EU Copyright Holders Cling To Old Levies, As New Ones Start To Appear On Cloud Storage

from the time-to-stop-this-nonsense dept

Levies on blank storage media are a relic of older times when copying was a new possibility for copyright works. You no longer needed an LP pressing plant, say, you could copy music in the comfort of your own home, first on analog cassette tapes, then later on digital media like CDs and MP3 players. At that time, it was easy to see each of those copies as somehow replacing purchases, and so the argument for levies was born: people should pay indirectly for the "lost" sales their copying caused.

Fast forward to the Internet age, when everything online is copied multiple times as it traverses the nodes of the network, and where everyone is constantly copying files, regardless of copyright law -- with a potential annual liability of around $4.5 billion, according to a well-known study by John Tehranian. Basically, the idea that every copy of a digital file must be paid for is dead, which makes levies on storage media -- currently being pushed to absurd levels in some countries -- look even more unjustifiable.

Even the copyright holders are aware of this. A new "Declaration on Private Copying Remuneration" (pdf), pointed out to us by an article in Intellectual Property Watch, tries to convince people that levies are fair:

Private copying is becoming a more and more frequent subject of debate. The companies which market copying devices are systematically attacking the system through European and national courts, lobbying and through the press. On behalf of hundreds of thousands of creators we, the undersigned organisations representing authors, performers and producers of musical, audiovisual, literary and visual arts works, feel the need to give a reminder of why private copying combined with fair remuneration remains essential.

But its attempted justification fails right at the start:

Over 50 years ago, the first commercially available recording devices created a dilemma. Copyright as it stood at the time required permission for each act of copying of protected works. It was practically impossible for private users to get permission whenever they wanted to copy something. At the same time, rightsholders were clearly entitled to remuneration for such use of their works.

To resolve this, the vast majority of European countries allowed private copying as long as remuneration was paid to the rightsholders. These national pieces of legislation were brought together at European level in 2001, reiterating the necessity of rightholder remuneration.

Well, no: they are not "clearly" entitled at all. When people pay for music or videos, they pay for the ability to enjoy them, possibly on a range of different devices. Making copies of CD tracks to an MP3 player, or of DVDs to a tablet does not entitle copyright holders to any more money, since they have done nothing extra to deserve additional remuneration. They produced the work, they were paid for the work, end of the story. The fact that copyright does not allow such reasonable, everyday actions without "exceptions" just shows that it is unfit for the modern world, where personal copies are ubiquitous.

Against this background of increasing irrelevance for copyright levies, it's a shame to see the European Commission meekly accepting their imposition on cloud-based storage systems. Here's what it writes in one of the documents (pdf) accompanying its new strategy for "Unleashing the potential of cloud computing in Europe":

Currently, depending on the national private copy levy system, private copy levies are being asked for the storage media and the hard ware used by consumers in the context of cloudservices.

But trying to impose a complicated set of differing national levies on cloud computing services will simply reproduce the huge problems that a fragmented copyright licensing market is causing for startups in the EU. Moreover, cloud computing actually reduces the need for levies altogether, as the same paper points out:

Some of the technologies applied in the digital context, such as streaming, have the potential of reducing the number of copies which are actually made on consumer devices. Cloud computing services, where end-users are actually replicating less on their personal local devices have been seen as a game changer, making the private copy levy concept less appropriate, as digital technology advances.

Rather than permit an outdated system to throttle innovative cloud services in Europe, the Commission should use the shift to this technology to kill off the private copying levy once and for all.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: cloud computing, eu, europe, levies

Email: The Original Cloud

from the things-change dept

Email is one of those parts of the internet that have been around for quite some time, and is considered a (if not, the) core piece of how many people communicate. But, if you actually look at the history of email, it's quite amazing how much it's changed over time -- bouncing from a server based setup in the early days to a client/server version and these days back up onto the internet as a "cloud computing" service (the buzzword version of server based). Even if we're just looking at the past 15 years or so, from when web-based email services like Rocketmail and Hotmail first hit the scene, it's quite amazing how much they've changed. But also fascinating is how web-based email pre-dated "cloud services" by more than a decade, but in many ways are one of the key "cloud" services out there.
Ah, the bad old days... Hell, just the change from having to load a new page for each click to today's dynamic/AJAXy interfaces changed the way web email worked. But one of the bigger changes in my mind was the massive expansion in storage. Historically, many people were pretty careful to regularly delete all of their emails to avoid hitting the very small storage limits associated with web email accounts. In fact, a decade ago, I remember conversations about how "expensive" storage was, leading the online accounts to have limits of around 25 megs. The world of online email changed on April Fool's Day in 2004 -- with a gigabyte of storage (this was so much larger than anything anyone else was offering that some thought it might be an April Fool's joke). When it was launched, Google said that people shouldn't ever have to worry about deleting emails again -- and, in fact, Gmail originally buried the delete button such that it was difficult to find.

Of course, as with many innovations, user demand quickly grew to match what was available, and having so much storage started to change the way people viewed email -- not as something where you just kept a few things, but one where you could store your entire email history... and more. The leaders in webmail at the time, Microsoft (who had bought Hotmail) and Yahoo (who had bought Rocketmail), responded to Gmail by expanding their storage as well -- and that's only increased time and time again since then. Both Microsoft and Yahoo eventually went to (virtually) unlimited offerings, while Gmail has boosted its free email storage up to ~10 gigs.

Suddenly, with significantly more storage, new opportunities opened up. Email could become more of a combined task list/timeline for your life. There was no real reason to ever get rid of anything -- and that included being able to store attachments and important files, as more and more people discovered. Rather than just being about email, web-based email really did become the very first truly useful "cloud" service, letting people go way beyond the restrictions of older client/server email systems.

Historically, when computing resources become abundant, it becomes natural for people to "waste" them, and, as such, discover completely new and unexpected uses, and that's absolutely been true of email with such massive storage and the availability of access from anywhere. While "cloud computing" is a more recent term, webmail programs really became a key part of a cloud strategy long before that term came about, and part of that was because of the amount of storage available. Combine "virtually" unlimited storage with a communications interface and you can start to build in more integrated features -- including things like document viewing, storage and creation. Email starts to fulfill its potential as more than just a communication tool to a central life manager.

With lots of companies now pushing cloud services, it still seems like web-based email, the original cloud service, really has the leg up on being the true interface for "the cloud" upon which many other useful cloud services will be built.

Filed Under: cloud computing, email

Senator Leahy Brings Back Bill That Would Require Warrants When Gov't Snoops Through Servers For Your Info

from the ecpa-reform dept

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is ridiculously outdated. It was passed in 1986, and to this day provides the (incredibly inconsistent and difficult to apply) rules for what sort of privacy electronic communications have, even though the technology has changed drastically. This has created some wacky consequences, including that (for example) emails have different privacy protections when an email is being written compared to when it's being sent compared to when it's been received compared to when it's been read compared to when it's been archived. As an example, since most messages did not stay on servers for very long (they were downloaded and deleted), the law decided that messages stored on a server for more than 180 days were considered "abandoned" and subject to even lower standards of privacy protections. Think about that the next time you open your Gmail account... ECPA has lots of problems, but the basics are this: it certainly didn't anticipate an era where most of the things we do were in the so-called "cloud," and it takes almost no account of the expectation of privacy.

Last year, Senator Pat Leahy introduced an ECPA reform bill that was mostly good. It basically said that if the government wants to get access to your data on a server, it first needs to obtain a warrant -- something that is sorely missing today. There were some loopholes that concerned us, but for the most part, it was a very big improvement. And it went nowhere. Now, many folks around here will remember Senator Leahy for being the driving force in the Senate behind PIPA -- and you may be quick to want to dismiss his actions here. But just because he's (strongly) supported that bad bill, it doesn't mean that everything he introduces has been similarly problematic.

Leahy is trying again to move forward with his ECPA reform plan, this time attaching it to an update of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). We've discussed the VPPA before. The short version is that it was a special law that bars the release of video rental info, passed in response to Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork having his video rental history leaked. But, of course, in this modern age where people automatically stream their music playlists or book purchases to Facebook... Netflix is left out in the cold, because the VPPA doesn't allow them to do the very same thing. So, there's an update to the VPPA making the rounds that basically changes the law to let you tell the world what you streamed from Netflix last night (if you so choose to share that kind of info).

That bill has a chance to actually go somewhere, and it looks like Leahy sees it as another chance to see if he can get his ECPA reform package through the Senate. While it's no secret that I've had my differences with various Leahy proposals in the past, this is a reform that is badly needed to protect our privacy from government intrusion. Requiring a warrant to access your info in the cloud is a common sense move that's long overdue.

Filed Under: cloud computing, ecpa, patrick leahy, privacy, warrants

Copyright Reform Process Begins Down Under... And They're Actually Asking Good Questions

from the they-did-what-now? dept

Australia's been an interesting country to follow on the copyright front. In terms of court decisions, there have been some good ones and some awful ones. On the lawmaking front, we've seen ridiculous ideas floated and good ones as well. The current regime is, unfortunately, supporting some of the bad parts of the TPP, but the Australian Parliament has argued for rejecting ACTA. All in all, it's a mixed bag.

However, Australia is about to undergo a copyright reform process, with the Australian Law Reform Commission focusing on how copyright reform should work in the digital economy, and releasing a very encouraging set of questions that it is seeking to answer as a part of the process. Unlike the typical "and just how awesome is copyright?" type of questions we see in some other places, the ALRC's questions raise many of the key issues -- noting that copyright law absolutely has an impact on the introduction of new and innovative business models and that it "imposes unnecessary costs or inefficiencies on creators or those wanting to access or make use of copyright material."

Furthermore, it has some specifics that show whoever put together the questions has a pretty deep understanding of some of the key upcoming issues, including how copyright law should handle things like caching and cloud computing. There's a push among copyright holders to change or clarify laws to say that temporary or cached copies can violate copyright, but that that leads to some serious problems for all sorts of online activities. Some of the ALRC's questions show a recognition of the potential problem:

Question 3. What kinds of internet-related functions, for example caching and indexing, are being impeded by Australia’s copyright law?

Question 4. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for one or more exceptions for the use of copyright material for caching, indexing or other uses related to the functioning of the internet? If so, how should such exceptions be framed?

Question 5. Is Australian copyright law impeding the development or delivery of cloud computing services?

Question 6. Should exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended, or new exceptions created, to account for new cloud computing services, and if so, how?

There's also a whole series of questions looking at how private copying should be dealt with, as well as "online use for social, private or domestic purposes." A few more of the questions:

Question 7. Should the copying of legally acquired copyright material, including broadcast material, for private and domestic use be more freely permitted?

Question 11. How are copyright materials being used for social, private or domestic purposes—for example, in social networking contexts?

Question 12. Should some online uses of copyright materials for social, private or domestic purposes be more freely permitted? Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide that such use of copyright materials does not constitute an infringement of copyright? If so, how should such an exception be framed?

The questions even specifically call out how samples, remixes and mashups should be handled. I doubt that the majority of US politicians even know what any of those three things are.

Furthermore, the questions explore known issues with copyright law today, such as how to deal with libraries, archives and orphan works (though we still think they should be referred to as hostage works). Towards the end, there are a whole bunch of questions around fair dealing (what Australia currently has) and fair use. They specifically ask if Australia should switch from fair dealing -- with its specific exceptions to copyright law -- to fair use, with its much more broad and flexible look at whether or not uses should be allowed without permission.

Who knows how this will turn out in the long run, but from a starting point, it certainly looks like the ALRC is actually asking a lot of the right questions, rather than trodding down the well-worn path of simply expanding copyright law over and over again. Of course, the really tragic part is that if Australia does sign onto ACTA and the TPP, they may not be able to make many of the changes suggested by these questions. That's one of the major concerns with both agreements. They lock governments into certain ways that copyright law must act, and it wouldn't allow the kinds of exceptions that these kinds of questions would likely lead to. That's one of the reasons why we're so worried about both agreements. They don't necessarily change the laws today in some places (in others, they make some changes), but the real problem is they lock in clearly broken parts of the system and make it impossible for them to evolve. Clearly some people in Australia recognize the problems with copyright law in the digital age -- but ACTA and TPP might limit their ability to fix those problems.

Filed Under: australia, cloud computing, copyright, copyright reform, fair dealing, fair use, personal use

Google Bug On Document Sharing Highlights Communication Problems

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Hopefully this is just a big mistake, but Slashdot points us to a bunch of Google Docs users complaining that Google is blocking them from sharing their documents claiming "inappropriate content," even in cases where the content is clearly fine, such as college class notes and homework assignments. Even assuming this is just some sort of bug, the bigger issue seems to be Google's lack of response, despite the issue cropping up weeks ago. This charge has been raised about Google in the past, and it's only going to become more important. As more and more people rely on Google for services, the company is going to need to improve its handling of customer service issues and communication.

Filed Under: cloud computing, communications, google docs, inappropriate content, sharing
Companies: google