ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a punishing, secretly negotiated copyright treaty that could send ordinary people to jail for copyright infringement. ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis and would create its own governing body outside existing international institution. ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years.
Sounds somewhat worrying to me. ACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil liberties for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet legitimate commerce. What is ACTA? document gives details on the agreement. The EU will soon vote on ACTA.
La Quadrature ACTA web page says that ACTA would impose new criminal sanctions forcing Internet actors to monitor and censor online communications. It is seen as a major threat to freedom of expression online and creates legal uncertainty for Internet companies. For some details read La Quadrature’s analysis of ACTA’s digital chapter.
La Quadrature du Net – NO to ACTA video (one side of the view):
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published “Speak out against ACTA“, stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture “in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting.
ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years. It seem that nobody can objectively tell us what ACTA is going to do. You should oppose it for this exact reason. What exactly it will do is so multi-faceted and so deeply buried in legal speak it requires a book or two to explain.
If you don’t like this you need to do something on that quick. The European Parliament will soon decide whether to give its consent to ACTA, or to reject it once and for all. Based on the information (maybe biased view) I have read I hope the result will be rejection.
Another worrying related thing is Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites in U.S. and outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market. Opponents say it is censorship, that it will “break the internet”, cost jobs, and will threaten whistleblowing and other free speech.
I don’t like this SOPA plan at all, because the language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes. In this form according what I have read this bill could effectively kill lots of e-commerce or even normal Internet use in it’s current form. Trying to put a man-in-the-middle into an end-to-end protocol is a dumb idea. This bill affects us all with the threat to seize foreign domains. It is frankly typical of the arrogance of the US to think we should all be subject their authority.
749 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Embedding videos can infringe copyright according to the MPAA. Are your embeds safe?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/feeds/embedding-videos-can-infringe-copyright-according-to-the-mpaa-are-your-embeds-safe/4730
Summary: The ruling in the recent copyright infringement case Flava vs Gunter has far reaching ramifications for the future of sharing – especially if the MPAA stops the reversal of the court ruling against myVidster.com
Flava alleged that myVidster infringed its copyright and trademarks by embedding links to its videos.
According to the amicus, ‘users who posted embedded links to video streams directly infringed the performance right even though they did not necessarily possess a copy of the work’. (p12)
If you post an embedded link to that Star Wars video, you are also directly infringing the performance right. The amicus also argues that ‘the broadcasting of television signals is closely analogous to the streaming of music over the internet.” So streaming TV is subject to copyright too.
The streaming argument is the reason that the extradition of Richard O’Dwyer to the US was approved by the UK government.
Users who posted infringing embedded links on myVidster ‘participated in a step in the process of the unlawful performances and displays, and therefore directly infringed the display and performance rights’.
When users link to a video, myVidster crawls the website that hosts the video and embeds the video on its own site. On clicking the link, the video is played from within the myVidster site. The source link and embed code appear on the site. Videos can be tagged so that keyword searches for content can be made.
If you embed something on your own site are you also infringing copyright?
In most cases myVidster was not actually hosting the videos, but using the embed link to the source video. This is essentially what you do every time you embed a YouTube video on your blog, or Facebook, or link to it on Google+.
However, if a user posts a link to a video which had already been embedded by myVidster, then the embed code showed the myVidster server as the hosting sever.
Browser infringement?
Cached copies of images were also questioned.
The cached copies of images on our own browser are safe. Fortunately the court in the Perfect 10 case ruled that browsers are not ’infringing copyright because their computers automatically “cached” a copy of the photo in memory’
Tomi says:
Facebook defends support for CISPA monitoring bill
Other tech sponsors strangely silent
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/14/cispa_facebook_support/
Facebook has issued a statement explained why it is supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) HR 3523, which is currently being considered by Congress.
CISPA would set up a mechanism for the government’s security services to share information on new threats with private companies and utilities. In return, those companies can share data on their users with the government if requested, and the bill ensures they are bulletproof from legal fallout if people complain. Data sharing is voluntary and some data can be stripped of identifying features.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told The Register that the provisions of the bill could be stretched to include sharing data for crimes like piracy.
“The biggest problem with the bill is that it’s too vague,” he explained. “The language in it now is broad enough that it could be used to allow, or compel companies, to do copyright enforcement.”
acebook is the only company to respond to El Reg’s requests for comment, and then it stuck to a general statement.
“HR 3523 would impose no new obligations on us to share data with anyone – and ensures that if we do share data about specific cyber threats, we are able to continue to safeguard our users’ private information, just as we do today,’ said Facebook’s Joel Kaplan, vice president of US public policy in a statement on the site.
“We recognize that a number of privacy and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the bill. The concern is that companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cybersecurity. Facebook has no intention of doing this and it is unrelated to the things we liked about HR 3523 in the first place.”
Facebook’s support was seen as important in persuading legislators to drop the proposed SOPA and PIPA laws, along with the market and lobbying muscle of Google.
In particular, the staffer said that there is a provision within CISPA that explicitly bans the government from insisting on getting information on customers in exchange for security information, and any exchange would be absolutely voluntary.
There is also no provision for the data to be used just for intellectual property theft, and the IP clauses in the bill had been included were intended to go after overseas players going after military or commercial data via network hacking, not file sharers.
“This is about foreign intelligence services and organized crime figures from overseas.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google’s Sergey Brin: China, SOPA, Facebook Threaten the ‘Open Web’
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/04/open-web-google-brin/
Google’s search engine was created when most of the web’s information was open and available to anyone willing to capture it. In today’s more restrictive environment, Sergey Brin and Google CEO Larry Page may not have even tried.
“The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open,” Brin told The Guardian. “Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”
In an interview published Sunday, Google’s co-founder cited a wide range of attacks on “the open internet,” including government censorship and interception of data, overzealous attempts to protect intellecutal property, and new communication portals that use web technologies and the internet, but under restrictive corporate control.
There are “very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world,” says Brin. “I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle.”
The fight over the SOPA/PIPA legislation, where entertainment and technology companies, along with their users, fought it out in the halls of Congress, doubtlessly lies somewhere in between.
Because of its origin and the nature of its business, Google’s prospects are inexorably tied to the fate of the open web.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Megaupload data is saved (for some time at least)
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2167833/megaupload-saved
A JUDGE HAS RULED that the imperiled Megaupload data should be preserved, for the time being at least.
The decision was made on Friday and was welcomed by the Megaupload legal team that is fighting to protect the material for the users and so they can have a look at the evidence that exists on Megaupload’s servers.
The servers that host the material are leased from Carpathia Hosting. That firm has been somewhat lumbered with them and reckons that it is costing around $9,000 a day just to keep them ticking over.
Megaupload has offered to take the financial burden back, but of course it has its money frozen, meaning that it is not in a position to do so.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Student Charged For Re-selling Textbooks
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/16/1843257/student-charged-for-re-selling-textbooks
“The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Thai student who was fined $600,000 for re-selling textbooks. Trying to make ends meet, the student had family members in Thailand mail him textbooks that were made and purchased abroad, which he then resold in the U.S. It’s a method many retailers practice every day.”
“This phenomenon is sometimes called a parallel market or grey market.’”
Thai student’s money-making effort at centre of US Supreme Court copyright case
http://news.yahoo.com/thai-students-money-making-effort-centre-us-supreme-152203267.html
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide a copyright case with important implications for the large and growing markets in discount and Internet sales.
The justices said they will hear an appeal from a Thai student doing graduate work in the United States who tried to make ends meet by re-selling textbooks that family and friends first purchased abroad. A jury awarded textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons $600,000 after deciding that math graduate student Supap Kirtsaeng infringed on the company’s copyrights
The issue at the Supreme Court is whether U.S. copyright protection applies to items that are made abroad, purchased abroad and then resold in the U.S. without the permission of the manufacturer.
Discount sellers like Costco and Target and Internet giants eBay and Amazon help form an estimated $63 billion annual market for goods that are purchased abroad, then imported and resold without the permission of the manufacturer. The U.S.-based sellers, and consumers, benefit from the common practice of manufacturers to price items more cheaply abroad than in the United States. This phenomenon is sometimes called a parallel market or grey market.
While at USC, Kirtsaeng arranged for family and friends living abroad to purchase textbooks and ship them to him. He resold the copies on eBay. Eight textbooks sold by Kirtsaeng were published by Wiley’s Asian subsidiary. The company sued the student in federal court in New York.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Aussie Case Unlikely To Solve Piracy Riddle In Fast Broadband World
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/04/17/0122211/aussie-case-unlikely-to-solve-piracy-riddle-in-fast-broadband-world
“When some of Hollywood’s biggest movie and TV studios took Australian ISP iiNet to court in 2008 — accusing it of facilitating piracy — it focused the eyes of the world downunder. Internet users and media companies alike were keen to see if the courts could figure out how to resolve the ongoing battle caused by easy, and essentially illegal, access to copyrighted material.”
The piracy riddle is not impossible, but the two sides of the argument have taken irreconcilable positions. Zero respect for IP is not ideal, and neither is absolute authority to enforce IP rights in all media and devices.
Why can’t we all just get along?
http://www.mediate.com/articles/noll9.cfm
That’s just an opinion, but I do agree with it.
But between the two, I’d much rather have the former. The problem with the latter is that it advocates collective punishment. DRM, nonsensical bills like SOPA, etc, all hurt innocents and restrict freedom. Probably more than pirates who know what they’re doing. I think collective punishment is immoral.
That said, I don’t really agree that it’s possible to stop it. The scope of the internet is too vast, and there are many who simply don’t care. I think it’s something we will have to live with, and learn to adapt to it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere ‘Turbulence’
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/18/0239212/cispa-sponsor-says-protests-are-mere-turbulence
SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as ‘turbulence on the way down to landing.’
What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable — is how little concern Rogers has for the public.
And while that’s a start, it’s no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Megaupload Worked on a Multi-Billion Dollar IPO
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-worked-on-a-multi-billion-dollar-ipo-120417/
Before Megaupload was shutdown the company was preparing to go public and enter the US stock market with a multi-billion dollar IPO. While the US authorities were conducting their criminal investigation, Megaupload had discussions with some of the ‘Big Four’ auditors and several of the world’s largest investments banks. The top of the financial world was looking at a huge potential tech IPO with a billion dollar valuation, but these plans ended abruptly in January.
In recent years Megaupload surrounded itself with some of the best lawyers who all guaranteed that the company was operating a legitimate business. In fact, Kim Dotcom informs TorrentFreak that his company was planning to enter the US stock market through one of the largest tech IPOs in history.
Megaupload was negotiating with the world’s top accountancy firms to become auditors and large international banks were interested in underwriting the public offering. Aside from an IPO, Megaupload also researched the option of becoming publicly listed through a reverse merger, where it would buy an already listed company.
“I started providing advice to Megaupload management on exploring and researching options on becoming publicly listed by IPO or back door listing and other fund-raising options in early 2011,” Lim says.
In other words, the auditors would conduct a thorough review of Megaupload on virtually all aspects, which is not generally something a criminal operation would be interested in.
Lim confirmed that the banks Megaupload talked to were very open to the IPO plan, which he believes could have been very successful.
As a profitable company that generated a healthy profit in its short existence, the company was looking at a multi-billion dollar valuation.
Lim was shocked by the news, and he believes that the IPO plan is an indication that the company isn’t really the criminal conspiracy the US authorities claim it to be.
These revelations do indeed raise many questions
Tomi Engdahl says:
GOP chairman: Google ‘supportive’ of controversial cybersecurity bill CISPA
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/221977-gop-chairman-google-supportive-of-controversial-cybersecurity-bill-cispa
Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Google has been “supportive” of his Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which has angered some of the same Internet activists who joined with Google to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
“They’ve been helpful and supportive of trying to find the right language in the bill,” Rogers said, adding that Google wants to protect consumers’ privacy and prevent regulation of the Internet.
A coalition of activist groups, including many veterans of the fight against anti-piracy legislation earlier this year, organized protests this week against CISPA, warning it would undermine online privacy.
Google played a central role in the protests against SOPA and PIPA, blacking out its logo and gathering more than 7 million signatures for a petition against the legislation.
The company warned that the anti-piracy bills would lead to censorship of the Internet.
But Rogers said technology companies support his cybersecurity bill because it relies on voluntary information-sharing to help companies combat cyberattacks.
Other supporters of CISPA include Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.
CISPA, which is scheduled for a vote in the House next week, would tear down legal barriers that discourage companies from sharing information about cyberattacks.
Tomi Engdahl says:
White House issues privacy warning on CISPA-style laws
Even Berners-Lee and the EFF weigh in
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/18/white_house_cispa/
The White House has struck a pro-privacy stance on online security legislation such as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which comes up for vote in the US House of Representatives next week.
“The nation’s critical infrastructure cyber vulnerabilities will not be addressed by information sharing alone,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told The Hill. “Information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation’s urgent needs.”
While careful not to mention CISPA by name, the White House statement comes up at an interesting time for the law. CISPA has over 100 politicians signed up in support ahead of next week’s vote but a wave of online protest has been growing against it, similar to that seen against SOPA and PIPA, with the EFF beginning a week of protests against CISPA on Monday.
“CISPA would allow ISPs, social networking sites, and anyone else handling Internet communications to monitor users and pass information to the government without any judicial oversight,” said EFF Activism Director Rainey Reitman in a statement
As it stands CISPA would set up a mechanism to disperse security updates to commercial companies and utilities. It would also allow government agencies to request personal data on suspects from companies or utilities, indemnify companies who handed it over.
Tomi Engdahl says:
RapidShare Publishes Anti-Piracy Manifesto for Cyberlockers
http://torrentfreak.com/rapidshare-publishes-anti-piracy-manifesto-for-cyberlockers-120419/
Swiss-based file-hosting service RapidShare has released an anti-piracy manifesto to serve as a guideline for cyberlocker and cloud hosting sites. Partly motivated by the criminal indictment of Megaupload, RapidShare stresses that they will do all they can to counter piracy, even if this is at the expense of user privacy and convenience.
In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, people have been keeping a close eye on other file-hosting services, RapidShare included.
And since people are moving data from local drives to the cloud at an increasing rate, these companies will undoubtedly host some copyrighted material too.
During the past several years RapidShare has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. The Swiss-based company is trying to position itself as a front-runner when it comes to responsible dealings with copyright infringers.
Emphasizing this role, the cyberlocker has just published an anti-piracy manifesto for cyberlockers, or a “responsible practices for cloud storage services” as they call it.
Tomi says:
Message from Anonymous: Music has changed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGHN_8Ay04A&context=C4b0c61eADvjVQa1PpcFNd1pjimQLlOsaQ3afjvumN0XENlzYZkP
It is time for a change in online music.
Links:
http://www.anontune.com/
Tomi Engdahl says:
French Elections Could Affect HADOPI, ACTA
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/22/2138233/french-elections-could-affect-hadopi-acta
From having a position in the development and support of ACTA, to implementation of HADOPI, to imposing an internet tax to pay for music; France has been at the forefront of anti-piracy legislation. This week, it has been announced that current President and anti-piracy advocate Nicolas Sarkozy is unlikely to win the next election. His leading opponent is a man named Francois Hollande. Hollande has in the past opposed both ACTA and HADOPI (France’s 3 strikes law).
Hollande believes that ACTA, ‘originally intended to combat counterfeiting trade[,] was gradually diverted from its objective, in the utmost discretion and without any democratic process.’
‘Piracy has been costly,’ Hollande said, ‘but I do not think that law enforcement alone is the answer to the problem.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Megaupload case near collapse: report
Farce piled upon farce
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/23/megaupload_case_in_trouble/
An American district court judge has cast doubt over the whole Megaupload trial, telling the FBI the criminal charges against Kim Dotcom may never make it to trial.
The New Zealand Herald is reporting that during a hearing in Virginia the judge, Liam O’Grady, doubted if “we are ever going to have a trial in this matter” when advised that Megaupload has never been served with papers in the US.
The company’s lawyer in America, Ira Rothken, reportedly answered that criminal charges could not be laid against Megaupload because it’s not located in US jurisdiction.
Should the case collapse in America, the only remaining recourse would be to try and secure criminal copyright-breach charges in New Zealand.
The case has been increasingly marred by legal missteps
Tomi Engdahl says:
Opposition grows to CISPA ‘Big Brother’ cybersecurity bill
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57419540-281/opposition-grows-to-cispa-big-brother-cybersecurity-bill/
Last-minute opposition to the CISPA, which has been criticized as a “Big Brother” cybersecurity bill, is growing as the U.S. House of Representatives prepares for a vote this week.
But it may not be enough to stop the U.S. House of Representatives from approving the bill on Friday.
CISPA would permit, but not require, Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records and communications to the U.S. National Security Agency and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
It’s hardly clear, however, that this wave of opposition will be sufficient.
Foes of CISPA are hoping to submit amendments that, they believe, would defang the most objectionable portions.
“There’s no secret agenda here. It’s only 19 pages,” Jaffer said. “You don’t need to be a lawyer to read this bill.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cispa cybersecurity bill opposed by Obama administration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/24/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-opposed-obama
Hillary Clinton adviser reiterates president’s opposition to Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ahead of vote
“The Obama administration opposes Cispa,” he told the Guardian. “The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation.
“[But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
House to amend cybersecurity bill, privacy group sees ‘good progress’
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223483-house-to-amend-cybersecurity-bill-privacy-group-calls-changes-good-progress
The authors of a House cybersecurity bill said Tuesday they will offer several amendments to address the concerns of privacy groups.
“In sum, good progress has been made,” CDT said in a statement. “The committee listened to our concerns and has made important privacy improvements and we applaud the committee for doing so.”
CDT said the bill still “falls short” because of the “flow of internet data directly to the NSA and the use of information for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
White House Blasts CISPA, Promises Veto
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/white-house-blasts-cispa-promises-veto.php
The White House issued a statement today that it “strongly opposes” the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in its current form in the House of Representatives over consumer privacy concerns.
The bill has been supported by some of the major technology companies in the U.S., including Facebook, Microsoft, IBM and Intel.
The White House stated that CISPA, “fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation’s core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards.”
“Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal information adequately. The Government, rather than establishing a new antitrust exemption under this bill, should ensure that information is not shared for anti-competitive purposes,” the statement says.
While it opposes CISPA, the White House did say that there needs to be legislation to address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities (such as water and the electric grid). Yet, the White House would like to achieve that, “without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
from the this-is-crazy dept
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed.shtml
Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that’s not even the worst part.
The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government’s power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.
Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.
The House passes CISPA with a vote of 248 to 168
http://thenextweb.com/us/2012/04/27/the-house-passes-cispa-with-a-vote-of-248-to-168/
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, has just passed the House by a vote of 248 to 168. The vote was largely along partisan lines, with some leaking.
The bill attracted several amendements along the way to passage today, including measures from Rogers concerning the Freedom of Information Act, and the Quayle amendment that dictated information collected could only be used in a set number of circumstances.
However, the bill’s future is murky. It has to get past the Senate, in some form, and then through the desk of the President, who yesterday floated a veto threat of the Act, signaling unhappiness with its potential lack of privacy controls.
Many have found the bill to be troublesome, given that, in their estimation, its language was too broad to be safe.
Tomi Engdahl says:
- Cispa abrogate every single private cyber security Protection Act in the name, says the representative of the Colorado Democrat Jared Polis.
According to him, the bill allows the armed forces and the NSA spy on Americans on American soil. This violates all of the United States behind the establishment of principles.
The bill itself does not increase the safety authority, but it gives companies the right to distribute “threat information” from both the authorities and with other companies.
Source: http://www.digitoday.fi/tietoturva/2012/04/30/yksi-sana-kumoaa-jenkkien-yksityisyyden-suojan/201228416/66?rss=6
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why is Silicon Valley silent on CISPA?
http://gigaom.com/2012/04/28/why-is-silicon-valley-silent-on-cispa/
In January, America’s major tech companies joined everyday internet users to break the back of a reviled law called SOPA. Months later, Washington is brewing a new law that alarms many SOPA opponents — but this time the same companies have been quiet as church mice.
On Thursday, the US House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a law that will make it easier for companies to share data with the government. On its face, the law known as CISPA
The vote has already produced dramatic headlines like “Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse..” and “CISPA is ridiculously hideous.” So the press and privacy groups have raised the alarm — but where are the tech companies whose internet muscle smashed SOPA?
So what gives? Why are these companies ducking the fight? Well, for starters, the two laws are very different: among other things, SOPA would have turned them into copyright cops, while CISPA simply gives them the option to pass on data if they choose.
Secondly, cyber-attacks are serious stuff for such companies.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The FBI Workaround For Private Companies To Share Information With Law Enforcement Without CISPA
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/04/26/the-fbi-workaround-for-private-companies-to-share-information-with-law-enforcement-without-cispa/
A debate is currently raging in Washington, D.C. and various politically-engaged spots on the Internet over CISPA, a bill that promises to increase cybersecurity by giving private companies carte blanche to hand over information about cyberthreats they see on their networks.
That saves the government the trouble of getting pesky subpoenas and warrants as required by the Constitution and privacy laws.
Opponents worry about all kinds of sensitive information being served up to the government on a silver platter given the legal immunity granted to companies in the bill and the murky definitions of what constitutes a “cyber threat.”
In 1997, long-time FBI agent Dan Larkin helped set up a non-profit based in Pittsburgh that “functions as a conduit between private industry and law enforcement.” Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA’s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.
“We can bring the pieces of intelligence together so we can see what it really is,” says Larkin of the advantage of bringing security specialists from different sectors together.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tim Berners-Lee warns about web firms and CISPA
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2168691/tim-berners-lee-warns-web-firms-cispa
WORLD WIDE WEB INVENTOR Sir Tim Berners-Lee is not very happy with the way his baby is turning out and has called on people and firms to stop using it in the ways they do.
In a wide ranging discussion Berners-Lee took on internet giants and smartphone makers that have application stores, suggesting that they make use of users’ data to their own advantage.
He said that if users have control over their own information and online personas then they can use them to their own benefit. He explained that while the information resides in data silos belonging to giant web firms, this will never happen.
“[CISPA] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world,” he explained.
“Even though the SOPA and PIPA acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it’s staggering how quickly the US government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mozilla Slams CISPA, Breaking Silicon Valley’s Silence On Cybersecurity Bill
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/01/mozilla-slams-cispa-breaking-silicon-valleys-silence-on-cybersecurity-bill/
While the Internet has been bristling with anger over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the Internet industry has been either silent or quietly supportive of the controversial bill. With one exception.
Mozilla’s Privacy and Public Policy lead sent the following statement:
While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security. The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse. We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation.
Mozilla didn’t offer any further comment on its decision to break with that collection of CISPA supporters. But it wouldn’t be the first time Mozilla has taken an outspoken role against controversial legislation: In January’s protests of the Stop Online Piracy Act, Mozilla joined Reddit and Wikipedia in a “blackout” of its sites, replacing their content with information about SOPA’s violation of free speech rights.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17894176
File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled.
Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.
A sixth ISP, BT, requested “a few more weeks” to consider their position on blocking the site.
In November 2011, the BPI asked the group of ISPs to voluntarily block access to the site.
Virgin Media told the BBC it will now comply with the request, but warned such measures are, in the long term, only part of the solution.
Critics of site-blocking argue that such measures are ineffective as they can be circumvented using proxy servers and other techniques.
“Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘Anonymous’ hackers plan to stop CISPA with Operation Defense: Phase 2 [video]
http://www.bgr.com/2012/05/01/anonymous-hackers-attack-cispa/
In a video recently uploaded to YouTube, Anonymous acknowledged that its traditional DDoS-style of attacks are becoming less effective because companies have upgraded their web servers to withstand such threats. The group states that “we will not stand while our rights are being taken away,” and is planning a traditional protest of the companies who support CISPA.
The protest will begin on Tuesday, May 1st, and continue through June 30th. Anonymous and its supporters will target, AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Verizon Wireless, Bank of America, Chase Bank, McGraw-Hill, Coke and Pepsi, Target, WalMart, CVS and Visa, Mastercard and American Express.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Feds Seized Hip-Hop Site for a Year, Waiting for Proof of Infringement
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/weak-evidence-seizure/
Federal authorities who seized a popular hip-hop music site based on assertions from the Recording Industry Association of America that it was linking to four “pre-release” music tracks gave it back more than a year later without filing civil or criminal charges because of apparent recording industry delays in confirming infringement, according to court records obtained by Wired.
The Los Angeles federal court records, which were unsealed Wednesday at the joint request of Wired, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Coalition, highlight a secret government process in which a judge granted the government repeated time extensions to build a civil or criminal case against Dajaz1.com, one of about 750 domains the government has seized in the last two years in a program known as Operation in Our Sites.
Apparently, however, the RIAA and music labels’ evidence against Dajaz1, a music blog, never came. Or, if it did, it was not enough to build a case and the authorities returned the site nearly 13 months later without explanation or apology.
Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s legal director, said the site’s 13-month seizure by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau highlights the RIAA’s influence over the government.
“Here you have ICE making a seizure, based on the say-so of the record company guys, and getting secret extensions as they wait for their masters, the record companies, for evidence to prosecute,” Cohn said in a telephone interview. “This is the RIAA controlling a government investigation and holding it up for a year.”
ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, has the power to seize web domains engaged in infringing activity under the same forfeiture laws used to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to illegal activity such as drug running or gambling. But seizing a domain name raises First Amendment concerns — though nothing in the court records show that the government or the court was concerned about the prolonged seizure of the site that is akin to an online printing press.
In December, Nasib told The New York Times that the recording industry offered him the four songs that were at the center of the case against him.
“It’s not my fault if someone at a record label is sending me the song,” the paper quoted him as saying.
Bridges said in a telephone interview that Nasib’s site, which is now up and running again, should never have been seized.
“To begin with,” Bridges said, “I don’t think there was any evidence of criminal copyright infringement.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google’s Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/07083218708/googles-fiber-makes-mpaa-skittish-why-does-hollywood-see-all-technology-terms-piracy.shtml
One of the points we’re always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can’t be bought at any price.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Case for Copyright Reform
http://www.copyrightreform.eu/
Legalized file sharing, shorter protection times for the commercial copyright monopoly, free sampling and a ban on DRM.
These are the main points of the proposal for copyright reform that the Pirate Party is advocating and which the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament adopted as its group position in September 2011.
This is a constructive alternative to the controversial ACTA agreement and to the criminalization of the entire generation of youths. This booklet explains why such a reform is both necessary and sustainable and will benefit both citizens and artists.
Download the book
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cameron hardens stance on UK web filth block
PM to hold talks with broadband barons on ‘default’ smut filters
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/04/cameron_default_isp_filtering/
Prime Minister David Cameron has again waded into the debate about protecting kids from pornography online by personally stepping up pressure on ISPs to block smut websites by default.
According to a story in the Times this morning, Cameron is expected to consider whether telcos should cut off access to pornography and other adult material online “by default” for their broadband customers.
But telco trade outfit ISPA said that filtering such adult content at the network level and making customers opt in to allow them to access porn websites was a bad idea.
“It is easy to circumvent, reduces the degree of active interest and parental mediation and has clear implications for freedom of speech. Instead parents should choose how they restrict access to content, be it on the device or network level with the tools provided,” ISPA secretary general Nicholas Lansman noted last month.
Privacy campaigner Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch questioned the plausibility of such a system.
Web-blocking is a crude tool that does not prevent determined users accessing content. The broader consequences risk damaging legitimate businesses and undermining cyber security while further perpetuating the myth that this is an easy technological solution to a complex problem.
Ultimately the risk is that ISPs will be expected to monitor everything their customers do online to ensure they are not doing something they should not be. Indeed, it is almost inevitable certain groups will call for this when web blocking is exposed as the ineffective and easily avoided instrument it is.
Big Brother Watch believes the solution lies with greater device-level controls and law enforcement action aimed at those storing data or funding services that contravene the law. It would be unacceptable for the failure of technically naive policies to be used as justification for detailed monitoring of our internet use.
Tomi Engdahl says:
European e-identity plan to be unveiled this month
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2012/05/03/european-e-identity-plan-to-be-unveiled-this-month-40155152/
The strategy document also said the Commission will adopt a pan-EU “initiative on notice-and-takedown procedures” for websites. This will extend not only to child sexual abuse images, but to “all categories of illegal content”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘ACTA is dead,’ says Europe’s digital doyenne
Until the next ACTA, that is…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/07/acta_dead_kroes/
The European Commission’s VP for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes has signaled that the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is dead, and the world’s copyright industry will have to change to suit people, rather than vice versa.
“We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and innovation of the Internet,” Kroes said in a speech on Friday. “This is a strong new political voice. And as a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject.
“We are now likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA,” she noted. “Now we need to find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde.”
She added, without mentioning any names, that industries should not look to business models of the past if they would limit opportunities in the future, saying that “industries once based on limitation and control could now be based on customer focus, sharing and interactivity.” Closed business plans would strangle innovation and freedom, she said.
ACTA 2.0
It now looks as if Kroes is acknowledging that the Commission doesn’t expect to get the treaty through the European Parliament. If that’s the case, ACTA is effectively dead – and there’s little stomach for trying to push it through in the US, either. It’s an election year, and there’s little to gain in terms of public opinion in pushing for something like ACTA, aside from the odd campaign contribution.
Which is a pity. Some kind of international agreement is needed to sort out the current deadlock in the intellectual property industry. Six years of negotiations have produced little other than some impressive air miles to negotiations in Washington, Paris, Tokyo, Wellington, and other sunny locales. Meanwhile, companies and individuals still have to tiptoe through a legal minefield while trying to conduct business.
Another agreement like ACTA will no doubt be coming along shortly, if only because it really has to. Some kind of framework has to be sorted out that allows reasonable fair use of content and allows some return to digital IP producers and consumers, while making sure that centuries-old liberties are protected.
ACTA could have been an important step in the road to that, but was fatally flawed – in this hack’s opinion – by its secretive process and limited number of sources.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The 2012 DMCA Rulemaking: A Primer
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/eff_the_2012_dmca_rulemaking_a_primer
Every three years the U.S. Copyright Office considers granting exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition against circumventing measures that control access to digital copyrighted works. The first hearing in the 2012 DMCA rulemaking proceeding is set for this Friday, May 11, and we thought folks might want to know a bit about how the process works.
Let’s start with some background. In a nutshell, the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions forbid the making, distribution and use of technologies that allow people to “circumvent,” i.e., break, digital rights management (DRM) and “other technical protection measures” used to lock down copyrighted works. While this ban was meant to deter copyright infringement, many have misused the law to chill competition, free speech, and fair use. But Congress did create a kind of safety valve, authorizing the Copyright Office to consider granting exemptions to the DMCA’s ban on circumvention where the DMCA is interfering with otherwise lawful, non-infringing uses.
Now, some nitty gritty: The exemption consideration process, or “rulemaking,” is generally conducted every three years. Exemptions that are not renewed will expire. The Copyright Office can’t grant exemptions for the creation or distribution of circumvention tools – only acts of circumvention.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft Funded Startup Aims to Kill BitTorrent Traffic
http://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-funded-startup-aims-to-kill-bittorrent-traffic-120513/
The Russian based “Pirate Pay” startup is promising the entertainment industry a pirate-free future. With help from Microsoft, the developers have built a system that claims to track and shut down the distribution of copyrighted works on BitTorrent. Their first project, carried out in collaboration with Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures, successfully stopped tens of thousands of downloads.
Hollywood, software giants and the major music labels see BitTorrent as one of the largest threats to their business.
Billions in revenue are lost each year, they claim. But not for long if the Russian based startup “Pirate Pay” has its way. The company has developed a technology which allows them to attack existing BitTorrent swarms, making it impossible for people to share files.
Microsoft Russia’s president praised the innovative idea, which his company would also be able to use in the future.
The company doesn’t reveal how it works, but they appear to be flooding clients with fake information, masquerading as legitimate peers.
“We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other,” Andrei Klimenko says.
The end result was that 44,845 transfers were successfully stopped. How many downloads slipped through, and whether the downloaders didn’t simply try again later is unknown. Pirate Pay don’t disclose their exact rates but say they charge between $12,000 and $50,000 depending on the scope of the project.
While Pirate Pay claim their technology is truly unique, it is not the first company to tackle BitTorrent piracy. The now defunct MediaDefender charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to attack BitTorrent trackers and upload fake torrent files.
Tomi Engdahl says:
HBO’s ‘Game Of Thrones’ On Track To Be Crowned Most Pirated Show Of 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/09/hbos-game-of-thrones-on-track-to-be-crowned-most-pirated-show-of-2012/
With its popularity swelling and no easy way to watch for viewers without cable, HBO’s hit series “Game of Thrones” is inspiring massive levels of piracy, according to numbers from the BitTorrent-tracking and analysis firm Big Champagne. By the firm’s rough estimate, the second season of the show has been downloaded more than 25 million times from public torrent trackers since it began in early April, and its piracy hit a new peak following April 30th’s episode, with more than 2.5 million downloads in a day.
“It certainly appears to be the most pirated show of the year,”
the second season of “Game of Thrones” so far consistently top “Dexter”‘s piracy numbers from the same point in its season last year.
While “Game of Thrones”‘ filesharing rates are probably driven in part by its appeal to the young, geeky male demographic that’s most prone to using torrent sites, HBO hasn’t helped the problem by making the show tough to watch online for the young and cable-less. The show isn’t available through Hulu or Netflix, iTunes offers only Season 1, and using HBO’s own streaming site HBO Go requires a cable subscription.
“This is absolutely a reaction to the show’s not being available elsewhere online,” says Big Champagne’s Robinson. “It’s a very tricky game trying to create this kind of scarcity.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
SOPA supporters meet in secret to strangle Internet freedom & online speech
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/sopa_supporters_meet_in_secret_to_strangle_internet_freedom_online_speech
Behind closed doors, big SOPA supporting corporations are negotiating a massive trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and sneaking in an intellectual property chapter that will strangle online speech and choke off Internet freedom.
There is zero transparency as ‘they’ don’t want us, or Congress, to know what’s in the TPP IP section so we don’t go all ninja netizens again like we did to stomp out SOPA/PIPA.
Tomi Engdahl says:
ACTA rapporteur says ISPs have no legal obligation to police the internet
No need for counterfeit cops
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2175665/acta-rapporteur-isps-legal-obligation-police-internet
RAPPORTEUR David Martin MEP has said that one of his main concerns with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is the role of internet service providers (ISPs) that’s spelled out in the treaty, as they have no legal obligations to police their users.
Speaking at the ACTA London event at Europe House today, Martin voiced his main issues with the “uncomfortable” treaty. He said his main concern is the fact that European ISPs will be made to act as counterfeit cops if the controversial trade agreement is passed, saying he believes that they should not be made to hand over users’ information.
Martin said, “One of my main concerns with ACTA is the role of ISPs. I don’t think ISPs should have legal obligations to work as a police force.”
He added that he is also against the criminalisation of individuals for downloading ‘pirated’ files, while Susie Winter, director general at Alliance Against IP Theft argued that ACTA won’t be used to go after individuals, only large-scale copyright violators.
“I believe we have to defend intellectual property”, Martin stressed. “Unfortunately ACTA has taken on this symbolic role with people seeing it as the next stage of SOPA and PIPA.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
US “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Delayed
https://torrentfreak.com/us-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-delayed-120518/
Soon the file-sharing habits of millions of BitTorrent users in the United States will be monitored as part of an agreement between the MPAA, RIAA, and all the major ISPs. Those caught sharing copyright works will receive several warning messages and will be punished if they continue to infringe. However, it now appears that the much-discussed July start date will have to wait until later in the year as the parties involved may fail to meet the provisional deadline.
The parties agreed on a system through which copyright infringers are warned that their behavior is unacceptable. After six warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures, which include slowing down offenders’ connections and temporary disconnections.
“The dates mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are not hard deadlines but were intended to keep us on track to have the Copyright Alert System up and running as quickly as possible and in the most consumer friendly manner possible,” a spokesperson told us.
In other words, it’s taking more time than expected. That said, the CCI did inform us that they have finally selected a third-party company that will be responsible for monitoring BitTorrent swarms. However, the name of the firm remains a secret for now.
As described in the agreement, this independent “technology partner” will first be tested by yet another independent expert to see if their data collection methods stand up to scrutiny. This is a possible reason for the “delay” but there are many more.
At their end the internet providers all have to create a system that allows them to keep track of the warnings. To ensure the privacy of subscribers, this database of alleged pirates is not stored centrally.
Tomi Engdahl says:
New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/anonymous-online-speech-ban/
Did you hear the one about the New York state lawmakers who forgot about the First Amendment in the name of combating cyberbullying and “baseless political attacks”?
Proposed legislation in both chambers would require New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”
No votes on the measures have been taken. But unless the First Amendment is repealed, they stand no chance of surviving any constitutional scrutiny even if they were approved.
“This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology. He added that the legislation provides a “heckler’s veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesn’t like what an anonymous poster said.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
MPAA’s Dodd: ‘More subtle’ anti-piracy approach needed
http://advanced-television.com/index.php/2012/05/21/mpaas-dodd-more-subtle-anti-piracy-approach-needed/
Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPAA), has reiterated his line that parties in both the creative and technology communities must work together to move forward on legislation preventing theft of intellectual property.
“We’re in a transformative period with an explosion of technology that’s going to need content,” he said, suggesting that Google chose wisely by making Hollywood the enemy. “We’re going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented,” he admitted. “We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Senator admits: SOPA “really did pose some risk to the Internet”
A SOPA/PIPA backer recognizes some bits of the bills went too far
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/senator_admits_sopa_really_did_pose_some_risk_to_the_internet
Backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), have been railing against the bill’s critics ever since the legislation plunged to a fiery death earlier this year. The unprecedented online protest by Google, reddit, Wikipedia, Ars Technica, Wired, and others was, the backers say, largely about misleading the public.
But not every backer got the message. As PIPA co-sponsor Senator Chris Coons admitted today, SOPA “really did pose some risk to the Internet.”
MPAA boss Chris Dodd:
“Google chose wisely by making Hollywood the enemy,” Dodd told Variety last week, which sounds like more of the same “corporate pawns” rhetoric. But he added, “We’re going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented. We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.”
The RIAA was likewise unhappy with the outcome of the SOPA fight, but the most recent entry on its blog is called “Cooperation is King.”
It is not “content vs. technology,” nor is it “past vs. future.” It is an understanding of the interdependence between technology and content whose future will ultimately thrive or wither together. But the questions we are asked often is: how do we move toward that dynamic future? In the current political environment, is it realistic to advance any meaningful progress on measures to help the legal marketplace for music?
(Still, the “cooperation” touted in the piece involves private companies like Visa and MasterCard cutting off payments to “rogue” sites, or the new “six strikes” process that Internet providers in the US will largely adopt later this year. “Cooperation” doesn’t yet appear to involve any real efforts at engaging actual Internet communities and users.)
SOPA is certain to return, in some form. Clearly, it will be toned down to make passage more likely—but will SOPA 2.0 just be more rightsholder-drafted legislation covered with band-aids, or will it truly emerge from a collaborative, good-faith negotiating and hearings process that involves not just other giant corporations but citizens and critics, too?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Internet Defense League: A Bat Signal For the Internet
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/27/1638251/internet-defense-league-a-bat-signal-for-the-internet
“Following the successful defense of the Internet against SOPA, website owners are being invited to sign up to a project that will enable them to participate in future protest campaign, the Internet Defense League. The banner logo for the ‘bat-signal’ site is a cat”
Tomi Engdahl says:
“The Dutch House of Representatives unanimously accepted a motion to urge the Cabinet to reject ACTA [Dutch original] (if they ever get the change to do so; it may already end in the European Parliament). Additionally, an even stronger motion was accepted to reject any future treaty that may harm a free and open Internet. This is a good day for the Internet.”
Source: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/05/29/1527231/the-netherlands-rejects-acta-and-does-one-better
Tomi Engdahl says:
Netherlands jumps off ACTA train
Also: new leaks detail ‘EC failures’ in negotiation
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/netherlands_parliament_against_acta/
ACTA’s European disintegration continues, with the Dutch house of representatives rejecting the treaty.
The decision seems to represent the parliament moving ahead of the government, which had only decided to delay signing the treaty until after the European Court had given its rulings on the document.
The European Parliament is due to vote on the treaty in June.
In the latest ACTA leak, the European Digital Rights Association has published meeting notes from confabs in Paris in 2009, Rabat in 2009, Seoul in 2009, and Guadaladjara in 2010.
In particular, EDRI says the documents show that the European presidency chose not to brief EU states on the progress of ACTA, in spite of promises of transparency.
Tomi Engdahl says:
MEPs are voting on ACTA this week
Citizens urged to voice their opposition
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2180646/meps-voting-acta
WITH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT due to vote on the repressive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) this week, anyone that opposes it is urged to tell their representative to vote Nay.
Citizens’ rights and political groups the UK Pirate Party, the Open Rights Group (ORG) and the French La Quadrature Du Net have said that while much work has been done to show MEPs how much popular opposition there is to the draconian ACTA treaty, there is still time to show more.
“Whilst we have made great headway with MEPs in explaining why we believe ACTA is so flawed, it is by no means certain that ACTA has been defeated,” says the Open Rights Group in a blog post.
The final vote on ACTA will happen in the first week of July and La Quadrature Du Net said that it is important that the sound of rejection rings through the European Parliament.
“A massive and clearcut rejection, carried by a strong citizen mobilization, will pave the way for a much needed positive copyright reform.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
European Parliament committees vote to reject ACTA
Crucial votes go against the trade treaty
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2181320/european-parliament-committees-vote-reject-acta
THE OPPRESSIVE Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) faced three votes in the European Parliament today, and has lost all three of them.
First up was a vote at the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI). ACTA was rejected there
Jérémie Zimmermann: “We WON against #ACTA in JURI (home of the copyright talibans!) Times are changing!!!!”
“Such a vote shows that even the most conservatives Members of the Parliament now understand that ACTA must be killed, and that current conceptions copyright cannot hold in the long run,” added his colleague, Philippe Aigrain, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net in a blog post.
Next ACTA limped into view at the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). Here, as with JURI, the rapporteur recommended rejection, and, again, that is the result.
Although ACTA and its supporters got their faces smacked today that does not mean that the struggle is over.
The ACTA battle as a whole is far from over, though. The majorities were narrow.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Reeling ACTA treaty rejected by three European Parliament committees
ACTA faces a final vote by the full European Parliament in July.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/reeling-acta-treaty-rejected-by-three-european-parliament-committees/
Momentum against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continued to build on Thursday as three different committees of the European Parliament voted not to recommend adoption of the treaty. A final vote by the full European Parliament is scheduled for July.
The ACTA treaty is nominally an anti-counterfeiting treaty, but its provisions would have broader implications for copyright policy. While the treaty is not as bad as its strongest critics claim, it would be a vehicle for ratcheting up already excessive copyright protections by one more notch.
It was signed by President Obama last year, and was expected to be approved easily in Europe. But every EU nation must sign on for it to take effect, and the treaty has been losing momentum for months. The Netherlands joins Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany in expressing reservations.
Tomi Engdahl says:
RIAA Wants Search Engines to Censor “Pirate Sites”
https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-wants-search-engines-to-censor-pirate-sites-120606/
In a testimony before Congress on “The Future of Audio” today, RIAA CEO Cary Sherman will stress that more needs to be done to stop online piracy. In particular, search engines such as Google and Bing have to take responsibility and come up with appropriate technological solutions. The RIAA wants these search engines to censor pirate sites from their search results while giving priority to legitimate music services.
In a prepared statement, Sherman begins by pointing out that the image of the music business as an innovation-shy industry is misplaced. DRM-free downloads, unlimited streaming, free ad-supported streaming and music backups in the cloud are a few highlighted examples of innovative developments.
But despite all these services, piracy is still rampant. More needs to be done.
According to Sherman the music industry is more frequently steering towards voluntary agreements, and with success. They have struck a deal with ISPs to punish copyright infringers, helped payment processors to reduce payments to pirate sites, and encouraged major advertisers to discontinue business with “rogue” websites.
If the RIAA has its way, Google and other search engines will also collaborate on a similar agreement. Ideally, these search engines would no longer link to “infringing sites” such as The Pirate Bay and isoHunt.
In other words, “legitimate” search results should be boosted while “illegitimate” sites are degraded. The RIAA further suggests that the massive amount of DMCA complaints can be reduced by “technical changes,” a fancy way to describe censorship.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Pirate Bay: Thanks for the help!
http://thepiratebay.se/blog/216
Our competitors at the Recording Industry Assholes of America is trying to make sure that the search engines that compete with us have to stop linking back to us. This is really great news!
Right now about 10% of our traffic comes from these competiting search engines. With that ban in place that means that our traffic numbers probably will increase. Users will go directly to us instead and use our search instead. We’ll grow even more massive. It’s really hard to compete with Google, but if they can’t index media search engines like us, we’ll be the dominant player in the end.
So from the bottom of our hearts, THANK YOU RIAA, this is great news for us! For once, we support your efforts in something! Let’s make sure that TPB keeps on growing together!
Hugs’n’kisses from your pals at The Pirate Bay – soon to be the biggest media search engine in the world!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Pirate Bay Pesters Copyright Holders with Yet Another New IP-Address
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/pirate_bay_pesters_copyright_holders_with_yet_another_new_ip_address
Copyright holders around the world are growing increasingly annoyed with The Pirate Bay.
In the UK and the Netherlands The Pirate Bay is widely censored, but that doesn’t mean the site is entirely unavailable. In fact, The Pirate Bay is enjoying the whack-a-mole game they’re playing. After several ISPs added the site’s new IP-address to their filters, the infamous torrent site has just added another, plus an IPv6 address. Meanwhile, the site’s operators are wondering how much court filings cost each time an IP address has to be blocked.
The Pirate Bay team informs TorrentFreak that they have added an IPv6 address as well, opening a can of new unblocking options. As none of the court orders lists IPv6-addresses, using a compatible connection should re-enable access the site. Not to mention the IPv6 -> IPv4 tunnels that become fully operational proxies now.
The above once again shows that it’s virtually impossible to completely prevent people from accessing The Pirate Bay. There are simply too many options for people to route around the blockades.
Worst of all for the copyright holders, The Pirate Bay team appears to be enjoying themselves.