EU telecoms chief Viviane Reding has warned that the European Commission would take action against Spain if the government moves to cut the internet access of content pirates. Earlier this year, France introduced new legislation that cuts off internet access to copyright scofflaws and the UK is expected to present similar legislation in the coming weeks. Spain is also understood to be looking into such measures, but the government has yet to announce any new laws. Ms Reding said that she had been “following with interest the discussions in Spain” and warned the government not to consider measures that ran afoul of the European-level protections of the rights of internet users. She argued that the development of a single European market for online content was a superior path to take to counter internet piracy, lamenting the fragmentation of copyright law across the EU

http://euobserver.com/9/29041

Yeah, we’re back in our little rat hole. Not much luxury here, but we’ve got our beds, our laptops and a conciderable amount of drawer space. Me and Juuso live in House A on the first floor, or the so called D floor in room number 5. Approximately 30 other young men share our hall, which has a bathroom/showers at one end and a small TV room at the other. This week is our cleaning week, which means that we and the guys from two other rooms see to that the hallway, the bathroom and the TV room stay clean and pristine. Much emphasis is laid on cleaning now in swine flu time.

Our luxurious bunks

The weekend went by nicely. On Friday we left on two packed buses for Helsinki. I started my Friday evening with a good concert by Landscape Generator at Club Lepakkomies in Kallio. I later found myself at a very strange party for theater and culture folks. It involved a dj, a lot of dancing, professional dancers doing an improvised dance show, a stripping room with a dancing pole, with a camera and the image from the room spread out on a huge canvas. Yes, the actor girls went all the way by the pole. As if that was not enough, at one point a small plastic room with headphones was lowered from the ceiling, creating a private discoteque. And oh, did I mention the armless midget dancing in the nude? Yes, he was there too. After this rather refreshing, but utterly strange night, I decided to rest the remainder of the weekend…

Yesterday was an official job seeking day, and since I already know where I’m going to serve once I get away from Lapinjärvi, I had the day off. I still decided to take a walk up to Ny Tid magazine and sign my contract. I also found the time to record a character for a radio play at YLE.

The civilian servants here are really warming up to the issue of politics. One of the guys here is something of a spokesperson for the newly formed Pirate Party, and he held a short presentation followed by a lively debate on the whole piracy movement. I find the notion of internet piracy interesting and I agree with the advocats for piracy that the old fashioned system of copyright laws are outdated. As such the laws now simply serve as money stones for big companies and the so called Lex Karpela in Finland is utterly ridiculous inaswhere that it actually prohibits the copying of for example a movie from your laptop onto a dvd. Or moving music from your hard drive to your mp3-player. But the problem with the piracy movement is that it really hasn’t got a credible alternative to the copyright laws. The movement advocates free usage of artistic products such as movies and music, but still maintains that the producer of the art should get compensation for his/her work. In answer to my question today, even the “spokesperson” admitted that the movement actually haven’t figured this problem out yet. So in actuality, we now have a political movement trying to force a law change. But they don’t know what law they want, only what they don’t want, which I find to be a rather flimsy base for a political party. We also had a very long and interesting debate on democracy and voting, but I might return to that topic later.

And I just watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on my laptop. See ya later!

The Digital Economy bill has sparked a wave of protest among consumers and rights groups.

Soon after the bill began its journey through Parliament on 19 November, many expressed worries about parts of it. The bill suggests the use of technical measures to tackle illegal file-sharing that could involve suspending the accounts of persistent pirates. Critics fear this and other powers the bill reserves could damage the UK’s growing digital economy. The Digital Economy Bill is the end result of the consultation and research that went into the creation of the Digital Britain report that was published in June 2009.

As well as trying to tackle illegal file-sharing, the wide-ranging legislation also proposes a shake-up of the radio spectrum and a classification system for video games. Left out is the proposal for a broadband tax to fund next-generation broadband that will be handled in the Finance Bill due in early 2010. The proposals on file-sharing have garnered most criticism.

One of the first responses was the creation of a petition on the Number10.gov.uk website. Set up by Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s head of strategy and development, it calls for the abolition of the proposal to disconnect illegal filesharers. By 24 November, the petition had gathered more than 16,000 signatures.

The number of signatures got a boost from Stephen Fry who used micro-blogging site Twitter to direct people to it. Wrote Mr Fry: “Dear Mandy, splendid fellow in many ways, but he is SO WRONG about copyright. Please sign and RT {retweet]”. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, which campaigns on digital issues, said: “It’s quite a shocking bill. We’re extremely worried about it.” Mr Killock said Section 17 of the Bill was worrying because it gave the Secretary of State “reserve powers” to draft fresh laws to tackle net-based copyright infringement without needing parliamentary approval.

“It could destabilise business and destabilise innovation,” said Mr Killock. “It means entirely trusting to bureaucrats and politicians to get it right.” Mr Killock said membership of the Open Rights Group had jumped by 20% in the run-up to the publication of the Bill. He said protests were being co-ordinated in many places such as Facebook and other social media sites.

He predicted that the protests would soon lead to some form of civil unrest, be that lobbying, a protest march or public meetings. US digital rights group The Electronic Frontier Foundation declared that giving the Secretary of State such powers amounted to the creation of a “pirate finder general” that could enact “draconian” copyright enforcement controls.

The Bill envisages that any proposed change to copyright law should be opened up to public comment before it is made. In a bid to defuse some of the criticisms, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills created a webpage entitled: “Filesharing: some accusations and some answers”. It pointed out that some of the criticisms levelled at the Bill were unfounded. It said it had not been drafted at the behest of the music industries. It added that “technical measures” to slow down or suspend net connections would not be imposed without those accused going through a tribunal system that assesses their case.

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) also issued a statement saying that it “strongly opposes” the measures introduced to tackle file-sharing. Said ISPA: “Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding.” Law firm Eversheds said the copyright plans seem “hurriedly put together and not clearly thought-through” and warned that they could have “unforeseen effects.” It added: “Critics… may have taken some comfort from the fact that the proposals have yet to wend their way through an already congested legislative timetable before the next election, meaning it is questionable whether they will ever become law.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8374732.stm

The UK Internet Service Providers Association ( ISPA ) and broadband ISP TalkTalk ( The Carphone Warehouse , Tiscali , AOL etc. ) have both come out in strong opposition to some of yesterdays Digital Economy Bill measures, which have been designed to tackle illegal downloading.

The Bill proposes that the Government can introduce new measures to punish people they think are infringing copyright without having to prove their case in court. This so-called secondary legislation appears to side-step any debate, oversight or public scrutiny. Both are particularly concerned that the proposals grant far too much control to the Secretary of State, who will have the power to make specific recommendations on costs and impose an obligation on ISPs to use technical sanctions. The ISPA believes that an independent body would be a fairer way to assess these factors.

ISPA Secretary General, Nicholas Lansman, said:

“ISPA is extremely disappointed by aspects of the proposals to address illicit filesharing. This legislation is being fast-tracked by the Government and will do little to address the underlying problem. Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the Government should be asking rightsholders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding.”

ISPs believe that to reduce illegal filesharing, music and film fans must be encouraged back to legal services through education and by making content available in a form and at a price that people find acceptable. TalkTalk’s own research shows that over 85% of people think there is not enough legal music and film content available on the Internet at a fair price. Dunstone has again reiterated his promise to only release customer details to rights holders following a court order, although ironically yesterdays Bill promised that details would only be released to copyright owners for further action “after obtaining a court order“. TalkTalk added that they would refuse any request to cut-off customer accounts and take legal action to protect their users.

Meanwhile the ISPA has also raised concerns about the allocation of cost. Consistent with the principle of beneficiary pays, ISPA rejects an apportioning of costs and believes that rights holders should shoulder this burden including reimbursement of ISPs’ reasonable costs. Presently the copyright owners will only pay the cost of notification letters. Both TalkTalk and the ISPA also oppose all of the new technical measures, which include the ability to slow a customers connection, block illegal sites and services or even cut-off user accounts, and have called for them to be dropped from the bill. Sadly we fear this is highly unlikely to happen as the government has proven unwilling to listen. It should be noted that ISPs do appear to support the notification / letter warning system.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/11/21/uk-broadband-isps-sound-opposition-to-new-illegal-file-sharing-laws.html

By Associated Press

BRUSSELS (AP) — EU lawmakers and governments agreed on new rights for Internet users Thursday, aiming to protect them from arbitrary crackdowns on those who illegally download music and movies on the Internet.

EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said a deal was reached after EU governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance measures against illegal downloaders with a broader set of rights for telecom users.

The reforms were two years in the making. They also include new privacy controls, consumer rights and increased competition for Internet and phone services — key improvements that have been overshadowed by the fight over digital user rights.

Thursday’s proposal also includes other reforms to overhaul Europe’s telecoms market.

They include setting up a new EU-wide telecoms authority charged with ensuring fair competition, bolstering consumers’ rights to switch mobile or landline telephone operators within one working day, and expanding digital networks to provide faster broadband Internet service for users in rural areas.

EU lawmakers had been at odds with governments, notably France, over how to tackle the increase in illegal downloading.

Film and record labels had heavily lobbied the 27-nation bloc, demanding better enforcement of copyright rules to protect profits that are shrinking in the face of online file-sharing, in which people swap music files without paying.

However, in a victory for the EU assembly, governments relented and agreed to include guarantees in the bill protecting users from arbitrary cutoffs of their Internet services.

“This Internet freedom provision is unprecedented … and (gives) a strong signal that the EU takes fundamental rights very seriously,” Reding told reporters. “(It will) substantially enhance consumer rights and consumer choice in Europe’s telecoms markets.”

The bill still needs the final approval of the European Parliament and EU governments, which is expected later this month.

Under the guarantee, national authorities will only be able to cut off Internet services if they have proof that a user was downloading illegal copies of movies or music files, ensuring that users are presumed innocent.

“Full due process rights will have to apply in any administrative case, except in cases of duly justified urgency, like serious crime, terrorism, child pornography,” said Spanish lawmaker Alejo Vidal-Quadras. “This is really a step forward.”

European consumers’ organization BEUC, warned however that the draft EU bill was too vague on “due process” rights given to users, complaining it does not specifically provide suspected illegal downloaders the right to a judicial hearing.

Christian Engstrom, a lawmaker from Sweden’s Pirate Party, said the revised bill was somewhat of a victory for file-sharers, but warned that the EU assembly would have to keep a close eye on member states that want to cut off Internet users for online pirating.

Under pressure from the music and film industries, France had pushed hard for tough measures against illegal downloaders. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had advocated a “three strikes and you’re out” rule, under which Internet use would be tracked and users caught downloading would be warned twice before their Internet access would be cut off for a year. Britain is also considering such a move, lawmakers said.

However, the French parliament passed a law in September watering down that plan and efforts to cut off Internet access will be left to a judge.  [Source:  http://www.technologyreview.com/wire/23896/?nlid=2506&a=f]

Amid a series of heart-felt cheery tales of rape, pillage, slavery, gay-hating, and godly vengeance, the Bible specifically stipulates that it is the right of every good Christian to pirate music and movies from the Internet, in its own non-specific interpretive fashion.

Jesus feeds the multitudes.

On two occasions in the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ feeds crowds of thousands from only a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Though he is encouraged by his disciples to turn the crowds away, Jesus demands that they be fed. However, the disciples and Jesus all knew that they could not afford enough bread and fish to feed crowds in the thousands. It was in this dilemma that Jesus developed the first Peer2Peer network. He sent his disciples to buy what bread and fish they could. As the story goes, Jesus “then [...] took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied.” Jesus purchased the original food and then used his miraculous power to share it with the entire crowd. He did not steal bread or fish from the shopkeeper but simply copied his own and distributed it to the hungry. Had he not done this, no one in the crowd would have eaten, and surely they all would not have had the money to purchase their own food. Had the RIAA existed in biblical times, they would have crucified Christ right then and there, or at least slapped him with millions in fines.

What Jesus did in feeding the multitudes amounts to an early form of file sharing. He purchased original content, duplicated it, and shared it with a crowd of thousands. He did not steal, but used his powers to make copies, just as Internet pirates use their Gates-given powers to copy their files and distribute them over the Internet. Just look at this comparative flow chart:

Click for higher resolution.

It is clear from the comparison of these two events that not only did Jesus commit the Biblical equivalent of file-sharing aka Internet piracy, but also that he would encourage such behavior so that all the world can be happy. In fact, I believe Jesus would offer that it is our moral obligation to download content from the Internet. However, for now, I am a sinner, because Satan’s armies in the RIAA and the MPAA won’t allow me to legally fulfill my Christian obligation.

"FUCK THE RIAA ARGHH"

Early Thursday morning the European Parliament and EU member states finally reached a deal over a long-delayed telecoms package when MEPs dropped their opposition to French-style internet ‘three-strikes’ laws aimed at illegal internet downloaders, ending for now the Brussels debate on a fundamental ‘right’ to internet access. In a major reversal of the parliament’s position for much of the last year, MEPs in behind-closed-doors negotiations with the Council of Ministers, representing the member states, embraced new language in a compromise text that no longer requires that only judicial authorities be allowed to cut off internet access. MEPs from all parties, but mainly from the centre, left and the Green Party, strongly argued ahead of the European elections in June that three-strikes legislation is draconian and, with an eye to young voters, vowed to continue their opposition to such laws, maintaining that access to the internet had now essentially become a fundamental right as vital as access to water or electricity. The deputies maintained that so many aspects of a citizen’s participation in society – from paying bills to dealing with local government to reading the news – now required access to the internet that cutting off access from the digital world was depriving someone of a host of other rights.

http://euobserver.com/9/28944

Securing and  protecting copyrights in our digital environment has turned into  one of the main objectives  of the European information society governors. The biggest question was HOW. In a landscape, where file sharing is regarded as a normal practice by most digital natives,  it seemed a bit unproportional to put a teenager into jail just because he downloaded the latest Lilly Allen single without paying for it.

It was French Prime Minister Nikolas Sarkozy,  who came up with a proposal to simply deprive the digital “wrongdoers” of the attribute they all take for granted: their internet connection. For this purpose, a special agency “Hadopi” was created in France, in order to disconnect illegal file sharers without a judicial decision.

Until now the adoption of this law on an European scale was legally problematic. The reason for that were the paneuropean aspirations to include internet connecitivity to the basic human rights of which no human being can be deprived of (or at least not without a court ruling).  A special Ammendment to EUs Telecom package was drafted for this purpose. A week ago however, the European Parliament dropped the amendment,  which would have made it hard for countries to cut off pirates without court authority.

So it was left to the single member states to decide whtether they can deprive illegal file sharers of their internet connection with or without a court ruling.  And now Great Britain is preparing to follow France’s example, as Peter Mandelson, UK’s business Minister and  former EU trade commissioner, intends to adopt the  British version of the Hadopi bill  by April next year. Unlike France however, the British government will not establish a separate internet police authority like HADOPI, bu plans on delegating this competence to allround media watchdog Ofcom.

British civil rights groups are already protesting against the implementation of the harsh measure.

For further information: EUobserver

UK business minister Peter Mandelson has announced that the UK intends to adopt legislation almost identical to France’s controversial three-strikes anti-internet-piracy legislation. As in France, websurfers found to be downloading content without permission of the copyright owner will first be sent a warning email. But where across the English Channel, internauts are then sent a letter in the post, in the UK, they will have their bandwidth restricted. A third offense will then, as with President Nicholas Sarkozy’s flagship legislation, result in internet cut-off. Paris’ ‘Hadopi’ law, named for the new government agency charged with hunting down the pirates, is considered draconian by online rights advocates for the powers the agency has, backed by a series of special piracy judges, to cut off internet access and even jail repeat offenders. In the UK, no new agency is to be created. Rather, the Office of Communications, or as it is more commonly known, Ofcom, the UK telecoms regulator, will be tasked with the downloading manhunt. Mr Mandelson, the former EU trade commissioner, intends to place a bill before parliament next month and hopes that the British version of the Hadopi bill will come online by April next year. The first disconnections would likely take place fifteen months from then, towards the end of 2011

http://euobserver.com/9/28931

The European Parliament has just  dropped an amendment to its Telcoms Package which would have made it hard for countries to cut off pirates without court authority. This step was a result of the political pressure, some European countries have been  imposing upon Brussels, in order to be able to apply harsher and more effective penal laws against illegal file sharing.

The most emblematic case has been that of France, where a special agency was founded (HADOPI) with the purpose of combatting internet piracy.The main aim of the HADOPI law was to disconnect illegal file sharers up to a year without the necessity of a long lasting trial. The inclusion of internet access as a universal human right in EU Telecommunications policy turned out to be one of the major obstacles for this approach.

With the ammendment being dropped, the discussion, whether the deprivation of internet access should be judicially accounted fo, will be relocated on national level. A process that already produces pretty controversial perspectives on the matter. Just take a look at France, Great Britain and Finland.

Related articles:

Broadband Access: a Legal Right in Finnland

Hadopi Law in France- Legally Problematic

Welcome Hadopi!

For further information: bbcnews

]]> http://wasntbornyesterday.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/internet-piracy-give-me-my-80s-mix-tape-back/ Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:47:40 +0000 nikibgd http://wasntbornyesterday.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/internet-piracy-give-me-my-80s-mix-tape-back/ http://ayumilove.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/internet-piracy-is-freedom/ Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:11:56 +0000 ayumilove http://ayumilove.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/internet-piracy-is-freedom/

The IT Crowd – Series 2 – Episode 3: Piracy warning

Internet Piracy is Freedom!

Internet Piracy

Software Piracy by Chris Pirillo

(Sorry, it had to be done.)

“From day one our fight has always been to protect the rights of artists who chose not to have their music exploited without consent.”

Metallica, in a  2001 statement regarding the fight against Napster and illegal downloads

Napster, Kazaa, and most recently, Pirate Bay have all fallen victim to massive media corporations looking to bring a halt to free trade among Internet users worldwide.  The move against these innovative business models, while seen as successful in regards to the future financial state of big media business, actually raises several questions.  How can we solve the constant tension between technologists and large corporations? Do these types of compromises seem realistic?

The concern I have with this issue stems from the late 90’s, when Napster became subject of controversy and later resulted in its demise.  Would it be unreasonable to assume that iTunes would never have become if it weren’t for the creation of this “illegal music trading” business model?  This boils down to the fact that when large companies discover a shift in business that does not offer financial compensation, it results outrage and political nonsense.

Kennedy insisted the verdict will have an impact on the popularity of file sharing as a technology, despite the widespread problem. ‘In the digital world we suffer from 90% piracy but it is still a $3.8bn digital industry that is more successful than newspapers, film or books. Even if we can move the needle slightly from 90%, it will be good.’

Corporations are so obnoxiously money-hungry, that slightly adjusting profit in a $3.8 billion industry is worth the destruction of technological developments.  While this may serve as short-term justification, it’s absolutely apparent that the long-term issue needs to be addressed and ultimately accepted.  Instead of punishing those that may have discovered an intelligent (new) form of trade, why not join in support of these types of innovation?  Would this not then provide even more motivation for constructive creativity?

Besides, as Jemima Kiss points out, Pirate Bay’s gentle sentencing provides complete reassurance to the millions of remaining online “traders”:

“…given the notoriously lenient conditions of Swedish jail, the Pirate Bayers may well be given weekend leave, will retain their passports and, dare we suggest, a regular and substantial broadband connection.”

The Pirate Bay co-founders may have walked the plank, but Internet users are patiently waiting– life jackets in tow.

If you’ve read my blog before, you know that academic honesty is very important to me, both for the sake of developing personal integrity, and for the sake of recognizing and valuing the work of others.

The fluid, fluctuating nature of online communication makes it hard to consistently define and uphold academic honesty. It’s hard to define what respect of intellectual property looks like on a blog, for example, or a website, or a MySpace page.

Should all bloggers be required to use MLA citations when they quote a fellow blogger? Do permalinks make it acceptable to reproduce an entire post or article on your own site? What about images?

These questions can be overwhelming. One of the dangers of online communication is that too much information–and too little–can lead to carelessness and apathy. “No one told me I had to cite that image from Google Images. There’s no guide for quoting a website on another website, so I didn’t bother.”

Personal responsibility is out of vogue in our era. We like step-by-step instructions, and if the warning label “hot” isn’t on the cup of coffee, we have every right to legal restitution.

I am as guilty as the next person. In writing this blog, I have attempted to develop my own system of ethical use guidelines for quoting and “borrowing” others’ content. When I quote a blog or online article, I use the “blockquote” feature, and I include a permalink to the source. When I use an image to supplement my text, I link the image back to its source rather than to my site.

Is that the best way to do it? Probably not. Could I do more? Yes. Should I? I’m not sure. But am I freed of responsibility because there is no one right way to do it? Absolutely not.

Cracking down on Internet piracy and protecting copyrights have cost the writing, publishing, film making, and music industries enormous effort, and have done little to stem the flood. Smart people circumvent the system every day. Smart people will continue to find new ways around the new protections designed by other smart people.

The only way that real change will occur is when smart people take responsibility and choose to be honest people.

Unfortunately, if that sounds over-simplified, it is. Our postmodern view that all ethical systems are equal has made it easy to justify downloading pirated music (“Hey, I wasn’t the one who posted it!”) or leaving out the quotations marks once in a while (“It’s only Wikipedia; I could have written the same thing.”).

It’s a slippery spiral, isn’t it?

Relativism is only attractive until someone else’s ethical system interferes with us; until we write something and see it spread over the Web without our permission; until we cry “not fair” and no one listens.

So where do we go from here?

In blogging, just as much as in college classrooms, I think it is worth considering what honesty means, on what it is based, and how we erode it, or build it up, in each choice we make and webpage we open.

There once was a man named Ash D. Roger, and he was king of the pirates. He had anime, Mp3s, and movies beyond your wildest dreams. Before they slapped him with a subpoena, this was the final post he blogged: “My data is yours for the taking, but you’ll have to find it first, I left everything I own in One Piece!” Ever since, internet pirates all over world have tried to log on to One Piece, the server that would make their dreams come true!

Opposition in French Parliament successfully forced the French government to delay a vote on the controversial Hadopi law, a bill aimed at enforcing copyright law on the Internet.  Said to be a priority for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the final passing of the bill was not possible on July 21 due, for the second time, to the absence of a sufficient number of deputies in the House of the Parliament.

Additionally, left-wing opposition parties proposed more than 800 amendments to the text, which made it practically impossible to end the debates before the summer holidays.

This is yet another step of what has become a nearly two-year nightmare for the French government. For former Socialist Minister of Culture Jack Lang, opponents to the Hadopi in his own political camp are displaying “primary anti-sarkozysm”: “The socialist Party is going opposite way to the principles we have always defended: economic regulation, especially in the domain of culture, and protection of artists rights,”.

In November 2007, the French presidential palace announced a move towards a “graduated response” against Internet piracy, after holding discussions with Internet providers and artistic rights owners.

Following this move, the French Senate voted on the first version of the Hadopi Law at the end of October 2008 (Law for the Diffusion and Protection of Internet Creations), then approved even by opposition French socialist party. Yet, in April 2009, opposition in the French Parliament won the rejection of the law by scheduling a vote while a large number of deputies were absent.

Major French artists such as the iconic Juliette Greco. at that time heavily criticized the Socialist Party for its work on rejecting Hadopi.

Then, in June this year, after the Parliament finally passed the law, the French Constitutional Council—a body that ensures the constitutionality of laws—refused to ratify several points, especially the part allowing a permanent Internet ban for users guilty of repeated piracy by shutting down their account and blacklisting them.

The Constitutional Council thereby recognized access to the Internet to be a basic human right for French citizens. Additionally, the Constitutional Council rejected the presupposition of guilt, which would have left Internet users with the burden of proof that they had not been pirating content.

The Hadopi law will lead to the creation of a national body, Hadopi (High Authority for the Diffusion and Protection of Internet Creations) and to new penalties for users offering access to copyright-content to other Web users. The initial version of the law also planned a “three strikes” graduated response to users downloading copyright content.

One, an email notification of the illegality of such downloads; two, a formal letter from Hadopi; three, a ban from using the Internet. Based on the decision from the Constitutional Council, it will be up to French justice and not up to Hadopi as initially suggested to decide to shut down Internet users’ accounts.

If your a wiley dog on the internet (like me) you should know that you can pirate alot of cool stuff off the internet, of course i dont pirate anything myself (shiny halo) but for the dishonest soul who does like getting stuff for free piracy is good for you.

Even if your not so technically inclined you’ll probably know about internet superstar YouTube. The place where people upload videos of their family friends and pets and of course reems and reems of stolen copyrighted material. Well your luck is in because the good lads and lasses over at A-Tube-Cather have made it possible to pirate off youtube in two clicks!

This sick piece of software comes at the reasonable price of absolutely nothing and is available here and here. With a tube catcher you just get the url of the video you want to stea…back-up and then click download and with that one click the program downlaods the video right to your desktop and donverts it into a nice friendly format that doesn’t upset your media player.

so yeah get a tube catcher its really good
http://tinyurl.com/wearentpirates

One of the most debated issues in modern music today may have just been resolved. According to Reuters news service, an agreement was reached Tuesday on how money should be split between companies and artists from streaming music on the Internet. With the agreement, large music streaming companies will pay artists and copyright owners up to 25 percent or on a per song basis, whichever equals more money. Smaller streaming companies that make less than $1.25 million will pay a smaller percentage. The nonprofit group SoundExchange, in charge of collecting and distributing music royalties, made the announcement Tuesday. SoundExchange includes Warner Music Group, Sony BMG and 2,500 independent labels.

SoundExchange Executive Director, John Simson said in a statement Tuesday:

“’It gives certain pure play webcasters the opportunity to flesh out various business models and the creators of music the opportunity to share in the success their recordings generate.”

Avid users of music streaming sites like Pandora shouldn’t stress about forthcoming charges from the deal. Pandora users will be only charged 99 cents if they listen to more than forty hours of music per month. Anything less than forty hours is free.

Although Lord Carter’s yesterday’s report (Digital Britain) about the future of the digitalisation in the UK did not produce any big surprises, it would still change the development of the British information society significantly. Here are some of the most interesting aspects of the strategic paper.

1. Public funding will be granted for the provision of broadband internet access for all British households by 2012, including the most distant house in the countryside. It will be funded by a surplus from BBC’s licence fees , primarily  alloted  for the development of digital televison, plus an anual tax of 6 pounds, collected from all owners of fixed telephone lines.

2. All internet service providers will be forced by Ofcom to reduce the illegal file sharing by 70% by the end of the year. Thus, ISPs will turn into digital police stations collecting data from all illegal downloaders and submitting it to the music/film companies and Ofcom. The regulatory body will be than authorised to reduce the speed or the capacity of the “guilty” user by thus limiting his/her possibilities to download further copyrighted content.  Although this sanction is obviously  softer than its equivalent in France, which foresees cutting off the internet access completely, it is still expected to cause an uproar among the internet users in the country.

3. Regional news providers (ITV) together will children programming providers (Channel 4) will both benefit from the licence fees. BBC’s trust does not seem very happy about sharing its funding with commercially financed broadcasters, by arguing that the licence fee should not be implemented from the government for politically and commercially motivated purposes

A very interesting list of the winners and losers after the report can be found here. More interesting reactions on “Digital Britain” – here.

Related Articles on Internet Piracy in France and Sweden.

]]> http://europeanmediablog.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/file-sharing-in-sweden-decreasing/ Fri, 15 May 2009 20:40:01 +0000 euromediablog http://europeanmediablog.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/file-sharing-in-sweden-decreasing/

According to an actual study of the Swedish Association of Video Distributors the number of Swedes using Internet for file sharing has decreased by 36 %. The internet traffic in the country has also dropped by 40 %, with most Swedes being scared of harsh sanctions against piracy.

A new anti-file sharing law (in force since 01. 04.2009) as well as the Pirate Bay Verdict are regarded as the main reasons for the file-sharing breakdown in the Scandinavian country. Is this development a permanent change in the internet habits of the population or just a temporary duck after the “Pirate Bay” storm- time will tell.

For further information: the local

Related articles:

The Pirate Bay Verdict: Guilty

Anti-Internet-Piracy Law in France Fails

Welcome Hadopi!

Law against Children Pornography in Germany

It comes into force: The first European law against internet piracy was accepted in France. After the parliament’s narrow approval yesterday (296 for, 233 against), the senate accepted the copyright law today more than overwhelmingly.

As we mentioned in a previous article, the law foresees the establishment of a government agency – Hadopi (Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet), which will have to protect copyrights in inernet. For this purpose, the authority will have the right to sanction internet pirates with up to twelve months of internet connection cut.

The last possibility to counteract this law remains on European level, with the European Parliament arguing for the inclusion of internet access in the basic  human rights. If this proposal is approved by the Council, it would automatically make the  sanctions of the  HADOPI law inconsistent with EU law.

For  further information: spiegel.de; liberation.fr and independent.co.uk

Related articles: Anti- Internet Piracy Law in France fails

Following on from the jail sentence handed out to illegal file-sharers, Pirate Bay, by a Swedish court; the UK’s top creative industries are lobbying the government to take a firmer stance on persistent file-sharers, according to today’s BBC news.

Up until now, the UK government has not had, it appears, the inclination to penalise such users, quoting such comments as, “We can’t have a system where we’re talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms”, instead preferring to place the onus on ISP providers, setting a target of reducing the problem by at least 70% over the next few years, without publicly seeming to actually take any direct action.

The media industry, in the meantime, is being hit hard, with statistics quoting an estimated one billion music tracks and 98 million films being shared illegally in 2007 alone.

In a direct attempt to combat illegal file sharing and compensate artists, Kerchoonz.com, launching next month, is the first integrated social networking and media site to legally enable streaming and download of music, videos and online games, whilst paying the featured artists and creators of music. Its founders, Indiana Gregg and Ian Morrow, themselves Glasgow-based musicians, are ardent supporters of the campaign to introduce firm legislation towards protecting copyright on the internet.

Indiana says: “Free media comes with a price tag and sites who are profiting from the use or exchange of copyright works without compensating the rights holders are simply robbing the livelihood of artists and not only that, they are destroying any chance for new artists and bands to raise funds and investments in their music and/or get record deals. Nobody will want to invest in new music in the future if security isn’t tightened on the web.”

The French National Assembly on Tuesday approved a plan by President Nicolas Sarkozy to punish digital pirates with the possible suspension of their Internet connections, a little more than a month after the same body had rejected the proposal in a surprise vote.

The assembly, the lower house of Parliament, voted 296 to 233 in favor of the bill, the furthest-reaching legislative initiative yet in the global battle by the music and movie industries against unauthorized copying of their works. The bill would create a new agency that would send warning letters to copyright violators; those who ignored two warnings would lose their Internet service.

Passage was expected because Mr. Sarkozy’s government closed ranks after losing the previous vote in April, when insufficient members of his party, U.M.P., appeared for the vote. The Culture Ministry hailed the outcome Tuesday as an important step toward “preserving cultural diversity and the industries threatened by piracy.”

Approval in the upper house, the Senate, is expected Wednesday. The sponsor of the bill in the National Assembly, Franck Riester, has said that the first penalties could occur next year.

Opponents say, however, that the plan is saddled with provisions that would make the system difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

Before the measure goes into effect, it also faces several potential hurdles. Assuming it is passed by the Senate, it would be reviewed by the Constitutional Council, which has the power to reject proposed legislation, something that happens relatively infrequently.

Groups that favor an unfettered Internet are also vowing to challenge the measure through the courts, citing a recent declaration by the European Parliament that it is illegal for a European Union country to sever Internet access without the approval of a court.

Opponents of the so-called three strikes plan say their cause will be aided by the fact that the vote was relatively close, even though Mr. Sarkozy has a substantial majority in the National Assembly.

“The law has a very low political legitimacy because of this,” said Jérémie Zimmermann, director of La Quadrature du Net, an advocacy group based in Paris.

Mr. Zimmermann and other opponents of the bill say it would be overly intrusive and could undermine the development of the Internet in France.

Unusually in the French parliamentary system of government, the proposal also split both Mr. Sarkozy’s party and the main opposition group, the Socialists. A number of U.M.P. members risked the president’s wrath to vote against the plan, while the proposal tested the traditional loyalty of the Socialists for the French content industries; in the end, many found a stronger affinity with the populist cause of Internet freedom.

A mini-scandal that unfolded in the days leading up to the vote showed how politically charged the debate over the proposal has become. It involved the dismissal of an executive of TF1, the leading French television broadcaster, who had criticized the proposed law in a private e-mail message to his representative in the National Assembly.

The e-mail from the executive, Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, who was in charge of Web innovation at TF1, found its way to the Culture Ministry, where a staff member forwarded it back to the bosses of Mr. Bourreau-Guggenheim at TF1. The broadcaster said his “radical position” on the issue required him to be dismissed. The culture minister, Christine Albanel, suspended an unidentified employee for one month for sending the e-mail to TF1 executives.

The three-strikes measure has been actively supported by music and movie industry trade organizations; groups like the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry have called it an example for other countries to follow.

But the prospects for similar legislation are unclear. In the United States, the House of Representatives recently held hearings on what to do about piracy, but so far there have been no concrete proposals. In Britain, meanwhile, the government has ruled out a French-style approach, saying that London preferred to have the entertainment industries and Internet service providers work together on an anti-piracy plan.

Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Forrester Research, said the French plan was unlikely to result in a large number of suspensions because technology will move on. Already, many people share music on the Internet through other means than peer-to-peer services, the main target of the French legislation.

But he said it could encourage media companies to make music and movies available in more attractive ways on the Internet, something that he said was needed if they were to have any hope of curbing piracy.

“It doesn’t matter how big a stick you’ve got,” he said. “If you don’t have a big fat carrot in front of the horse’s nose it’s not going to move.”

__________
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/technology/internet/13net.html?hpw

__________

See also:

French Court Defangs Plan to Crack Down on Internet Piracy

The highest constitutional body in France on Wednesday defanged the government’s plan to cut off the Internet connections of digital pirates, saying the authorities had no right to do so without obtaining court approval.

The decision, by the Constitutional Council, which reviews legislation approved by Parliament before it goes into effect, is a major setback for the music and movie industries, which had praised the French law as a model solution to the problem of illegal file-sharing.

The council rejected the core portion of the measure, under which a newly created agency, acting on the recommendations of copyright owners, would have been able to order Internet service providers to shut down the accounts of copyright cheats who ignored two warnings to stop.

The council said the proposal was contrary to French constitutional principles, like the presumption of innocence and freedom of speech. The latter right “implies today, considering the development of the Internet, and its importance for the participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, the online public’s freedom to access these communication services,” the council said.

Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Forrester Research, said: “What this highlights is the danger of using legislation and the courts to further your business aims. You become a victim of the whole process.”

That process has been tortuous for the French legislation, which was originally outlined a year and a half ago by President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The proposal was approved by Parliament last month, but only after the government resubmitted it following a surprise rejection by the lower house, the National Assembly, in April.

Christine Albanel, the culture minister, said she would suggest to Mr. Sarkozy that the law be modified as the council demanded, reserving for judges the decision to cut off Internet access. She said she regretted the loss of an opportunity to “decriminalize” the process by giving the new agency that power.

Ms. Albanel added that warning letters would begin going out to downloaders as planned in the autumn. But critics of the legislation said that without the threat of disconnection, the new agency would be toothless.

“All we have now is a big tax-sponsored spam machine for the entertainment industries,” said Jérémie Zimmermann, director of La Quadrature du Net, a Paris-based group that has campaigned against the measure.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/technology/internet/11net.html?hpw