YouTube Kills Lady Gaga's YouTube Channel For Copyright Violations

from the the-moden-world dept

YouTube has a pretty strict "three strikes" rule on accusations of copyright infringement before you lose your account. But whoever thought that Lady Gaga would lose her account because of it? Apparently she (or her people) uploaded some video of Gaga appearing on a Japanese TV show, and a company called Media Interactive issued a takedown. Media Interactive has quite the reputation (search the YouTube help forums) for issuing somewhat questionable takedown claims. And, it may be true that Gaga violated the copyright of the TV show (and perhaps earlier uploaded works), but it does seem pretty ridiculous. But, alas, this is the state of copyright law today. Of course, between this and 50 Cent's website being declared dedicated to piracy, it should make people realize that figuring out what is infringing isn't always so clear cut. Of course, it would be nice if one of these music stars used incidents like these to speak out about the over aggressive nature of copyright enforcement, but that seems unlikely to happen.

Filed Under: copyright, lady gaga, three strikes, youtube

Major French Political Party Puts Repealing HADOPI/Three Strikes On Its Platform

from the but-suggests-a-blanket-license-instead dept

Apparently the secretary of the Socialist Party in France -- which came in second in the last elections, so is a serious party there -- has suggested that the party is interested in appealing HADOPI. Hadopi, for those not paying attention, is the French three strikes plan, designed to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet. Instead, she is proposing a blanket license on ISPs. Such ideas have been discussed elsewhere, and I believe there are significant and serious problems with a blanket ISP tax, but on the whole, it's a much more acceptable solution than kicking people off the internet. At the very least, it's focused on a carrot-approach, rather than an unworkable stick-approach.

That said, there are still significant problems with any such blanket license, many of which we've covered in the past. It significantly distorts the market, and often at the expense of up-and-coming artists. It also kicks off an ever upwards ratcheting process that we've seen historically with collection societies. Furthermore, it sounds like the Socialist Party's ideas here still include "strengthening of copyright, particularly in the digital sphere." That sounds like a step backwards.

Filed Under: collective licensing, france, hadopi, three strikes

Why ISPs Becoming Hollywood Enforcers Won't Actually Solve Hollywood's Problem

from the and-then-what? dept

It really was all the way back in 2008 that the RIAA claimed it was dropping its brilliant strategy of suing the music industry's biggest fans, claiming that everything would be fine now because ISPs had agreed to a three strikes policy to kick people off the internet based on accusations (never convictions) of copyright infringement. Of course, "three strikes" sounded way too draconian, so the entertainment industry rebranded it "graduated response." And yet, for years, it was tough to find ISPs that had agreed to do so and any time rumors came out that a big ISP was testing such a plan, those ISPs would quickly back down.

All this time, the industry has been putting tremendous pressure on the ISPs, often using the administrative branch to apply even more pressure. In other countries, they were able to pass three strikes legislation (such as in France, South Korea, the UK, etc.), but, when they put out feelers in the US, they quickly realized they couldn't get the support needed to pass a law that would involve kicking people off the internet. Greg Sandoval, over at News.com, is now reporting that the big 3 ISPs: Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are very close to agreeing to a modified three strikes plan. The crux of the plan is to send notices and warnings to people accused (not convicted) of copyright infringement. If you get a few of those, then the response "graduates" (huh?) and the ISP has a variety of options, from slowing down your speeds to limiting you to only visiting a list of 200 popular websites. And, of course, they can kick you off the network.

Comcast and AT&T have been flirting with such programs for years anyway, so it's no surprise to see their names on the list. And now that Comcast owns a majority stake in NBC Universal, it's no shock that they'd align with Hollywood on this. Verizon, historically, has been much more willing to actually stand up for their users, but with less and less competition out there, perhaps they feel they don't need to care about users any more.

However, as we've asked each time such efforts are undertaken in various countries, does the industry have any evidence whatsoever that such efforts make people buy any more? The answer, of course, is no. This is the key problem. The folks in the industry (and the politicians who support them) keep thinking that the problem is "piracy." And if they just got rid of these "freeloaders," the business model solves itself. That is, they look at infringement as the problem, and business model problems as the symptoms. They've got it backwards. The problem is the business model. The infringement is the symptom -- showing that they haven't yet adapted. If you look at the history of infringement, it's the same thing every time: it's always been a leading indicator of industry not adapting fast enough.

So, assuming this is in place already, people are reasonably skeptical that it will actually help the industry do anything. How will it make people buy? Now suddenly one of the most popular routes for learning about new content is blocked out, so you have less marketing ability. The unintended consequences of such policies will be pretty intense as well. It will be costly for ISPs to set up such a system. And dealing with responses from false or misapplied accusations will only serve to increase the cost. The entertainment industry doesn't care about that, because that cost is borne by the consumers. In the meantime, people, who still want to access infringing material, will adopt encryption or other policies to get around ISPs snooping on their activity. It's why Homeland Security has already warned others in the US government that such policies actually make law enforcement more difficult.

In the end, nothing here makes anyone any more interested in buying. If anything, it limits a source for learning about new works, so it decreases the value and decreases the willingness to buy. This seems like a lose-lose-lose proposition for nearly everyone. ISPs have higher costs (passed on to consumers) and are seen as being anti-consumer. Users have less freedom and face punishment based solely on accusation. And the industry that is so in love with this idea, doesn't actually improve their business standing. It's a trifecta of bad results. But watch as the industry declares "victory" and pretends that this will actually help their flailing bottom lines.

Filed Under: graduated response, isps, three strikes
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Irish ISP Admits To Sending Out Hundreds Of 'First Strike' Notices To Innocent Account Holders

from the yup,-this-system-works-so-well dept

With the UN report condemning three strikes, we've seen a few governments suggest a bit more caution about such laws, but over in Ireland things are getting strange. You may recall a few years back the Irish ISP Eircom got sued for not implementing a three strikes plan. While it first fought back, it eventually caved and agreed to implement a three strikes plan. There was apparently some back room dealing as well, in which Eircom wanted the recording industry to go after other ISPs as well, which has happened. In a trial testing the legitimacy of Eircom's three strikes laws, a judge ruled entirely the flip side of the UN report, claiming that kicking people off the internet was fine because it was actually copyright that was a human right, not internet access.

Of course, one of the problems with a three strikes provision is the fact that it's based purely on accusations, rather than convictions. And that's pretty ridiculous when the data used for the accusations is notoriously inaccurate. But, it gets even worse when an ISP like Eircom apparently sent hundreds of "first strike" notices to people who were entirely innocent, blaming it on a glitch (found via Torrentfreak). It's now leading to an investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. Eircom has tried to brush it off due to a technical error having to do with daylight savings time (seriously?!?), but it highlights the larger problems with these kinds of schemes. And those problems mean that the Data Protection Commissioner is looking at the entire three strikes plan to see if it's legit:

The significance of this case goes well beyond simple technical failings however, as the complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner has triggered a wider investigation of the legality of the entire three strikes system. According to the Sunday Times, "the DPC said it was investigating the complaint 'including whether the subject matter gives rise to any questions as to the proportionality of the graduated response system operated by Eircom and the music industry'."

This is unsurprising. When the Eircom / music industry three strikes settlement was being agreed, the Data Protection Commissioner identified significant data protection problems with it. These problems remain, notwithstanding the deeply flawed High Court judgement which permitted the parties to operate the system - a judgement which, for example, decided on the question of whether or not IP addresses are personal data without once considering the views of the Article 29 Working Party. The Data Protection Commissioner was not convinced by that judgement (it was problematic at least in part because the Commissioner was not represented - the only parties before the court had a vested interest in the system being implemented). However, until a concrete complaint arose no further action could be taken.

The complaint in this case has now triggered that action, and it seems likely that the Commissioner will reach a decision reflecting his previous views that using IP addresses to cut off customers' internet connections is disproportionate and does not constitute "fair use" of personal information. If so, the Commissioner has the power and indeed the duty to issue an enforcement notice which would prevent Eircom from using personal data for this purpose - an outcome which would derail the three strikes system unless Eircom successfully challenges that notice before the courts, or unless the music industry were to succeed in its campaign to secure legislation introducing three strikes into Irish law.

Filed Under: innocent, ireland, three strikes

How Much Does It Cost Taxpayers To Implement Three Strikes?

from the this-seems-important dept

With the recent UN report condemning three strikes laws that kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement as a civil rights violation, there's been a lot more attention paid to the reasonableness of such laws. Of course, there are other factors to take into account as well, including the general cost to the taxpayer. Over in the UK, James Firth filed some Freedom of Information requests with the UK government to try to understand how much such things are really costing. He got an answer from Ofcom, the telecom/ISP regulator, who noted that it's expected to have spent about £5.9 million (or just under $10 million) by the end of this year on implementing the digital copyright enforcement measures in the Digital Economy Act (which are mostly about a three strikes plan). Firth notes that this is just one part of the government's costs, and he has other FOI requests out for other parts. He also notes, per Ofcom, that the agency hopes to get this money back from fees from copyright holders making use of the process, but that's not guaranteed. Definitely an interesting bit of information to explore, which usually gets ignored in these discussions.

Filed Under: costs, ofcom, three strikes, uk

Did The Recording Industry Really Step Back From Three Strikes? Or Is It Playing Word Games?

from the don't-buy-it dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the story from TorrentFreak claiming that representatives from Music Industry Piracy Investigations -- an anti-piracy group representing the major labels in Australia -- has said that it no longer favors three strikes laws, following theUN report that condemned such measures as a violation of civil rights. I didn't report on this at first, but since people keep submitting it, I figured I might as well comment on it: and I think the story is wrong. From the sound of things, I think the MIPI folks may have pulled a fast one. The key line is the quote from MIPI general manager Sabiene Heindl that it supports "mitigation measures" concerning infringement, but that "such measures would not include termination of Internet accounts."

Now, clearly, that might sound like backing away from three strikes, but I don't think it does. That's because we saw nearly the same thing a year and a half ago in the debate in the UK over the Digital Economy Act, where politicians supporting the Act, which is a variation on "three strikes" fought back against the public campaign against the Act by declaring that "disconnection" was no longer on the table. But, really, they were just playing word games. What they meant was permanent disconnection wasn't on the table, but it wasn't really ever in the bill. They were still very much in favor of so-called "temporary account suspension" which could last six months or more in some cases.

In other words, it's a terminology issue more than anything else. Many people are concerned about any internet access account loss, and consider a six month suspension to be pretty bad. But to avoid the dreaded "termination" or "disconnection" buzzword, supporters of three strikes now like to claim that their plans include no such thing -- instead it's just a "temporary account suspension." I'm guessing that this is exactly what the MIPI folks meant by saying they don't favor termination, but do favor mitigation. That mitigation might just turn out to be a "temporary" account suspension for three strikes. So, my sense is that this story is overblown. MIPI has carefully chosen language to make it seem not as extreme and to not anger as many people, but it could still very much support three strikes... just for extended "temporary" disconnections.

Filed Under: australia, disconnections, three strikes

New Zealand Politicians Who Supported Three Strikes Law Two Months Ago Now Worried It Violates Civil Rights

from the now-you-notice? dept

We were both amused and disturbed (though, more disturbed) when New Zealand politicians rushed through a "three strikes" law that they very clearly did not understand. The situation has become even more tragically comic, following the recent UN report that said such laws are a violation of civil rights. In response to that report, it appears that the same political party who was very much in favor of the three strikes law back in April is now arguing that it's a problem and the law needs to be reformed:

In response to the report New Zealand’s Labour communications spokeswoman Clare Curran said it’s “time for a complete review of our copyright laws.” She says that she agrees with La Rue’s conclusions that Internet disconnection violates international law.

Maybe she should have thought of that before her party voted the bill into law... Either way, we're happy that the party has come around and hope that it will, in fact, live up to this statement and look to repeal such a draconian law that was clearly a product of US lobbyists, rather than what was in the best interest of New Zealand citizens and society.

Filed Under: copyright, new zealand, three strikes

US Offered To Write New Zealand's Three Strikes Laws

from the but-of-course dept

Leaked cables have already confirmed how involved the US government has been in Canadian copyright reform, Swedish copyright reform and Spanish copyright reform. I think, at this point, it's safe to assume that anywhere in the world where we're seeing new draconian copyright laws proposed, the US is behind them.

How about New Zealand? Yup. The country that just approved a new three strikes law also faced tremendous pressure from the US. As you may recall, back in 2008, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a three strikes law, that would kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement. A few months later, mainly due to massive public outcry, the government scrapped those plans and actually promised a complete rethink of copyright laws.

But, of course, the US and its entertainment industry interests couldn't have that. It quickly got heavily involved in pressuring the government. In a cable just after New Zealand decided to scrap the proposed law, the US embassy noted that it made it clear a new 3 strikes law needed to be put in place as soon as possible and saying that the US can help them write the new law.

Embassy will continue to stress with GNZ officials the need for a shorter rather than protracted timeline for the redraft and will ascertain the details of a notice and comment period for public submissions once released by GNZ. During this hiatus we've proposed holding DVC(s) between NZ and U.S. interlocutors to possibly help with drafting and as a public diplomacy tool to dispel public misperceptions about proper role of IPR protection. U.S. agencies have the benefit of 10 years worth of experience in enforcing the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act that may serve useful to New Zealand officials in their effort to implement section 92A.

Yes, you read that right. Not only did the US say it would help write a foreign country's laws, it also planned to use its 10 years of experiences with the failed DMCA (as described by the guy who wrote it), as a guide for how to pass bad legislation in New Zealand.

The cables turned up a few other interesting tidbits from a bit further back, including the fact that a program -- run by the Recording Industry Association New Zealand (RIANZ) to set up a website and get people to snitch on their friends, reporting them as infringers -- was funded by the US government. Yes, the US government handed half a million dollars (New Zealand dollars) to the recording industry to get people to turn in their friends for copying music. Lovely.

Separately, the US warned New Zealand that exceptions in copyright law (including those found in US law under fair use) should not be allowed in New Zealand because:

these exceptions to copyright protection would send the wrong message to consumers and undermine efforts to curb unauthorized copying of CDs in New Zealand. They would cost the industry in revenue and profits and discourage innovation.

They admit that this info comes from industry lobbyists themselves, but the embassy still seems to think it's valid. This is a complete joke, of course. As many copyright scholars and experts will tell you, it's those exceptions that are important to keeping new content coming and vibrant. The idea that concepts like fair use would "send the wrong message to consumers" is laughable, and the US government shouldn't be pushing such garbage on other countries.

None of this is a surprise, but it is a clear reminder of how much the entertainment industry's completely debunked arguments not only influence US policy on these matters, but they're also pushed by US diplomats on other countries around the globe.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, new zealand, three strikes, us