EU Public Affairs Monitor - 30/12/08

Choruss: legal file sharing on campus 11th December 2008
"The plan to provide US students with compulsory flat-fee music finally has a name, it emerged this week. Choruss LLC will provide participating universities with a replacement for their current subscription services such as Rhapsody, and has the backing of the the EFF and the tacit support of the RIAA. That alone indicates the magnitude of the initiative. When have those two lobbying groups ever agreed on music policy?

This, the worst kept secret in the music business, leaked out in April, when Jim Griffin confirmed he had been engaged by Warner Music to seek deals that would help end the litigation strategy against students, and replace it with a steady pool of income for the rights holders. (Griffin has spent a decade campaigning to "monetize the anarchy" of digital music - see our 2004 interview)." [TheRegister]

Has Boston University Left Its Safe Harbor and Become Liable for Students' Piracy? 12. 2.2008
"Defenders of the most egregious, blatant forms of online copyright piracy often suffer from what could be called Wile-E.-Coyote syndrome: They can become so fixated on throttling the roadrunner of copyright protection that they fail to notice that they have just run off a cliff and begun plunging downward.

For example, a federal judge has reportedly held that Boston University (BU) is such an incompetent internet-access provider that it cannot disclose the identities of allegedly infringing users of its network. In London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Does 1-4, Judge Gertner's recent order granted BU's "Motion to Quash" because "[BU] has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty."

Continue reading Has Boston University Left Its Safe Harbor and Become Liable for Students' Piracy? . . ."

New Op-Ed December 30, 2008
"Rick Carnes and I co-wrote an op-ed on ISP music licensing (as exemplified by the Choruss operation) for Content Agenda that might be of interest.

http://www.contentagenda.com/article/CA6625534.html?industryid=45173t

Coolfer published a couple comments on the op-ed. Let it be known that I dig Glenn and Coolfer and I'm just clarifying a couple things he mentioned (also just speaking for myself here and not for my co-author).

One of the points we made is that an unlimited download service at below market rates undermines the investment that legitimate services have spent and committed. (I refuse to use "all you can eat" to describe these services as that phrase grates on me as comparing music to, let's say, a potato, which I won't do.) The point (which I made in more detail in a recent article for the ABA) is that users are already paying for the very Internet connection they use to buy their music from legitimate services. If you tell them that they only need to pay $5 a month more for all the music they want from what were once illegal "services"--well, I think you see where that goes. The idea seems to be that students could get rid of their Rhapsody accounts, which appears to make EFF very happy." [MusicTechPolicy]

Don't Make Kids Online Crooks December 29, 2008 Monday
"Seventy-five years ago, Prohibition ended. Just 13 years after launching an extraordinary experiment in social reform, the nation recognized that the battle against "intoxicating liquors" had failed. Organized crime had exploded. Civil rights had been weakened. And an enormous number of ordinary Americans had become "criminals" as they found ways to evade, and profit from the evasion of, this hopeless law.

We're about a decade into our own hopeless war of prohibition, this one against "peer-to-peer piracy." The copyright industry has used every legal means within its reach (and some that may not be so legal) to stop Internet "pirates" from "sharing" copyrighted content without permission. These "copyright wars"--what the late Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, called his own "terrorist war" in which apparently the "terrorists" are our kids--have consumed an ever growing amount of legal resources. The Recording Industry Association of America alone has sued tens of thousands of individuals. These suits allege millions of dollars in damages. And schools across the nation have adopted strict policies to block activity that the Supreme Court in 2005 declared presumptively illegal." [ContentAgenda]

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 20/11/08

How to destroy the music business 20th November 2008
"Put yourself in these hypothetical shoes for a moment. My goal is to make as much money as possible by doing as little work as possible. I have no creative talent except for generating and recycling marketing buzzwords. I have no technical knowledge or ability - but I can get my head around a Twitter feed. It doesn't sound promising, but you'll want in, I promise.

Now let's imagine a business that can achieve our goals. The natural place to start this business is on the internet - where one can harness the labour of millions of people and pay them sod all for their work. Under the smokescreen of "collective intelligence" or harnessing "the wisdom of the crowd", we can keep our supply costs at zero. And if we can keep reminding these rubes that "power lies at the edge of the network" or "in the Long Tail", they'll produce lots of stuff for us for nothing, without complaining." [TheRegister]

TechDirt's Backfiring Defense of the Thomas Decision--and the "Effective Freedom" of Totalitarian Terror (Part II) 11.21.2008
"Having dealt with Mr. Masnick's self-immolating attack on my analysis of Thomas, I must now even more emphatically reject Mr. Masnick's absurd claim that he "proved" that my paper on Free Culture mischaracterized the views that Professor Lawrence Lessig expressed in Code, a deplorable book advocating government control of the Internet and lawsuits against programmers. Frankly, mischaracterizing Lessig is pointless: quoting him suffices. Nevertheless, Mr. Masnick claimed, "The worst was when a variety of others pointed out Sydnor's out of context comments [sic] and put them back into context--and Sydnor still stood by the paper, refusing to admit he took a single comment out of content."

Nonsense: I stand by my paper because Mr. Masnick and "others" failed to quibble successfully even about details wholly tangential to its main argument. As Mr. Masnick's post indicates, his quibbles claimed that I had unfairly portrayed Lessig as a "communist sympathizer."" [IPCentral]

Asinine lawsuit from French music interests targets Sourceforge Nov 15th 2008
"Torrent Freak reported yesterday that the SPFF -- think of it as the French RIAA -- filed lawsuits against the developers of P2P clients Vuze, Limewire, and Morpheus. There is also a fourth target, and I'll get to that particular bit of insanity later.

The SPFF's beef is with the fact that these programs don't provide a system to block copyright protected materials from being shared. Because the programs don't prevent files from being shared, the SPFF argues that the programs are complicit in the act itself." [DownloadSquad]

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 24/09/08

The PRO-IP Act: A game-changing law and its implications
"September 2008. In the waning weeks of what was a long and arduous presidential election campaign, people seemed so intensely focused on the campaign itself, they had probably forgotten George W. Bush would still be President the day after the election. And while the nation’s attention on the weekend of September 26 was focused on a bailout to fix the exploding economic crisis, most failed to notice that Congress passed a law whose impact remains at best unseen for musicians and the music industry. The Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2007, also known as the PRO-IP Act, was passed with unanimous consent in the Senate and with an overwhelming majority in the House (renegade Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was one of the few who voted against it, as well as the original draft of the Act in May).

The law itself is not much of a change from previous acts of similar nature (raising fines and punishments against people caught with pirated music and such), except for one major point: The law creates a new office in the White House whose purpose is dedicated to copyright infringement matters and whose head official would dictate copyright policy. This so-called “IP czar,” a term used by both the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the digital rights’ advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, would direct the Department of Justice and Attorne2y General as to how to handle piracy cases and the increased rate of piracy through P2P sharing." [TinyMixTapes]

Internet Radio is (almost) saved? Sep 24th 2008
"Remember how last year there was a big to do about the future of internet radio? The US Copyright Royalty Board imposed new, higher fees for online broadcasters, and web radio services like Pandora and Last.fm complained that the new fees would effectively put them out of business. A bill was introduced in Congress to work things out, but that never really went anywhere. But now, a year and a half later, the Digital Media Association, which represents a number of online music distributors, announced an agreement with copyright holders. It just doesn't exactly cover internet radio.

Here's the deal. If you're a company that provides limited music downloads or interactive streaming audio, you have to pay 10.5% of your revenue in royalties, less any amount owed for performance royalties. That covers subscription based services like Rhapsody which let you download music to your PC, so long as the music becomes useless when you stop paying up. It also covers interactive sites like Last.fm which let you select the songs you want to play." [DownloadSquad]

Agreement Reached on Internet Royalties September 23, 2008
"The contentious issue of digital royalty rates has reached a tentative conclusion, at least as far as putting agreements on paper is concerned. In an announcement made today, the warring parties entered what is termed a "historic" agreement. Whether this new agreement will challenge the Magna Carta in 800 years remains to be seen. However, in the meantime it appears the feud has been settled for interactive music services and limited download services, but the Internet radio debate remains unresolved.

Whenever an Internet radio station plays a song, it has to pay a royalty. That royalty rate remained firm at $0.000768 from 1995 until all hell broke loose in 2007. In early 2007, the US Copyright Royalty Board (a bizarre sect of the Legislative branch) increased the rates substantially. And not by a few hundred thousandths of a dollar - we're talking somewhere on the order of 300%-1200%, enough to make Internet broadcast giants such as Pandora contemplate ceasing operations. Oh, and for added kicks the rate would be retroactive to January 2006." [Slyck]

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 24/06/08

Play it again ... 22 June 2008
"Via the IPKat's friend Miri Frankel comes this feature on Wired regarding the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its litigation against file sharers (so far more than 20,000 copyright infringement actions have apparently been launched). This story involves a New York family accused of copyright infringement.

The RIAA initially identified the mother, Joan Cassin, as being the operative copyright infringer, but later dropped its action at the point at which which the judge was pondering a motion to dismiss the case based on the "making available" theory (see here, here and here). Two weeks later, the RIAA re-filed more or less identical allegations in a fresh action that was sent to another judge because the RIAA did not "relate" the cases. Discovery was immediately sought in order to find out whose KazaA file share folder was being used -- a share folder on the same Verizon internet account as was used at the Cassin household. Curiously the second lawsuit was filed as a John Doe case, without naming a defendant." [IPKitten]

A Performance Right for Recording Artists: Sound Policy at Home and Abroad
"The recent introduction of H.R. 4789 and S. 2500, both titled the “Performance June 2008 Rights Act,”1 means that broadcasters, recording artists, and record labels may resume a recurring debate about whether copyrights in sound recordings should include a general public-performance right that would make their owners eligible to be paid when their songs are performed publicly on broadcast radio stations. History suggests that this debate may become heated and potentially protracted.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of copyright policy, this public-performance - right debate is simple. Denying a public-performance right in sound recordings is bad copyright policy and bad technology policy, and it undermines both the international and economic interests of the United States. Consequently, Congress should enact the Performance Rights Act: There is little to be lost and much to be gained." [PFF]

Did the Making-Available Debate End Before It Began 13 June 2008
Today, many courts are adjudicating copyright-infringement claims against consumers who used file-sharing programs like KaZaA to "share" copyrighted music and movies with thousands of strangers. These courts have been struggling with the question of whether the unauthorized "sharing" of a work infringes the rights of its copyright owner--in others words, whether U.S. law provides copyright owners with a so-called "making-available" right.

Recently, the Court hearing Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas posed a question about when appellate decisions are binding precedents for lower courts. The answer to this question appears to show that--at least in the federal district and circuit courts--the making-available debate ended seven years ago.

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.13thomasandtasini.pdf"

[PFF]

Stop Press Important Litigation Alert June 12, 2008

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation is crowing about a ruling they got that people who sell promo CDs--that the recipient is given with full knowledge that the recipient is not supposed to sell the disc--are permitted to sell their promos on eBay and presumably in bricks and mortar stores as well. Ah yes, a great victory for the EFFluviati. What does this mean exactly? It means that the EFFluviati once again have managed to screw artists and songwriters." [MusicTechPolicy]

Orphan Works: No Copyright Infringement Litigation Says the Google Budget Office June 24, 2008
"Orphan works legislation is no problem, says the Congressional Budget Office because "[a]ccording to Copyright officials, there have been very few lawsuits against copyright infringers in recent years and the value of the awards in those suits have not been large."" [MusicTechPolicy]