – while the other 9 retained their seats. However, it was not east for some, including Sherrod Brown (D-Oh) with only 50.3% and Bob Casey, Jr (D-Pa) with 53.6%. Many more stunts like this could see them lose their seats in another 6 years.

So, will there be another SOPA/PIPA? Possibly. The Hollywood reporter suggests that it will be one of the first items on Hollywood’s agenda, and was foiled mainly due to Silicon Valley. Completely ignoring the fact that co-sponsors of both bills withdrew over public sentiment.

If the US Congress does decide to undertake another monumentally stupid act though, you’ll hear about it here, on TorrentFreak.

Note: All results are still provisional, until the results are certified by the appropriate authorities

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The intertwining between the US Government and the Entertainment lobbies are legendary and getting worse. From former Senator Chris Dodd becoming the head of the MPAA, to RIAA lawyers taking top spots at the Department of Justice, as well as judicial positions. Now they’re getting into acting as well, as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) illustrates with a cameo role in the latest Batman film. While actors have become politicians (such as Reagan and Schwarzenegger) it’s not often that serving politicians take time to act. Can you say “Holy Conflict of Interest”? Demand Progress certainly can.

But the Batman metaphor can go both ways, and leads the way for the aforementioned IDL launch. At launch parties in New York City, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. (at present) spotlights will send a message to lawmakers like Commissioner Gordon did, but to alert supporters rather than Batman.

The laughing cat symbol (or “cat signal”) is the central logo in the IDL campaign, and will soon be found on websites all over the net, proudly displayed by IDL members. Membership is available to all, and current members include Reddit, WordPress, Mozilla, the EFF, Boing Boing and more (and it goes without saying that TorrentFreak is a member as well)

“I am excited to see the future of the Internet be a bright and awesome one” said Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, “but we cannot afford to just talk about action, we must act to protect the free and vibrant Internet— which is precisely what IDL will enable Internet users to do.”

“From today onward,” said IDL and Fight for the Future founder Tiffiniy Cheng, “if there’s another terrible bill that would hurt the internet, we’ll all be ready.”

The trick for the IDL to pull off will be to keep interest and interaction going, without overuse, leading to apathy and becoming ‘routine’; or failing to act, leading to being forgotten and side-lined.

Yet even if it ends up being a failure, the precedent set by the January protest will echo in politicians minds for a while yet. It has already been emulated in Russia, where Wikipedia went dark in protest of a draft censorship bill supported by all four party factions, and will undoubtedly be repeated elsewhere soon. The line in the sand has been drawn though, will they dare to cross it.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Many experts have voiced serious concerns that should be addressed first, they say.

Among other things, the groups argue that the dubious piracy stats as reported by entertainment industry should be ignored.

Instead they ask Congress to determine the true cost of online copyright infringement from independent and unbiased sources.

“This letter shows that the opposition to SOPA and PIPA came from an extraordinarily diverse coalition of well-informed groups and companies who understood perfectly well what was in the bills. This was not an industry-led movement, it was an Internet user movement,” says Ernesto Falcon, congressional affairs director for Public Knowledge.

We attached a copy of the full letter below.

—

Dear Congress:

We the undersigned groups align ourselves with the more than 14 million Americans who joined us in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).Together we participated in the largest online protest in American history because we believe these bills would have been harmful to free speech, innovation, cyber security, and job creation. We want to thank the Members of Congress who shared our concerns and opposed these bills

Now is the time for Congress to take a breath, step back, and approach the issues from a fresh perspective. A wide variety of important concerns have been expressed – including views from technologists, law professors, international human rights groups, venture capitalists,entrepreneurs, and above all, individual Internet users.

The concerns are too fundamental and too numerous to be fully addressed through hasty revisions to these bills. Nor can they be addressed by closed door negotiations among a small set of inside the beltway stakeholders.

Furthermore, Congress must determine the true extent of online infringement and, as importantly, the economic effects of that activity, from accurate and unbiased sources, and weigh them against the economic and social costs of new copyright legislation.

Congress cannot simply accept industry estimates regarding economic and job implications of infringement given the Government Accountability Office’s clear finding in 2010 that previous statistics and
quantitative studies on the subject have been unreliable.

Finally, any future debates concerning intellectual property law in regards to the Internet must avoid taking a narrow, single-industry perspective. Too often, Congress has focused exclusively on areas where some rights holders believe existing law is too weak, without also considering the ways in which existing policies have undermined free speech and innovation. Some examples include the year-long government seizure of a lawful music blog (dajaz1.com) and the shutdown by private litigation of a lawful startup video platform (veoh.com).

The Internet’s value to the public makes it necessary that any legislative debate in this area be open, transparent, and sufficiently deliberative to allow the full range of interested parties to offer input and to evaluate specific proposals. To avoid doing so would be to repeat the mistakes of SOPA and PIPA

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The dangers and threats of the ACTA treaty are shared by free-speech advocates and access to medicine groups alike. ACTA is seeking to deal with a number of widely differing issues, and hence does not do a good job at any of them. Additionally, there are serious concerns about the collateral damage that ACTA would cause.

Regrettably, concerns by businesses, NGO’s and politicians have not led to a better result. This is partly due to the intransparant way in which ACTA has been established and negotiated. As a democratically elected representative, I believe it is not the role of government to protect outdated business models, and I do believe it is our job to ensure democratic oversight.

Besides zooming in on the details of what ACTA will and will not do, taking a step back and looking at the broader picture is also important. As someone who advocates copyright reform, notably the harmonization of copyright laws in Europe, I do not believe stricter enforcement of outdated systems is helpful or relevant. Enforcement is not even possible in many cases, and not without violating people’s fundamental rights.

Yet there is a big push towards enforcing outdated legal structures of copyright by the entertainment industry. ACTA will lock any signatory country into a system of copyright enforcement, leaving the democratic process disadvantaged to enact necessary reform of our laws to suit the digital age.

The fast development of the information society and all the innovations we have seen in the last 15 or so years have changed the way we live. People can enforce their fundamental rights of access to information, and free speech with the help of the internet. Human rights violations are documented and shared across the world, and the way we access and share information and culture such as news, music and films has changed forever. Most copyright rules were developed for the printing press and codified internationally before radio had even been invented.

Some of the most important EU laws regulating the internet were established before social media and peer-to-peer sharing took off. The E-commerce Directive of 2000 and the Copyright Directive of 2001 were enacted without foresight of the new services which were developed over the last 10 years. Time and time again, it has been proven that the Directives and their national implementations do not suit the digital age that followed directly afterwards. The fragmentation of European copyright puts the EU, which is widely known for its wealth in culture, at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to the United States.

Copyright and E-Commerce need to suit the needs of the advanced information society we now live in. To enable a flourishing Digital Single Market in Europe, we need to analyse case-law of the last 12 years regarding the internet, hear from creators, innovators and consumers. If we want to serve consumers, artists and businesses well, we need to find a new balance in copyright. Every aspect of copyright needs to be discussed: the exclusive rights, limitations and exceptions, collective management, enforcement, etc. Only then should we discuss how to enforce the new found balance on the international arena, such as with ACTA.

ACTA must not be passed. Let’s focus on reform to allow for the opportunities of the internet to bloom, instead of allowing outdated business models to limit the free market, and to criminalize audiences. Additionally, health threats as a result of counterfeit medicine deserve a better solution than ACTA. Join me in voicing your concern with this treaty, so we can establish flexible copyright rules which are fit for the 21st century.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Should the public worry more about piracy or Internet censorship?

Through a telephone survey voters were asked the following question.

“Which is a bigger problem, that some people download movies online without paying for them or that the government will censor Internet content?”

As it turns out, the majority (71%) is more worried about censorship.

That doesn’t mean that voters believe that piracy is fine though, as two thirds of the respondents agreed to a statement that piracy is theft.

However, if politicians claim to represent the people, they might take note of the result above.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Today we can add a VP at one of the major RIAA labels to this list, which is quite unique and yet another game changer.

Speaking for himself, EMI’s VP of Urban Promotions Craig Davis said that the two pending anti-piracy bills are not the way to move forward.

“Personally, I feel that the method they’re using is incorrect. All it will do is cause headaches and issues for everyone,” Davis noted.

While the EMI VP opposes PIPA and SOPA, he does admit that piracy is a problem. However, Davis thinks that the problem can be better solved from within the music industry itself. In other words, the key to solving piracy isn’t legislation, but innovation.

“I do believe that a person should be compensated for their work. I feel that piracy is a big issue, and things like Spotify will assist in combating this problem,” he said.

Reiterating this point, the EMI VP refers to comments that were recently made by Gabe Newell. The Valve co-founder said that piracy is a service issue – once you give people what they want it will mostly disappear.

“Gabe Newell is correct, it’s a service issue not an issue of money. Sales have gone up from sales concerts and merchandise, it’s obvious that our fans still love music. We’re just not giving them their music in an easier way,” Davis noted.

Adding to the above, Davis also commented negatively on DRM in a separate question that he was asked on Reddit.

“Personally I’m not happy with the way DRM is right now. We need to re-evaluate technology to find a better way to give you music,” he wrote.

Davis’ take on the piracy problem stands in clear contrast with the policy of the RIAA, who tend to prefer the repressive approach over innovation. Defining piracy as a service issue, however, is in line with the things we, and many others with us, have been saying for years.

People are happy to pay as long as they get what they want.

This is also illustrated by the fact that people are willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for premium access to file-hosting sites, often to download content that’s not available at all legally, or only in inferior quality. In recent years the music industry has caught up quite a bit by removing DRM and launching services like Spotify. But the movie industry is lagging behind, especially outside the US.

Implementing harsh anti-piracy laws and disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet doesn’t change the mismatch between what the public wants and what the industry offers. Improving availability, quality and other service issues can probably make a much bigger impact.

It’s good to see that some people in the industry are well aware of this, but we doubt that the RIAA would make itself obsolete by agreeing.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

First, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd described the blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit and others as corporate PR stunts which manipulated and exploited the sites’ users.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns,” Dodd said.

Then, a few days later when many lawmakers had already dropped their support for the anti-piracy bills, the MPAA’s comments turned even more grim. Talking to Fox News, the MPAA’s boss threatened to stop contributing to politicians who don’t back legislation designed to protect Hollywood.

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,” Dodd said.

Although it’s no secret that the movie industry has a powerful lobby in Washington, explicitly admitting that bribery is one of the tactics the MPAA uses to have their way wasn’t well received by the public. A few hours ago a White house petition was started to investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for alleged bribery.

“This is an open admission of bribery and a threat designed to provoke a specific policy goal. This is a brazen flouting of the ‘above the law’ status people of Dodd’s position and wealth enjoy,” the petition reads.

“We demand justice. Investigate this blatant bribery and indict every person, especially government officials and lawmakers, who is involved.”

In just a few hours the petition amassed more than 5,000 votes and this number is increasing rapidly. As a former Senator, Chris Dodd has many friends in Washington so it’s unclear whether the petition will accomplish anything, but if the numbers grow big enough the White House won’t be able to ignore it either.

The MPAA’s response to the PIPA and SOPA opposition this week is a sign that they might be losing control in Washington. At the very least, they are starting to lose their patience and become frustrated, which may not help their cause at this point.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Last Friday SOPA was delayed until the various stakeholders reach “consensus.”

Some declared SOPA dead as a result, but just a few days later House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith announced that the SOPA markup is expected to continue next month.

That announcement was made a day before the major blackout protests on Wednesday, and as a result of this uproar SOPA has been put on hold for the second time in a week.

“I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy,” Lamar Smith said.

“It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.””

SOPA will now be delayed until “there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Earlier today PIPA was postponed as well, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if both bills will be back in a few days.

Demand Progress Executive Director David Segal nevertheless declared victory.

“Today Internet users around the world have reason to celebrate. The battle over PIPA and SOPA will go down in history as a turning point in the battle to keep the Internet free from undue corporate and government control. But mark my words — this is just the beginning.”

“We can never allow dangerous legislation like PIPA and SOPA to move forward in any form: After the year of back-room deals that led to the drafting and near-passage of these bills, nothing less than complete transparency throughout any legislative process — with the input of Internet users — will be acceptable.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.