TorrentFreak Email Update |
- Copyright Is Like QWERTY: Locked-In and Retrospective
- Google, MPAA and isoHunt Clash in Court
- Confessions Of a BitTorrent Pirate Chasing Lawyer
| Copyright Is Like QWERTY: Locked-In and Retrospective Posted: 24 Apr 2011 04:20 AM PDT
Copyright laws keep on being ‘copied’, even though there are seemingly better solutions out there. The industries that depend on copyright are not in favor of change because this would mean that they would lose authority and power, and possible revenue. The worst consequence of this “path dependence” is that copyright interests gain at the expense of everyone’s privacy. Let me explain how. To grasp the internal path dependence of copyright is to try to grasp a bigger, more complex development. As most people know, there is a lot of inconsistency between online behavior and copyright regulation. So, when a EU directive like the one on "The Information Society" criminalises more actions in relation to copyright, when the directive on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement breaks down the privacy of the Internet users, and when three-strikes laws for copyright violators are discussed widely across Europe, it all says something about the bigger trend, about the 'path' that’s chosen. It is not a surprise that the law is in many aspects very dependent on its history. However, historical and old-fashioned concepts and principles tend to create paths that also lock in future legal directions. The problems occur when laws relate to the past in a manner that fails to include or to grasp important changes in society – such as the Internet and digitalization. Sometimes laws are so locked in that they cannot even consider alternatives that might be more appropriate in these ‘new times.’ Copyright is interesting in this regard because it has ended up in a seemingly insurmountable conflict between social and legal norms, making this path dependence analysis all the more relevant. As mentioned above, the path dependence of European copyright serves as a strong argument for those who benefit from its conservation. The entertainment industry doesn't want to change, it's not in their interest that the regulation gets more in tune with society – instead, the industry wants even stricter copyright laws. Longer copyright lifetimes, stronger protections, more intrusive methods for detecting copyright violations. They are fighting for their monopoly. But let’s not forget that the reason the industry has become powerful in the first place, is that the legal development had time to get established and mature before the Internet came along. Now, what's the problem? There are several problems with this out-of-tune-with-reality-legislation. Firstly, the special interest of copyright has become so strong that it gets tangled up with several other types of legislation, including legislation meant to fight terrorism. And it's not only the file-sharers and copyright violators who suffer the consequences. Everyone’s Internet traffic will monitored more as a result. Secondly, neutral intermediaries such as ISPs are increasingly being targeted to choose sides in the copyright ‘conflict’. In Europe, we can see this in the Enforcement Directive, and the Telecoms Reform Package. The recently negotiated Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) is also a good example where the same is happening on a global scale. Along the same lines, a recent report from the European Commission discusses (PDF page 7) that the currently available legislative and non-legislative instruments are not powerful enough to combat "online infringements of intellectual property rights" effectively, which leads to the conclusion that ISPs should be targeted for their role as data carriers. Thirdly, the key role of ISPs is also part of a bigger issue that concerns the basic fundamentals of the Internet as we know it. Old copyright principles are now used to define what the Internet is. This means that the development of copyright, in a broad sense, not only rebuilds the Internet in terms of traceability and accessibility (gated communities), but also legal enforcement in terms of mass-surveillance. It is important to realize that the development of a general mass surveillance of the entire population is not an issue to be taken lightly or a development that should be allowed to pass unscrutinised. In summary we can say that the copyright path is reproduced (copied) and strengthened in various legislative efforts. The path dependence of European copyright serves as a strong argument for those who benefit from its preservation, signalling that there are strong power structures behind it. As a result, copyrights take precedence over other rights, such as privacy and sometimes even property. The path dependence of copyright leads to an imbalance of principal importance between the interests at stake. The entertainment industries and other copyright profiteers define to a large degree what the public can and cannot do, and the copyright interest gain at the expense of the privacy of everyone. We really have to wonder whether that’s a good thing.. — Stefan Larsson is a researcher in sociology of law and co-founder of the research group Cybernorms at Lund University, that recently ran a survey on file sharing at The Pirate Bay. Read more in a longer academic article on the path dependence of European Copyright that Stefan recently published in ScriptEd, a journal of University of Edinburgh’s School of Law. Source: Copyright Is Like QWERTY: Locked-In and Retrospective |
| Google, MPAA and isoHunt Clash in Court Posted: 23 Apr 2011 02:30 PM PDT
In February Google filed an amicus brief (third party testimony) at the Appeal Court, in the hope that the court would consider Google’s opinion on the case. The MPAA was against a Google contribution, but despite these concerns the Appeal Court has now allowed the search engine’s testimony to be added to the case. Although Google did not dispute isoHunt's liability in their testimony, the company stated that some of the reasoning in the District Court verdict went too far, and Google wants to see it scrapped in the appeal. "While in agreement with the result reached in this case, Google is concerned that some of the reasoning offered by the district court goes too far and would upset the careful balance between copyright protection and technological innovation struck by the Supreme Court and Congress. Particularly because this case is not a hard one, it should be decided narrowly," Google wrote. The search giant addresses various issues they feel are not needed to arrive at the verdict, but can negatively impact other services on the Internet. Several of these conclusions are the result of suggestions made by the movie studios, which Google claims are misplaced and incorrect. Google wants to address these issues because they fear it may otherwise lead to a negative outcome for themselves. The Appeal Court agreed to accept and consider the amicus brief last month. This is the first time that Google have got involved in a BitTorrent case which is significant itself, but interestingly enough neither the MPAA nor isoHunt are happy with Google’s submission. In a response to Google’s brief, isoHunt says it agrees with Google’s arguments that the District Court verdict is full of “fatal errors” and “omissions”. However, it doesn’t agree with Google’s conclusion that isoHunt is liable for copyright infringements by some of their users. isoHunt’s lawyer therefore asks the court to reject the latter arguments. “Defendants submit that Google’s confusing arguments and fallacious reasoning should not obscure the importance of issues presented by this case. Defendants have proposed a practical way to deal with such issues; but Google, like plaintiffs, propose nothing other than affirmance of a factually flawed and legally ill-founded District Court Decision.” The MPAA also responded to Google’s testimony, and was even less pleased to see the company chime in. “Google is not a disinterested amicus. Google itself is a defendant in suits charging certain of its business units which intentionally promote infringement. Google’s arguments as amicus reflect its litigation interests in obtaining a legal ruling that facilitation of infringement, even if shown to be intentional, may still be immune from copyright liability.” The MPAA’s legal team then goes on to refute nearly all arguments made by Google. The search engine wants to scrap all of the District Court’s conclusions regarding liability that could eventually be used against Google, but the movie companies clearly disagree. “The Court should reject Google’s pleas for immunities for businesses that intentionally facilitate copyright infringement,” MPAA’s lawyers conclude. Although Google weighed in on the isoHunt vs. MPAA case in self-interest, the mere fact that they got involved signifies the importance of the case. To some it may ‘just’ be a dispute between a BitTorrent site and the MPAA but if affirmed the District Court ruling may have far-reaching consequences for hundreds of other web-services. After filing the amicus brief Google’s role in the case has likely ended, but isoHunt and the MPAA will continue their battle in court. There’s a hearing planned in early May where we will find out more about where the case is heading. Interestingly, this hearing is scheduled on the same day and in the same court as Veoh's appeal hearing. Another DMCA case, but one where the service provider was not held liable. |
| Confessions Of a BitTorrent Pirate Chasing Lawyer Posted: 23 Apr 2011 05:02 AM PDT
Thanks to an interview arranged by Patrick Michels of the Dallas Observer we are now given the opportunity to get a little more personal with one of them. Even at six long pages it’s well worth the read, but for the time sensitive, here are the juicy parts. Meet Texas Lawyer Evan Stone. Stone is a Junior Attorney who describes himself as a programmer, filmmaker and musician. Together, these skills turn him into the perfect pirate chaser, or so he thinks. Suing tens of thousands of pirates is Stone’s destiny, and despite the fact that he hasn’t won a single trial case yet, he will continue this fight. “I was born to do this shit,” Stone says. “I eat, sleep, breathe, shit this stuff.” Despite the perfect fit, the Texas lawyer didn’t come up with the pay-up-or else schemes himself. It was another law firm that inspired him. When he read about the cases started by law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver (who in turn were inspired by operations in Germany and the UK) he immediately knew that the wanted to follow in their footsteps. At the time he was providing legal services to anime distributor FUNimation, where he recalls a fellow lawyer saying: “Wouldn’t it be great if we could do this?” Stone agreed, and in the months that followed he approached several content owners, offering his assistance. Closer to home in the anime business, he didn’t have much success initially. Anime producers know that their audience can be characterized as being pro-BitTorrent. So, suing the very same people who also buy their content was probably not in their best interest, some may have thought. This meant that Stone had to try his luck elsewhere. “I said, you know what, I know a whole bunch of people whose shit is pirated all the time that don’t give a fuck about bad press.” And he was right. Through his contacts at FUNimation, Stone got in touch with people in the porn industry who were happy to work with him. Not just because Evan Stone carries the name of a ‘huge’ porn star, but mainly because there’s some serious cash to be made. The money is also one of the main motivators for Stone. He admits that he gets about 45% of the cash recouped through settlements, money he uses to take care of his family. But financial incentives aside, Stone thrives simply on his hatred of pirates. Some of this grudge originates from early last decade when he founded a music company that was planning to sell MP3s. The timing was perfect, bands were interested and the first MP3-players were just hitting the mainstream. However, there was a slight problem that burst the bubble – a problem called Napster. “My vendetta against pirates has been building for years and years,” he says, commenting on that history. Back to the present day, Stone admits that he enjoys going after pirates, but the scheme has also met resistance from various sides. Among other issues, ISPs are putting up a fight, with some claiming they can only lookup a few IP-addresses a month. Stone doesn’t buy it. “I know what’s involved, and it’s such horseshit for them to say they can’t get this stuff,” he says, later referring to them as “those fuckers” at Verizon and “those snakey fucks” at Time Warner. Similarly, the porn industry hasn’t given him the love he was looking for either, at least not in a business way. The legal community in the porn business didn’t like the newcomer and turned against him. This is one of the reasons why Stone decided to pull out. “Fuck the adult industry,” he says. “You can quote me on that,” he told the Dallas Observer journalist. Stone is now looking for more mainstream clients to continue his business. According to him there is no shortage of pirates and plenty of publishers who want to make a few extra bucks after all. Interestingly enough, one of Stone’s latest clients is FUNimation, who sued 1337 BitTorrent users earlier this year. And so this hatred-fueled battle of a generally likeable lawyer continues. “I hate hardly anybody,” he says, “but when I think about pirates, I do tend to think about a lot of them as smarmy entitled little brats,” Stone says. The above is just a small sample of the excellent piece just published in the Dallas Observer. We encourage everyone who’s interested in more background on Stone to have a read. |
It is no surprise that the companies making and selling QWERTY keyboards have never been eager to switch standards, as they would then lose their market advantage. In a similar sense many of the legal solutions embedded in how copyright is regulated have become path dependent and locked-in too. 
Two months ago Google got involved in a BitTorrent case for the first time in its history. The company took an interest in the ongoing legal action between isoHunt and the MPAA, fearing that the standing injunction has the potential to damage Google and other web services.
In recent months we’ve written dozens of articles on copyright trolls and BitTorrent mass lawsuits, but we’ve heard little from the people who orchestrate these witch hunts. | You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment