1/16/09

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 16/01/09

MA judge OKs streaming of music-swapping hearing
"A federal judge on Wednesday authorized the first online streaming of oral arguments in a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts in a copyright infringement lawsuit that pits a Boston University graduate student against the music recording industry.


U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner restricted the live streaming to a Jan. 22 hearing, saying she will decide later whether to make other proceedings in the case, set for March 30 trial, available online.
The lawsuit is one of a series filed by the Recording Industry Association of America since 2003 against about 35,000 people who allegedly swapped songs online. Most of those sued are college students, and many have defaulted or settled for amounts between $3,000 and $10,000, often without legal counsel." [Google]


DtecNet, the anti-piracy outfit replacing MediaSentry as the RIAA’s chief evidence collector, also operates in several other countries. The Danish company is working for the BPI in Britain in support of its drive to force a “3 strikes” regime, and helping in Australian investigations against alleged pirates. We take a closer look.
"Earlier this month it was confirmed that the RIAA was dumping its anti-piracy partner, MediaSentry. After five years of legal action and mass lawsuits it decided its relationship with the notorious tracking company should come to an end. Some commentators believed that this signaled the end of the RIAA’s legal action against file-sharers, but that is definitely not the case.


The RIAA will now be working with DtecNet, a Danish anti-piracy tracking company which employs largely the same techniques as MediaSentry, but the aims will be slightly different in the majority of cases. The new tactic for the IFPI-headed music industry is to target ISPs instead, lobbying governments to implement the dreaded “3 strikes” or “graduated response” scheme reported so often in recent months." [TorrentFreak]


Universal digital chief on iTunes, DRM, and Android
"Rio Caraeff didn't come up in the music business scouring nightclubs and honkey tonks for talented new acts. Caraeff, executive vice president of Universal Music Group's eLabs, has a background in mobile technology and software. Nonetheless, he just might be the prototype for the label exec of the future.

Unlike more traditional industry suits, Caraeff doesn't believe litigation is the answer to piracy. He doesn't believe in copy-protection software. He doesn't believe that the music industry needs to find a strong competitor to Apple to flourish. What he does believe in nurturing new revenue streams and pruning 10-click online music shopping to one. He believes in the power of mobile devices to sell music (he says Google's cell phone, Android, is proving to be a powerful music-buying tool)." [CNet]


Longer copyrights for songs would deal a blow to our cultural heritage
"If Charlie McCreevy, the European commissioner for the internal market, has his way, the copyright on music will be extended from 50 to 95 years, making the Beatles' ‘Yesterday' and their other early hits ‘free' not in around six years' time but 50 or more years from now.

McCreevy's proposed directive, on which the European Parliament's legal affairs committee will vote in February, pleases the recording industry, which has long lobbied for it, but it has provoked fierce criticism from economists and lawyers. Their criticism is not surprising, for the industry's arguments are flimsy. The Commission has nonetheless been persuaded, aided probably by the idea of a ‘musicians' fund', which would receive 20% of the revenue from selling old recordings.
But most economists argue that a ten-year term should be enough to ‘incentivise' the creative muse. And, for those interested in
Europe's culture, the downside of long protection would be that a large part of our heritage would be consigned to a commercial vacuum, with numerous works orphaned because their authors cannot readily be located.


The European Commission acknowledges the problem in the directive's ‘use it or lose it' clause. But this is so poorly drafted it would have little practical effect." [EuropeanVoice]

No comments: