beforeyoukillyourcomputer.com

A MAFIAA CABAL called the International Intellectual Property Alliance, which is an umbrella group for the entertainment cartels such as the MPAA and RIAA, has demanded that Indonesia, Brazil and India should be placed on a special trade watchlist merely because they recommend the use of open source software.

Apparently the outfit has been leaning on the US Trade Representative to consider those nations for its “Special 301 watchlist”, which is supposed to list all those nations who are enemies of capitalism.

The lobbying was uncovered by Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in law at the University of Edinburgh. Apparently the problem is that the entertainment industry lobbies regard open source as communism, or at least socialism.

Last year the Indonesian government sent around a circular to all government departments and state-owned businesses, recommending that they should adopt open source software.

According to the IIPA, this encouraged government agencies to use Free Open Source Software (FOSS) with a view towards implementation by the end of 2011, which the circular states will result in the use of legitimate open source and free software and a reduction in overall costs of software in the country’s government agencies.

But the IIPA said that that Indonesia deserves Special 301 status because encouraging, yet not forcing, such takeup “weakens the software industry” and “fails to build respect for intellectual property rights.”

Full Story ~ The Inquirer

The Internet and free-speech advocacy group Public Knowledge has posted a video clip from the State of the Net Conference put on by the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus.

During the clip, RIAA president Cary Sherman appears to be calling for some type of infringing content filter placed on consumer’s PCs or on networking devices that would thwart infringing content.

“One could have a filter on the end user’s computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from encryption because if you want to hear [the music], you would need to decrypt it, and at that point the filter would work,” added Sherman, who said such technology could be a “tangible benefit” to consumers.

Nor does Sherman see these filters as invasive. He seems to regard them much in the vein of virus scanners, which most Internet users readily accept.

As much as I am pro-copyright, the civil libertarian in me cringes when a narrow interest group like the RIAA even thinks of ways to force me to have an infringement filter on my PC.

What’s on my PC is my own business.

Source

Following a recent court loss, hugely popular file storage service Rapidshare might soon be faced with a tough choice: stop users from uploading/downloading copyrighted music from its servers, or get shut down.

German’s equivalent of the RIAA, GEMA, has won a copyright infringement case against Rapidshare, as the judge ruled that Rapdishare can be held accountable for the actions of its users. It’s the story as old as the internet: if you’re merely providing a hosting service, should you also monitor every file hosted on your servers and prevent any copyrighted files to be uploaded/downloaded? Lately, the answer has been yes: at the very least, if the music/movie industry points to a file and ask you to remove it, you have to comply.

However, although GEMA was quick to declare victory on this one (press release in German), claiming that RapidShare now must take preventive action and check all the files on its servers for copyright infringement, it’s not quite clear what the court has decided yet. We’ve seen pressure to put similar requirements on ISPs, and the general consensus among experts is that this would be either impossible or highly impractical; RapidShare, with the huge amount of material it hosts (they claim 4.5 petabytes of storage), would be no different.

The folks at TorrentFreak spoke to Christian Solmecke, a lawyer at the Cologne Chambers of Lawyers Wilde & Beuger, who thinks that RapidShare’s demise is far from inevitable. “RapidShare will appeal against the decision of the Landgericht (District Court) of Düsseldorf. If they do so, we will have to wait and see what the Oberlandesgericht (Higher District Court) of Düsseldorf (as the Court of Appeal) says,” he says.

RapidShare is fully operational at the time of this writing.

Source

Earlier this month we wrote about the University of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General’s resistance to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) legal demands for the names of students alleged to have illegally downloaded free music.
Now the Oregon AG has taken a step further, taking the offensive and filing legal papers demanding disclosure of the RIAA’s investigative methods. The filing alleges that the RIAA may have spied on students and illegally obtained their Social Security numbers and other personal information.

An RIAA spokesperson responded with indignation, accusing the University of protecting a wave of piracy. The Association now says that student pirates need to be stopped for their own good, lest they accidentally put files like their bank records and tax info into the folders they share on P2P services.

It’s good to know there’s some one, the Oregon Attorney General, taking an aggressive stand against such stupidity. While some record companies are changing their tune about suing customers, it’s hard to imagine what else the attack dogs at the RIAA would do if not things like this. I imagine they feel the same way when they show up for work each day. Readers interested in some smart discussion on the legal move should check out posts and their comments by Mike Masnick at TechDirt and New York City lawyers Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman at their blog Recording Industry vs. The People.

Source

A study in Canada has been released that proves what many (myself included) have known for years, that on average people that pirate music are more likely to buy CD’s rather than less. The study was sponsored by the Canadian government and is a bit of a slog to read, but there is already some very good analysis of it on the Web.While I have seen (and helped conduct) a number of studies on this topic in recent years, this one is by far the most conclusive and the most reliable one I have seen. Spanning nearly a year and with over 2000 participants this study has a very low margin for error. From what I have seen so far, there also doesn’t seem to be any inherent bias in the conducters of this study, although this is something I will be researching further.

The study is exclusively conducted among Canadian citizens, and the cultural and environmental similarities make this almost directly applicable to the majority of the English speaking first world. The first key finding was that the net effect of illegal downloads on CD purchases in Canada was zero. That’s right, zero, zilch, nada, nil, the big donut. Amongst those that did download though, there was a direct, positive correlation between the number of songs downloaded and the number of CD’s purchased. The more people got for free, the more they paid for.

I have long known that the RIAA’s tactic of suing big downloaders meant they were also targeting their biggest customers. Ironically the money they win from their lawsuits is money that would probably have been spent on music. It’s not as stupid when you factor in that they are trying to change a cultural mores rather than claim damages. In this case they are only moderately stupid, given that the group they are targeting are not likely to respond well to these tactics, rather than monumentally stupid in driving their best customers away.

This study will generate a lot of noise in the coming days/weeks. It is unlikely that the music industry will come to its senses, but here’s hoping.

Source

The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA’s subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: ‘Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC … The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor.’ The AG’s motion further argues (pdf) that “Plaintiffs’ subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. One commentator has likened the AG’s argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA’s evidence is ‘rubbish’.

Source

Reports from the Capitol v Thomas case are starting to come in with the jury awarding $220,000 to the record companies. There is no mention of an appeal yet, but one would assume this is inevitable.

An interesting fact that came up in the trial was that Thomas was a very large consumer of legal music. This backs up what has been said for years, that the recording industry is suing their biggest customers. Expecting the recording industry to get their heads out of the sand at this point is a pipe dream.

Source

After more than 4 years of their much reviled litigation of their customers, the RIAA may be about to get what it has tried to avoid, actually going to trial. While I am sure you have heard of the recent ruling of costs against them, this was after they tried to back out of the case without prejudice, and were smacked for the judge for it. The only facts tried in court in this case were regarding whether they could pull out of litigation scott free after costing the defendant money.

This trial will actually judge the merits of RIAA’s tactics directly, and so far the RIAA has seemed very scared of this. Historically the terms of settlement have been attractive enough that anyone charged that is actually guilty has settled, and in the cases where the defendant has fought, the RIAA has dropped out in some way before getting to a jury. In this case the RIAA tried for summary judgement, meaning the judge makes a determination without going to full jury trial. That was denied so we will see the RIAA in court with a jury on October 2. You can see more detail on the case at Recording Industry vs the People.

Source

It’s been argued before that the RIAA’s claim of $750 per song shared in damages — a standard figure used in all filesharing cases within the US — may be unconstitutional. According to Ray Beckerman of Recording Industry vs. The People, the defendant in Atlantic vs. Boggs has not only challenged the constitutionality of the claim, but has entered a counterclaim based on the challenge. That means we’re playing for real dollars and the RIAA isn’t impressed.

The RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim and, in a somewhat unusual action, the US Department of Justice filed a motion with the court asking for a 60 day stay in which it will decide whether or not to intervene.

If the RIAA’s constitutionality claims can be set aside, it will take serious muscle out of the spamigation being perpetuated, and could force an extreme change of strategy.

Source