Here at The Inquisitr we have been covering the whole SOPA, PIPA, and the Blackout of the Web but even before those two extremely flawed bills surfaced we were covering the international treaty commonly referred to by ACTA, even though all the trade organizations (funded by the entertainment industry) did their best to keep secret.

Most recently both James Johnson and H. Scott English wrote about the re-emergence of ACTA as a real matter of concern. The fact is that ACTA is even more insidious that either SOPA and PIPA might have been before they were shelved.

I first started writing about ACTA back in 2010 here at The Inquisitr and have been a vocal opponent of the treaty because it totally bypasses the direct involvement of elected politicians that could be held accountable for their actions. It is because of this problem with accountability that ACTA was never created as “a law” but rather as a “trade treaty” – as I wrote here in April 2010:

So why a trade agreement?

The simple answer to that question is – the laws; and legal rights, are getting in the way.

The entertainment industry has been trying in the US – with a lot of campaign bucks being donated – to get the laws changed to something more in their favor but there is this pesky thing called the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court that keeps getting in the way. While that hasn’t stopped them it has made their task a lot more difficult.

Then you have all those really irritating foreign countries with their own silly laws. They’ve tried in Canada to influence our government by donating as much as they possibly can, by whatever means they can, to favorable political candidates running for office. There influence has also been felt in other countries around the world but in the end – or at least at this point in time the standing laws of those countries are proving more difficult to get around than the entertainment industry would like.

With all these headaches why not find another way to get what you want and not have to deal with these piddling laws which is what the industry has done. You see in the Global Economy trade agreements trump local laws. You might not think so but in reality they do. Just look at any WTO disagreements, in the end the WTO trade agreements will trump local laws – hint: the current battle between the US and Antigua over online gambling.

So rather than have to constantly fight against the constantly shifting landscape of local laws the entertainment industry realized it was much easier to engineer a global trade agreement outside of even the WTO, WIPO and other related world trade organizations typical responsible for this type of thing. By doing so they have in effect created a global trade agreement that could marginalize or replace the WIPO.

Fast forward to today and we suddenly find that an interesting situation has arisen in the Untied States in regards to ACTA. It seems that President signed the ACTA treaty a few months ago, with apparently little or no fanfare, but questions are now being asked by those who do keep a very close eye on this – was Obama even allowed to sign ACTA?

It has been pointed out that any treaty between the US and any other country, which is exactly what ACTA is, requires Senate approval – which ACTA never got. What it did get was a change in semantics where is was now being called an “executive agreement” so that President Obama didn’t need Senate approval.

However, and this is where the constitution comes into play, this “treaty” is about intellectual property (supposedly) and as Mike Masnick at Techdirt points out the president cannot legally sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and that it must be submitted to the Senate.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

This is why Senator Wyden has asked the President to explain why Congress has been cut out. Scholars have noted their concern that if allowed, this will open the door to allowing the president to regularly route around Congress on international agreements.

I have said before and I will say it again – the success against SOPA and PIPA is only the opening skirmish of a much bigger war being waged around intellectual property. ACTA has been in the background for sometime but now that SOPA and PIPA have been shelved (temporarily) the fight needs to be now directed against the much more insidious and global version called ACTA.

However the question is now before us .. did President Obama knowingly and intentionally sidestep the US Congress in order to placate the entertainment industry; and in doing this did he break United States Constitutional law?

Did Obama break constitutional law by signing the ACTA treaty? is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we deal with the morning afterglow of our success in making Congress rethink the whole SOPA and PIPA, even if only temporarily, the push against all things meant to supposedly protect copyright and trademark laws continues unabated, as we have seen with the take down of Megaupload by the Department of Justice.

The problem is that the battle we are fighting right now over the protection of the entertainment industry and their inability to move into a modern world of digital creation and distribution it is nothing compared to the war that is headed our way, and coming faster than we might think.

Shortly after CES 2011, where the quiet hit of the event was 3D printing I made a comment on Google+ about what this could portend

like I said the other day – 3D printing will be the biggest thing to affect our world in a very long time and it is happening faster than most people might realize – the genie is out of the bottle

This is something that I believe quite strongly. There is an incredible shift coming our way and it makes the copyright and trademark battle being fought by the entertainment industry and their bought and paid for Congress look like an afternoon playing paintball.

I think that 3D printing, while it is only in its infancy at this point, will be the source of the biggest upheaval of our society that we will ever have seen next to the Industrial Revolution.

Sure right now the 3D printers that are available oar big, bulky, and meant for the geeks and nerds of the world but even in the few short years that they have been available they have gotten better, more compact, and able to do more. For example the big news out of CES this year was that the new 3D printers coming out were able to print in two colors whbich might not seem like much but like I said this is still early days.

It isn’t just about printing out cute little toys or figurines but as Bit Rebels posted there is a company that is taking 3D printing large scale and producing  a home made out of 3D printed parts – it’s called the FACIT home.

Now today we hear that The Pirate Bay is opening a new section on their site that will let you download digital files that can be used with 3D printers to create physical goods. As TorrentFreak wrote on their site about the news:

You wouldn’t download a car, the Internet meme predicted. But if The Pirate Bay has its way that action will be a reality in the years to come. In preparation for this world-changing day, the world’s biggest torrent site has just premiered a new section containing the plans for physical items that can be downloaded then printed out. Today its a plastic pirate ship, but one tomorrow in a decade or two it may well be a car.

As we as a society struggle to deal with the copyright and trademark fights we are already fighting with the entertainment industry just imagine the battles and political repercussions that we will face when you or I can download a data file, feed it into our personal 3D printer, and within minutes have the same product that a major corporation was trying to sell us a few years ago.

If 3D printing takes off, and I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn’t, yo can be assured that the fight we have been having with the entertainment industry will pale beyond belief when compared to the battle we’ll have when global corporations that make the entertainment look like the small fish in the pond start to feel threatened by our freedom to create the goods they are making their fortunes from.

The next battle over copyright and trademark is coming fast and it’s going to be huge is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mike Meier, a DC defense attorney, was once considered a champion of BitTorrent users rights and was even on the list of lawyers recommended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s web site. He also wasn’t shy about calling out copyright holders and their “extortion racket” as he called it.

Well it seems that Mike has decided to cross over into the dark side in a big way joining other copyright troll lawyers who are suing anyone they can when it comes to suspected copyright infringement. I say suspected because no-one yet has come up with an absolutely foolproof way to identify infringers by their IP addresses.

So far Meier has sued more than 1,000 BitTorrent users, or at least that is what he proudly boast on his site. As you can see from the top image prior to his conversion Meier was on the side of the consumer but now his web site advertises about how he can help you accept your punishment and pay up.

This from the man who once said in an interview that it was his opinion that copyright trolls were just the bill collectors for the movie industry and that they were just extorting money.

I guess fighting on the side of “right” doesn’t pay as well eh.

via TorrentFreak

BitTorrent defense attorney changes mind and becomes copyright troll is a post from: The Inquisitr

That image you see above has, in a very short period of time, become the iconic image of Apple and Steve Jobs. It first started spreading around the web just after his passing away was announced and in the process made Hong Kong student designer Jonathan Mak a well known name, and broght him job offers in the process.

Well it turns out that Mak may or moy not have been the first to come up with the image as there are two more people saying that they came up with the design first.

One of the new names in the mix is a English designer going by the name Raid71 who said he came up with the image first back in May. Jonathan Mak on the other hand is saying that he didn’t rip off Raid71 and is claiming independent invention.

None of this is flying with the third person, Farzin Adeli in California, who isn’t just claiming first rights but is also trying to copyright and trademark the image. Adeli claims that he came up with the image right after Jobs’ death and while the image that went viral is a ‘negative’ version it is “virtually identical” to the one he created.

Adeli is apparently working with lawyers to secure the trademark for the image.

via Techdirt

The now iconic Steve Jobs Apple image is headed to copyright fight is a post from: The Inquisitr

We are pretty use to seeing stories about fake Apple products that stream out of China but it seems that some bootleggers have decided to raise the bar and have opened up “Apple Stores” in some Chinese cities.

According to one American couple who came across the one in the pictures in the city of Kumming, one of three in the city apparently, was several hundred miles from the nearest official Apple store. On the surface they might have seemed similar once you took a close look it was fairly obvious that while the overall theme was along the lines of Apple’s official stores the little things were what gave it away. Little things like “Apple Stoer” along with the outside Apple logo. The real stores just have the logo.

The really amazing thing though, is that the employees in these stores believe that they are actually working for Apple, blue t-shirts and all.

via DVICE

Fake Apple store employees believe they work for Apple is a post from: The Inquisitr

As idealistic as that might have been we have seen the whole patent system become misused to the point that some claim that, especially when it comes to software patents, developers are seriously re-considering whether selling their products in the US is worth the risk.

In a post this weekend in the Guardian Online Charles Arthur writes about several European app developers that have pulled all their apps from US distribution due to a very real fear of being sued for patent infringement.

Simon Maddox, a UK developer, has removed all his apps from US app stores on both iOS and Android for fear of being sued by Lodsys, a company which has already sued a number of iOS and Android developers which it says infringe its software patent.

Shaun Austin, another app developer based in Cheltenham, said that “selling software in the US has already reached the non-viable tipping point”.

And Fraser Speirs, a Scottish developer who has written apps for the Mac and iOS, remarked that he was “starting to get seriously concerned about my future as a software developer due to these patent issues”.

This situation has been exasperated by Mumbai, India, based Kootol Software who has launched a wide ranging lawsuit against companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google; and including some of the larger independant developers like Iconfactory which is most well known for its Twitter app Twitterrific.

The lawsuit claims that all these companies infringe upon Kootol Software’s patent, which is still in the application phase, that states - ”A Method and System for Communication, Advertising, Searching, Sharing and Dynamically Providing a Journal Feed”.

In other words anything to do with an RSS feed of any kind; which whether in XML format or the newer JSON format has become an integral way to transport information around the web.

Betenn Kootol Software and an earlier lawsuit by Lodsys against iOS app developers for the Apple platform there is a growing worry among developers that the financial dangers of developing apps is outweighing the benefits; and this is throwing a dark cloud over the Web as a whole.

There has been calls in the past for the US to revamp their patent and copyright laws to better reflect the modern technological world we live in but for the most part any change have been lobbied against by the entertainment industry and ironically by some of the very companies that are being sued today.

The fact is that if the US doesn’t finally join the modern world when it comes to copyrights and patents they could find that those two things will just become two more nails in their coffin as they slide into the technological backwater.

App developers face very questionable future due to US patent laws is a post from: The Inquisitr

There has been a lot of talk courtesy of the entertainment industry lobbying groups about a three strikes type act for copyright infringers who will be kicked off the Web is they get three warnings for downloading or sharing copyright righted files from their ISPs.

This of course is predicated on the fact that the ISPs are willing to become the copyright police for organizations like the RIAA and MPAA. This type o thing has happened in France with some pretty dubious result but know it looks like the idea is gaining traction in the US but with a few modifications.

According to a post over at Ars Technica it seems that all the major American ISPs have agreed; via a voluntary agreement with the music and movie companies, to crack down on online copyright infringes. These companies include: Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable. The major difference between the US agreement and others elsewhere is that it will take “six strikes” before you “possibly, maybe” get tossed from the web.

ISPs have agreed to institute “mitigation measures” (or, as you and I know them, punishments) based on the collected say-so of copyright holders. These measures begin with the fifth or six alert, and they may include “temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.”

There is no requirement that ISPs disconnect a user’s Internet connection at any point, and indeed ISPs say they will refuse any measure that might cut off a user’s phone service, e-mail access, “or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring).” But ISPs are free to disconnect users if they wish (as indeed they have always been).

Ya, this is going to end well.

“Strike six – yer out!” says American ISPs. Well sort of. is a post from: The Inquisitr

A student from the UK is facing possible extradition to the states because he ran a website that linked to pirated content.

23-year-old Richard O’Dwyer’s website TVShack has since been seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but O’Dwyer’s lawyers argue that criminal charges should be brought in Britain, because the site was never hosted on US servers. O’Dwyer’s mother spoke to the Telegraph and said the extradition threat was unfair to her son:

Mrs O’Dwyer, a nurse to terminally ill children, said her son had been “foolish” not to understand the implications of copyright. “If Richard has done something wrong it is right it is dealt with,” she said. “But it doesn’t seem right that Richard, who hasn’t been to America since he was five years old, should be taken there. No one would be able to visit him and he could be waiting in prison for a couple of years before his case is even heard. He should be tried here.”

O’Dwyer’s lawyer adds:

“The server was not based in the US at all. Mr O’Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times.”

O’Dwyer has been formally charged, but trial is pending.

British Student Faces Extradition to US Over Piracy Link Site is a post from: The Inquisitr

The law firm criticized for their “copyright trolling” in an attempt to wring money out of internet users for engaging in nefarious activities such as viewing a YouTube video or quoting an news piece on a message board were majorly smacked down by a judge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation gleefully reports.

Righthaven is dedicated to enforcing copyright laws- regardless of who the copyright holder actually is. Awesomely, though, judges apparently don’t look kindly on this kind of suit. The EFF’s press section reports:

In dismissing Righthaven’s claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt’s ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights,” said Laurence Pulgram, head of copyright litigation at Fenwick & West in San Francisco. “The ruling speaks for itself. The court rejected Righthaven’s claim that it owned sufficient rights in the copyright, stating that claim was ‘flagrantly false–to the point that the claim is disingenuous if not outright deceitful.’”

Judge Hunt also noted that “Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court” and rejected Righthaven’s efforts to fix things after the fact with a May 9, 2011, amendment to the original assignment agreement. The judge expressed “doubt that these seemingly cosmetic adjustments change the nature and practical effect” of the invalid assignment.

As part of his ruling today, the judge ordered Righthaven to show why it should not be sanctioned for misrepresentations to the court. The Court permitted Democratic Underground’s counterclaim to continue against Stephens Media — the publisher of the Review Journal — allowing Democratic Underground to show that it did nothing wrong in allowing a user to post a five-sentence excerpt of a 50-sentence article.

The EFF expressed hope this was the end of this sort of infringement on “free and open” expression on the internet. Do you think this ruling will stop Righthaven?

[via BoingBoing]

Judge Dismisses ‘Copyright Troll’ Righthaven Lawsuit is a post from: The Inquisitr

I have to say, if you’re going down for torrenting a movie, you could have probably been sued for something far better than The Expendables.

Perhaps the US Copyright Group wants to add insult to injury by threatening BitTorrent users for something as eminently sucky as the film Rolling Stone called a “limp-dick bust” with a $150,000 judgment each. March 17th, a judge gave the group permission to subpoena contact information from the tens of thousands of users who downloaded the flick. (Although it sounds like the US Copyright Group could be a government agency, they’re actually a collective of lawyers who sniff around for a cut of suits like these, tricky.)

The filing is expected to be the largest of its kind to date, and if users refuse to settle for fines of about $3,000, they could be found liable for possible damages of $150,000. If the suit is successful for the lawyers group, expect to see many more of its ilk springing up in hopes of wringing money out of potential pirates. Another suit is already in the works, targeting 15,000 suspected porn-pirates.

US Copyright Group preps suit against 23K+ BitTorrent users is a post from: The Inquisitr

A little over a month ago, we posted about the Las Vegas law firm seeking to squeeze dollars out of bloggers and regular everyday internet users via a creative use of copyright law and re-interpretation of statues to retroactively render viral material on the internet protected intellectual property.

Such a notion should be pretty terrifying if you ever pass on a funny image or video, and more so if you write for or maintain your own blog. (If you pass on chain letters, you pretty much deserve to be sued for something.) But the “copyright trolls” (as Ars Technica so aptly dubbed them) suffered a key loss in court recently that should be mildly encouraging to internet users curious to see how it all pans out.

It’s kind of satisfying, too, that Righthaven seems to have slightly advanced the cause of its many opponents. In a recent ruling regarding fair use, a federal judge actually supported the reproduction of entire articles- a practice most bloggers try to avoid precisely to prevent this sort of legal threat. Federal Judge James Mahan exercised a pretty commendable judicial smackdown:

Judge Mahan told both sides that the purpose of copyright law was to encourage creativity and to disseminate public access to information, so long as that did not unfairly hinder the market for the original story. In this case, Mahan said that the tiny Oregon nonprofit had essentially zero overlap between the readers of its website and the readers of the Review-Journal. In addition, the effect on the “market” for the work is unclear, since Righthaven is solely using the copyright to prosecute a lawsuit, not to defend its news operations (it has none).

The chances of Righthaven taking their ball and going home at this stage of the game are slim, but the two rulings cited in the above links show promising precedent against future actions of a similar nature. What do you think about Righthaven’s lawsuits? Should judges be intolerant of law firms using the court in such a way?

“Copyright trolling” law firm Righthaven loses pivotal case is a post from: The Inquisitr

Via Fark comes a story about this terrifying new practice, spearheaded by a law firm in Vegas and aimed at wringing money out of bloggers and even sometimes message board commenters in a legal strategy that- if it catches on- threatens the very foundation of the web, sharing wrong, shocking or funny pictures.

The blogging masses love to find content that goes viral- sure, traffic and resultant dollar signs is a motivation, but far more of the thrill of sharing pics and other things that blow up internet-wide is the web’s biggest driving motivation- being first. But if Righthaven has its way, the internet could become a whole lot less friendly and about open sharing and dispersal of information. That’s because- in a nutshell- their whole business model is based on copyrighting content which has gone or is about to go past that tipping point of web infamy, and then suing the snot out of you, the user, who posts one of their newly copyrighted images or pieces of content on a blog, a forum, or a social aggregation site.

Wired first covered Righthaven in a piece last year aptly titled “Copyright Trolling for Dollars,” describing CEO Steve Gibson’s strategy as favoring shakedown over takedown:

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who’ve re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.

Interesting too are the relatively paltry sums wrested from your average web user for posting newly copyrighted content- one to three large, which as far as lawyer money goes, is chump change. The name of the game for Righthaven is settlements, terrifying Joe Poster into scaring up the funds to avoid getting cleaned out at trial. The law should take a dim view of this- DMCA takedown notices have worked well in the past at protecting copyrighted content without tying up judicial resources.

All things considered, even if this one law firm devotes all its resources to copyrighting content and suing users of Reddit, Fark and its ilk, most web users should be able to continue sharing with impunity without too much fear. But if the practice catches on and other law firms scent blood in the water- a possible outcome, to be sure- such a practice could have terrible implications for the way the web works.

Do you think this legal strategy will have lasting implications for the way viral information travels on the internet? Is this what copyright laws really exist to protect?

[Image]

Vegas law firm pioneers frightening strategy to sue everyone on the internet is a post from: The Inquisitr

I was wondering how long it would be before this tactic would succeed but according to Kit Eaton at Fast Company two Hollywood giants have scored a major win against Triton Media and set a huge precedent in the courts in the process.

The tactic in question is what is referred to as contributory infringement and inducement to infringe and it was the argument used by lawyers for Disney and Warner Bros. in their lawsuit against Triton Media, a web advertiser. The basis of the argument is that by providing ads to sites that primarily exist to stream video without paying any licencing  fees Triton Media was contributing to copyright abuse, or at least that is how the argument goes.

The damages are levied against Triton Media, which the courts have thus found guilty of “contributory copyright infringement” and “inducement to infringe.” Triton’s crime is an odd one: Providing a web ads facility to websites including free-tv-video-online.info and watch-movies.net. These sites, part of a longer list, are accused of illegally providing streaming access to content that they haven’t licensed from the content owners–the latest bane in the life of Hollywood studios and TV companies the world over. Their business model is simple: At low cost to themselves they provide a point of access to someone else’s popular TV show or movie, their viewers are attracted by the big-name shows available and the fact they don’t have to pay. In-page ads return a small revenue stream to the site owners, much as they do for pretty much every other web site out there.

So the big unanswered question in the room now is – given that the vast majority of pirate type sites run Google AdSense will Big Media have enough of a precedent, and backbone, with this win against Triton Media to go after Google?

Loss to Disney and Warner costs Triton $400k. Is Google next? is a post from: The Inquisitr

This is nuts but Mike Masnick at Techdirt has the lowdown on a whole new level of stupid when it comes to this copyright madness. It seems that bartenders are being encouraged to try and copyright their drink recipes. Of course it helps that lawyers specializing in restaurant law are the ones that have raised the idea of drink recipe copyrights.

First of all, no, the publication of a recipe cannot be protected. Straight from the US Copyright Office: “Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection.” That said, if there is “substantial literary expression” in, say, the description of how to prepare the recipethat part (and that part alone) could be covered by copyright, but that should have little impact on bartenders making similar mixed drinks

This stemmed out of a post over at The Atlantic by Chantal Martineau who wrote

Everyone wants a piece of the big spirits industry pie. Freeman urges bartenders to better guard their recipes, a sentiment that contradicts the atmosphere of sharing many bars foster, especially in this era of guest bartending (when bartenders moonlight at a bar that isn’t their own). The owners of Painkiller have avoided the issue of intellectual property altogether by publishing their recipes on their website for all to see. Freeman isn’t so sure it’s a good idea.

Look I worked for a long time as a bartender and I can’t think of anything so stupid as trying to copyright a drink recipe. I’ve had my share of created concoctions over those years but the idea of copyrighting those recipes is just plain stupid.

Bartenders looking to copyright that drink you just ordered is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well YouTube can breath easy now.

The official YouTube blog has a post up announcing its win over Viacom in their long running court case. The court issued a summary judgement which means that the court decided that YouTube was indeed protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it comes to charges of copyright infringement.

Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel for Google, said this in his post

This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.

I’m betting a few champagne corks will be flying around the Googleplex tonight.

YouTube gets to tell Viacom to #suckit – wins case is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) might have a slight bias when it comes to reporting on stuff that is happening on the web but when they have post that is basically highlighting the responses to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’s request for submissions regarding its Joint Strategic Plan for intellectual property enforcement it’s worth looking at. Especially when you read the obvious wishlist from entertainment trade organizations (mouthpieces) like the RIAA and MPAA.

While there are days where what comes out of these organizations doesn’t surprise me in the least (hint: ACTA) this laundry list of ways that the RIAA and MPAA want to screw the consumer even more does surprise me considering how blatant the attempt is.

Here’s the list courtesy of the EFF:

• Anti-infringement software for home computers - in other words they want the legal right to install spyware on your computer that will scan and identify infringing files – and possible delete the files automatically.
  

  There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers…these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).

• Pervasive copyright filtering – to force network operators to institute filters on their networks to filter out any infringing files.
  

  Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks. [This suggestion is preceded by a list of filtering methods, like protocol filtering, fingerprint-based filtering, bandwidth throttling, etc.]

• Intimidate and propagandize travelers at the border – to be given the right to have border guards seize and search all electronic devices like iPods and laptops for ‘pirated’ material.
  

  Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products. Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.

• Bully countries that have tech friendly policies – The idea here is to force countries like Canada to copy and enforce all the guidelines and laws that the US has in regards to copyright and intellectual property. This is also one of the reasons that ACTA came into being in the first as a way to end run local country laws and force draconian laws on countries that normally wouldn’t do so.
  

  The government should develop a process to identify those online sites that are most significantly engaged in conducting or facilitating the theft of intellectual property. Among other uses, this identification would be valuable in the interagency process that culminates in the annual Special 301 report, listing countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection to U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Special 301 could provide a focus on those countries where companies engaged in systematic online theft of U.S. copyrighted materials are registered or operated, or where their sites are hosted. Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come. (As noted above, while many of these sites are located outside the U.S., their ability to distribute pirate content in the U.S. depends on U.S.-based ISP communications facilities and services and U.S.-based server farms operated commercially by U.S.-based companies.)

• Federal agents working on Hollywood’s clock – the use of ‘deputized’ Federal agents, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to provide muscle during the big summertime blockbuster season because we all know those cammers out there are a dangerous bunch.
  

  The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels. Enforcement agencies (notably within DOJ and DHS) should plan a similarly focused preventive and responsive strategy. An interagency task force should work with industry to coordinate and make advance plans to try to interdict these most damaging forms of copyright theft, and to react swiftly with enforcement actions where necessary.

Gee doesn’t that leave you all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the money we spend on movies and music is being spent in such a great way .. not to mention tax-payer dollars.

RIAA & MPAA wishlist to screw the consumer is a post from: The Inquisitr

Dear President Obama,

I am writing this open letter to you in the hopes that you might be able to explain why it is that the United States Government is so actively trying to hide all information regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

I remember when you were elected as the president of your great country that I, like a lot of people suddenly had high hopes for the United States after the dark years of the Bush Administration. You see even though I might be a Canadian the fact that for the first time in its history your country saw past the color barrier and elected a black president. That, on top of your election platform, gave not only your country great pause but the rest of the world as well.

But increasingly the hopes and dreams of your election seem to becoming more of an illusion. I’m not referring to your recent healthcare victory but rather your government’s stance on matters that are going to have far ranging effects on the world as a whole.

Sure everyone is pre-occupied with your recent discussions regarding the nuclear issue which I must say is providing great cover for what is potentially the most far ranging slaughter of copyright and intellectual property laws we have ever seen. Yet your government is doing everything it can to make sure that any agreements reached remain a secret.

This from a government that promised its people, and by extension the people of the world, that there would be a new transparency with your government but increasingly we seem to be finding it is actually quite the opposite.

Nowhere is this more evident than when the subject of ACTA comes up as James Love recently found when he requested under your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) only to be told that documents pertaining to ACTA were considered state secrets (pdf of denial letter)

Today we received this letter from the White House, Office of the United States Trade Representative. Our FOIA request was denied on the grounds that the documents are “information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

As well as Canada’s esteemed Professor of Internet and E-Commerce Law Michael Geist pointed out today that the US is the primary force behind the increasing effort to pull all future discussions surround ACTA back into the shadows

The text of the treaty can be released without regard for the level of agreement on substantive issues.  Yet unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the U.S. has set conditions that effectively seeks to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text.  The only thing needed to reach consensus on sharing the text with the public is for the U.S. to give the go-ahead.  This statement indicates they will only do so for a price.

I understand that the entertainment industry are really big contributors to election campaigns but they are also the driving force behind the original drafting of ACTA and its subsequent adoption by various friendly governments around the world – Canada included. However President Obama this self-same group of global entertainment conglomerates are using ACTA to perform an end-run around the laws of your country.

As I pointed out in an earlier post ACTA as an international trade agreement can be used as a great big club against countries who decide at some point that t he rights of the actual creators and the consumers are more important than the entertainment industry’s right to hold all content hostage. That includes the country that you are president of Mr. Obama.

This so-called trade agreement has the potential to forever change the copyright landscape and yet the United States Government sees fit to hide all the dealing to do with it behind a shroud of secrecy. Why is this President Obama especially in light of your promise of change and transparency?

If there was ever a time, ever a reason, for openness and total transparency ACTA is that time. If there was ever a time to keep your word to the American people ACTA is that time.

So how about it President Obama – can we have some of the truth and openness? Or does the entertainment industry truly hold the keys to power?

Sincerely,

Steven Hodson – concerned citizen of Canada who is about to get his rights stomped all over.

Dear President Obama: About this ACTA secrecy thing is a post from: The Inquisitr

The case, lodged in the Australian Federal Court by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network in November 2009, argued that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent. The suit sought an order to force iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network, and asked that iiNet pay damages for allowing copyrighted work to be downloaded.

Justice Cowdroy threw the case out, stating that “It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorized copyright infringement… (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring.”

Reaffirming that iiNet was a carrier of data, and not responsible for the actions of its users, Cowdroy said “In the law of authorization there is a distinction to be drawn of the means of copyright infringement… the mere provision of access to the Internet [does] not authorize infringement.”

“iiNet has no control of the BitTorrent system and is not responsible for its use by users…iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement … the law recognizes no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.”

In a further blow to the studios, the judge also ruled that the studios were liable for iiNet’s costs in the case.

A spokesman for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, representing the studios, said in a statement that they were disappointed by the result, and are now considering whether to lodge an appeal.

Comically, the statement also claimed that the result “is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry.” Australian’s don’t watch Australian films across the board (legally or otherwise,) which begs the question: how does this damage the industry exactly. Besides, the film industry in Australia is nearly entirely underwritten by the Australian taxpayer through Government support, copyright and downloads have little to no influence.

iiNet Wins Australian ISP Copyright Case, Hollywood Studios To Pay Costs is a post from: The Inquisitr

Today is just a banner day for all kinds of music business ridiculousness. First we have Bono ragging on about how piracy is killing the music business and that we should institute some stupid Chinese style censorship to stop all those dirty low-down thieves.

Ya .. this is the country with the hight rate of any kind of copyright infringement. Hell even Google over there will let you search for any kind of music you want – legal or not. I can see that is a working plan.

Now (via the gang at TorrentFreak) we have a record company in Finland that has closed it’s doors to any kind of new music submissions. This is the notice you will find on the contact page for Lion Music

Dear Musicians,

We are NOT able to sign more artists. No demos or masters you send us will be considered for release. We will NOT listen to any mp3 files or check out your websites and we will NOT respond to questions regarding releasing your album.

The illegal file sharing on the net is killing independent music. We are sorry about this situation but we are sure you are aware of what is going on. Our demo policy will not change before our politicians have stopped the P2P sites. Illegal file sharing is not just about stealing from rich major companies. It is about killing independent music and making it impossible for many great musicians to have a chance to release albums and have a musical career even as a part time job.

Some people seem to think that file sharing does not affect record sales but these people don’t know what they are talking about. All musical genres and all kinds of artists are suffering and so will the genuine music fans in the end when the music they love will no longer be available in any guise – free or not. Next time you consider downloading an album for free or adding new torrents please think of the impact you are having on the artists – would you like it if we came into your home and stole your pay check?

So rather than try and find news ways to represent musicians in a way that is equitable to everyone they are just going to shut the doors. Talk about taking your bat and ball and going home.

Talk about being brain-dead and getting it all wrong is a post from: The Inquisitr

I realize that it is common practice come this time of year for us to all sit back and ruminate over all the wonderful and earthshaking things we have written about in the past year and to delve into the murky depths of the future and prognosticate using our incredibly sharp intellect what will happen in the year to come. Well I can’t stand doing that except in very rare occasions – and this is one of those years.

I’m not going to bother looking back because other than increasing pageviews possibly for all of a minute or two it is a boring and pointless exercise mainly because the majority of time, regardless of how we might spin our past words, we’re wrong. No, what I want to do is to look to 2010 and the one thing that will have the most profound effect on our lives and the Web.

It’s a prediction that will come as a result of events that have been happening for some time now but really has culminated in 2009 to create a foundation from which how we use the Web and what we can do there will be forever changed. Changed in such away that we will no longer have the freedoms that we brag about today and seem to think are some sort of inalienable right.

So here’s my one and only prediction for 2010:

This will be the year in which we will see the biggest assault on copyright laws around the world. The end result of the secret war against copyright laws and the consumer will be one of the total annihilation of our copyright laws as we know them.

Sure we have all read posts about how the entertainment industry is trying to get changes made to existing copyright laws in various countries and the response has for the most part been a big *YAWN* and then it’s on to whining and gushing respectively over Twitter and Facebook. The problem is that the movement to gut existing copyright laws, being led by the US entertainment industry, is only a shadow of the real effort that will supersede any local country laws.

This is all being done behind closed doors where even government officials are being required to sign NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements). Yes, NDAs on the creation of a new global treaty – something that has never been done before because laws and treaties are suppose to be open to public examination and input. This isn’t the case with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) however.

Don’t let the “Anti-Counterfeiting” part fool you either because in reality very little of this global trade agreement has anything to do with fighting piracy and has everything to do with dismantling individual country copyright laws and replacing it with a Universal Trade Agreement. The reason for this backdoor approach is because any and all local country laws would basically have no standing in disputes as they would be governed by the UN/WIPO backed ACTA treaty.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation on ACTA (emphasis is mine):

In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan simultaneously announced that they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada have joined the negotiations. Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope, and in particular, will deal with new tools targetting “Internet distribution and information technology”.

Professor Michael Geist, Canadian Professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has been one of the lone voice foretelling of the dangers to come with ACTA. You can read all his posts on ACTA here, but here are a few snippets:

Given the recent backlash at WIPO, the U.S. is avoiding the U.N. system.  Instead, it has created a new counterfeiting coalition of the willing that includes the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Canada.  Those countries yesterday simultaneously announced enthusiastic support for a new trade agreement with negotiations to begin next year.  Indeed, International Trade Minister David Emerson’s announcement to the House of Commons brought the MPs to their feet.

This treaty could ultimately prove bigger than WIPO – without the constraints of consensus building, developing countries, and civil society groups, the ACTA could further reshape the IP landscape with tougher enforcement, stronger penalties, and a gradual eradication of the copyright and trademark balance.

- Is ACTA the New WIPO

Rather than negotiating in an international venue such as the United Nations and opening the door to any interested countries, ACTA partners consisted of a small group of countries (Canada, United States, European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco, and Singapore) meeting in secret and opposed broadening the process. The substance of the treaty was also accorded the highest level of secrecy.  Draft documents were not released to the public and even the locations of negotiations were often kept under wraps.  In fact, the U.S. government refused to disclose information about the treaty on national security grounds.

- ACTA Threatens Made-in-Canada Copyright Policy

While the substance of the treaty will remain fodder for much debate, Canadian officials recently hosted a public consultation during which they acknowledged the true motivation behind the ACTA. Senior officials stated that there were really two reasons for the treaty. The first, unsurprisingly, was concerns over counterfeiting. The second was the perceived stalemate at WIPO, where the growing emphasis on the Development Agenda and the heightened participation of developing countries and non-governmental organisations have stymied attempts by countries such as the United States to bull their way toward new treaties with little resistance.

- The ACTA Threat To The Future Of WIPO – Intellectual Property Watch :: Michael Geist

This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the assault against copyright laws. It is an attack that is taking place around the world: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Europe and the US just to name a few. It is an attack that is taking place behind closed doors under a shroud of secrecy that is being enforced through never before seen NDAs at all levels.

It is planned that all these secret negotiations taking place will finish in 2010 and the world will be presented with a new world wide copyright/IP treaty that has been written and bullied through all levels of individual country governments by the US entertainment industry and their trade groups around the world.

If we think the copyright systems we have in each of our country is draconian I can promise you this – you ain’t seen nothing and if you don’t think this fight over copyright laws isn’t important then you sincerely need to give your head a shake. Under the provisions, that we know of from leaks, of ACTA we will see a sudden shift of power on the Internet. It will no longer be a medium of the people but instead it will be the new money machine of the entertainment industry and any voices against them will suddenly find themselves silenced and bereft of any legal recourse.

It won’t be our Internet anymore. So think about that as you all get woodies about how important Twitter is. Think about it as you bicker over whether RSS is dead, whether blogging is dead, or whether real-time search is the next killer app.

I would like to think that people are smart enough to see the coming danger – especially those of us in the tech industry – and do something to stem this tide. Sadly though we’re too worried about some new shiny toy. Too worried that we don’t have enough followers. Too worried about whether we are among the first to be using some stupid ass service.

The really sad part about this?

I don’t see it changing.

My only prediction for 2010 and it ain’t pretty is a post from: The Inquisitr