RIAA Tosses Bogus Claim At Github To Get Video Downloading Software Removed

from the mumbo-and/or-jumbo dept

The RIAA is still going after downloaders, years after targeting downloaders proved to be a waste of time and a PR catastrophe. It's not actually thinking about suing the end users of certain programs, but it has targeted Github with a takedown notice for hosting youtube-dl, a command line video downloader that downloads videos from (obviously) YouTube and other video sites.

Not that this is going to be any more effective than suing file sharers. The software has been downloaded countless times and forked into new projects hosted (and distributed) elsewhere.

Github has posted the RIAA's takedown request, which looks a lot like a DMCA notice for copyright infringement. But it isn't actually targeting infringement. As Parker Higgins pointed out on Twitter, the RIAA -- after saying a bunch of stuff about copyright infringement -- is actually claiming this software violates Section 1201 of the DMCA, which deals with circumvention of copyright protection schemes.

The request lists a bunch of Github URLs as "copyright violations." But these aren't actually copyright violations. A little further down the RIAA gets to the point.

The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. We note that the source code is described on GitHub as “a command-line program to download videos from YouTube.com and a few more sites.”

So, it's not really about copyright infringement. The RIAA tries to blur that line a bit by saying the source code includes a short list of videos the program can download -- all three of which are videos owned by major labels. Then the RIAA goes a step further, basically claiming that any software that can download YouTube videos violates Section 1201 of the DMCA and only exists to engage in copyright infringement.

The source code is a technology primarily designed or produced for the purpose of, and marketed for, circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted sound recordings on YouTube...

[T]he youtube-dl source code available on Github (which is the subject of this notice) circumvents YouTube’s rolling cipher to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted audio files, in violation of YouTube’s express terms of service,and in plain violation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §1201.

This suggests the primary use of youtube-dl is to violate the law. There are plenty of non-infringing uses for this software, including the downloading of CC-licensed videos and those created by the US government, which are public domain. Basically, the RIAA is mashing up the takedown notice provision of DMCA 512 to try to remove code it claims (incorrectly) is violating DMCA 1201... while ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony v. Universal that says that tools with substantial non-infringing uses (in that case -- oh look! -- a video recording tool) is not by itself infringing.

Making blanket statements like these is irresponsible and misleading, but that's the sort of thing we've come to expect from entities like the RIAA. It's the same questionable claim the MPAA made back in 2014, when it demanded third-party hosts remove Popcorn Time repositories because the software could be used to engage in copyright infringement. It didn't make sense six years ago. It doesn't make any more sense now.

Added to all the stupidity is the fact that the RIAA appears to be threatening anyone even loosely-connected to the youtube-dl project. A couple of contributors to the project over the years have reported they've received legal threats from the RIAA for working on unrelated code and maintaining the repository.

The RIAA is welcome to continue its mostly-fruitless fight against copyright infringement. But it needs to do so honestly and do it without causing collateral damage to people who haven't engaged in infringement. The RIAA has no claim here. Github isn't engaging in infringement or circumvention. The software isn't either, not until someone uses it to accomplish this. If the RIAA has a problem with end users, it needs to take its complaints to them. This is just more bullshit being brought by an entity with enough heft it will rarely be challenged, even when it's in the wrong.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, dmca 512, downloading, recording, youtube-dl
Companies: github, riaa, youtube

19-Year-Old Canadian Facing Criminal Charges For Downloading Publicly-Accessible Documents

from the making-citizens-pay-for-the-government's-sins dept

A 19-year-old Canadian is being criminally-charged for accessing a website. The Nova Scotian government's Freedom of Information portal (FOIPOP) served up documents it shouldn't have and now prosecutors are thinking about adding charges on top of the ten-year sentence the teen could already be facing. (via Databreaches.net)

Journalists first spotted the problem April 5th, when the FOI portal was taken offline. The Internal Services Minister, Patricia Arab, refused to provide details about the portal's sudden unavailability. It wasn't until the following week that the press was given more information and those affected notified.

Even once the government learned of the breach, it waited until Wednesday to begin notifying affected people. Arab said they held off notifying people was because police suggested it would help them in their investigation.

Seems logical, except…

But [Halifax Police Superintendent Jim] Perrin told reporters police did not make that request. He could not say if advising people would have compromised the investigation. The province's protocols for a privacy breach state it is supposed to inform people as soon as possible, unless otherwise instructed by law enforcement.

The suspect obtained 7,000 documents from the Freedom of Information portal. Apparently around 250 of those contained unredacted personal information. Here's how the government portrayed the supposed hacking:

Government officials said someone got in by "exploiting a vulnerability in the system." The person wrote a script allowing them to alter the website's URL, which then granted access to the personal information.

Internal Services found more than 7,000 PDF documents had been downloaded by a "non-authorized user" in early March. They filed a complaint with police on Saturday.

A script made it easier, but a script wasn't required. The URLs for FOI documents are incremental. As software engineer Evan D'Entremont points out, anyone could have done what the supposed "hacker" did.

The way the documents are stored is simple. They’re available at a specific URL, which David Fraser, a Halifax-based privacy lawyer, was happy to provide:

https://foipop.novascotia.ca/foia/views/_AttachmentDownload.jsp?attachmentRSN=1234

Document number 1235 is stored at https://foipop.novascotia.ca/foia/views/_AttachmentDownload.jsp?attachmentRSN=1235.

Guess where document 1236 is stored? This is not a new problem. In fact, it was recognized over a decade ago as one of the top ten issues affecting web application security. All [the "hacker'] had to do is add.

All this "hacker" did was automate the retrieval of published documents from the government's FOI portal. That's it. This wasn't an attempt to access personal info. That problem lies with the government, which did not properly secure documents it hadn't redacted yet. As D'Etremont points out, plenty of other government websites use the same software for document access. (Searching "inurl:attachmentRSN"will bring up a handful of government websites, including Nova Scotia's temporarily disabled FOI portal).

But other sites have taken care to wall off publicly-available documents from others they're not prepared to make public by using a PublicPortal subfolder. Nova Scotia's site apparently did not, hence the teen's ability to access unredacted documents. This isn't evidence of fraudulent access or malicious hacking. This is evidence of government carelessness.

The question remains, was the access fraudulent?

Remember what I said about the other installations being called “PublicPortal”? And how 6750 of the 7000 records were public anyways, and how this system is literally designed for facilitating “access to information?” Looking at it further, there are no authentication mechanisms, no password protection, no access restrictions. It’s very clear that the software is intended to serve as a public repository of documents.

It’s also very clear that there at least 250 documents improperly stored there by the province. Documents that the province had a responsibility to protect, and failed.

This wasn't a criminal act. This was simply efficient harvesting of publicly-available documents. If some documents weren't supposed to be publicly-available, the blame lies with the government for failing to secure them. The fact that the government decided to get police involved gives this the ugly appearance of scapegoating. This is an embarrassed government body trying to turn its mistake into the malicious works of teen hacker.

It would be very surprising to see these charges stick. The URLs -- and the documents they held -- were publicly-accessible. But if they do stick -- and the Halifax PD has stated it may add more charges -- it will be due to the Nova Scotia government's unwillingness to take responsibility for its own carelessness.

Filed Under: canada, criminal charges, downloading, foia, foipop, nova scotia, transparency

TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court

from the so-much-for-the-fair-use-'win' dept

The last time we checked in with the long-running TVEyes case, the TV monitoring company had scored another partial victory for fair use. The company packages clips of news stories from TV broadcasts and makes them available to paying subscribers -- which include journalists and government officials.

It had scored a much larger fair use win earlier, when the court found that even the storage of clips by TVEyes fell under fair use, despite Fox News' protests to the contrary. A year later, some of TVEyes' fair use victory was scaled back. The court took another look at the end users' ability to download and store clips and found these actions weren't covered under the fair use ruling. Users could privately share clips and create archives only they could access. What wasn't covered was public sharing and downloading of clips.

In order to comply with the court's decision, TVEyes would need to additionally restrict access to its compiled content. The court didn't say specifically what TVEyes would have to change to comply with the ruling at that point. Those instructions appear to have arrived.

An injunction issued by the court contains all sorts of new restrictions, as Eriq Gardner reports.

Here's a list of things that are now forbidden:

Enabling users to download to their own computers video clips of content telecast on the Fox News Channel or Fox Business Network.

Enabling users to view FNC or FBN content by searching by date, time, and channel.

Enabling users from sharing video clips of FNC or FBN content on social media websites rather than by personally directed emails, with further limitations.

Those further limitations?

If a TVEyes client wants to email a clip, he or she can only do so to five or less recipients. The client also has to register their work email with TVEyes instead of using Gmail or another free web email service. Those being sent the clip will also have to submit their own email address to ensure they are the intended recipients.

These new restrictions could do some serious damage to TVEyes, which charges subscribers ~$500/month for access to a wide variety of news clips. Where high-profile subscribers like Reuters, Bloomberg, the White House (yes, THAT one), the Dept. of Defense and others will go if they find the new restrictions unworkable isn't exactly clear, but it's a safe bet that Fox's litigious efforts will see a few of these entities finding the service no longer worth the investment.

And that's not the full extent of the restrictions in the permanent injunction. TVEyes will also be required to create and implement a social media blockade solely for Fox News content to prevent the public sharing of its clips. Any Fox content circulated by TVEyes will also have to carry a warning that the content has not been purchased or licensed by the company and that unauthorized sharing is considered copyright infringement. So, for $500/month, TVEyes' subscribers will now have the privilege of being blasted with anti-piracy warnings as if they were lowly, DVD-purchasing peasants.

This order can be appealed and most certainly will be, as it imposes a ton of restrictions on content originating from a single source. Fox News gets its own new set of rules and everyone else plays by the old ones. The court's decisions haven't exactly added up to a fair use win, because a real fair use ruling would apply across the board, not just to everything but this one particular litigant's content.

Filed Under: archiving, copyright, downloading, fair use, search, tv, tv news
Companies: fox, tveyes

Latest TVEyes Ruling A Mixed Bag: Archiving & Sharing Privately Is Fair Use; Downloading & Sharing Publicly Is Not

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

Last year, we wrote about a big fair use win by TV monitoring company TVEyes -- a service used by governments, news companies and more to record, index and store TV broadcasts and make them searchable. Fox, a company that sometimes relies on fair use itself, sued TVEyes, alleging infringement and a violation of the infamous hot news doctrine. The court ruled pretty unambiguously in favor of fair use (yes, even as TVEyes is storing everything) for most of TVEyes basic operation (searching and indexing), and completely rejected the hot news claim. However, it did leave aside one area for further investigation: the features provided by TVEyes that allows users to save, archive, download, email and share clips as well as the feature for doing a "date-time search" (allowing users to retrieve video from a specific network based on the date and time of the broadcast. For those, the court wanted more evidence before deciding.

It has now ruled on that aspect and it's a partial win for fair use and a partial loss, which may be troubling. The court declared the archiving function to be fair use. But the downloading and "date time search" functions are not fair use. The emailing feature could be fair use, "but only if TVEyes develops and implements adequate protective measures."

Let's look at the details. First, the court decides that the archiving function is fair use because it is integral to TVEyes' overall service:

Democracy works best when public discourse is vibrant and debate thriving. But debate cannot thrive when the message itself (in this case, the broadcast) disappears after airing into an abyss. TVEyes' service allows researchers to study Fox News' coverage of an issue and compare it to other news stations; it allows targets of Fox News commentators to learn what is said about them on the network and respond; it allows other media networks to monitor Fox's coverage in order to criticize it. TVEyes helps promote the free exchange of ideas, and its archiving feature aids that purpose.

Archiving video clips to remain stored beyond 32 days and to facilitate successive reference is integral to TVEyes' service and its transformational purpose of media monitoring. And Fox has not identified any actual or potential market harm arising from archiving. I hold that the archiving function is fair use, complementing TVEyes' searching and indexing functions.

As for emailing and sharing, there the court says it is fair use... if TVEyes includes a few protections:

I agree that to prohibit e-mail sharing would prevent TVEyes users from realizing much of the benefit of its transformative service. For example, members of Congress rely on TVEyes to be made aware of what the media has to say about the issues of the day and about them. But their interns and staffers, not they, sit at computers querying keywords of interest through the TVEyes portal, and then e-mail the results up the chain of command. Without e-mail, the Congressman would be limited to either sharing a computer with his staffer or else having the staffer describe the contents of the clip to the Congressman without showing him the clip. In practice, the former is unrealistic and the latter fails to deliver "the full spectrum of information . . . [including] what was said, [and] how it was said with subtext body language, tone of voice, and facial expression-all crucial aspects of the presentation of, and commentary on, the news."

[....]

However, there is also substantial potential for abuse. In its current incarnation, TVEyes' e-mailing feature cannot discriminate between sharing with a boss and sharing with a friend, nor between sharing for inclusion in a study and sharing a clip for inclusion in a client sales pitch. Fair use cannot be found unless TVEyes develops necessary protections. What limits should be placed on subscribers who share links through social media? What can prevent subscribers from sharing for purposes not protected by § 107? If TVEyes cannot prevent indiscriminate sharing, it risks becoming a substitute for Fox's own website, thereby depriving Fox of advertising revenue.

This seems a bit strange to me, frankly. You still have to be a subscriber to make use of TVEyes, but then you can share clips freely online, which would seem to be a part of a reasonable news function, which should support fair use. But the court seems to think it's only fair use if it's kept "internally" via email.

Moving on to downloading, here, the court is not convinced that this is "integral" to the purpose of the product, citing a bunch of famed copyright cases, including the cases against Napster, ReDigi and MP3.com. Basically "downloading," according to the court, must be infringing, and thus not fair use.

I believe that TVEyes' downloading function goes well beyond TVEyes' transformative services of searching and indexing.... TVEyes is transformative because it allows users to search and monitor television news. Allowing them also to download unlimited clips to keep forever and distribute freely may be an attractive feature but it is not essential. Downloading also is not sufficiently related to the functions that make TVEyes valuable to the public, and poses undue danger to content-owners' copyrights.

The court completely rejects TVEyes argument that downloading is essential for offline use, because the court insists that broadband is basically available anywhere, so it's unlikely anyone will really need the service online.

Finally, there's the "date-time search" feature, which apparently is used in nearly 6% of all TVEyes' searches. Again, the court doesn't buy the fair use argument, saying that the date-time search isn't so much a "search" as it is a way for people to find something they already know is there, and that makes it much closer to the original programming and thus less "transformative."

The feature is not as much a "search" tool as a content delivery tool for users who already know what they seek. In such cases, TVEyes is not so transformational, since users should be able to procure the desired clip from Fox News or its licensing agents, albeit for a fee. Put simply, if a user wants to watch the first half of last Thursday's 0 'Reilly Factor, the Court sees no reason why he should not be asked to buy the DVD/

Unlike TVEyes' core business, its "Date-Time search" function duplicates Fox's existing functionality. Fox's contention that TVEyes' Date-Time search is likely to cannibalize Fox News website traffic and sales by its licensing agents is persuasive.

It does seem a bit worrying when courts get to decide which features of your service are okay and which are not. We generally want markets determining innovative features, rather than judges. And this ruling seems... particularly subjective on a number of points. There is no four factors test being done in any of these. It basically just takes the original ruling that the search and indexing is fair use, and then just focuses on whether these features are "essential" to that service to determine if they, too, are fair use. Again, it's troubling when a court is deciding if a feature that customers clearly like is "essential." That's not how innovation is supposed to work.

This case is still early and I expect that there will be appeals on both sides, so this ruling, by itself, isn't that important yet. What happens next, in terms of how the appeals court rules, is where things will get really interesting.

Filed Under: archiving, downloading, fair use, fox news, indexing, searching, tv
Companies: fox, news corp., tveyes

Under Swiss Copyright Reform, Private Sharing And Downloads From Unauthorized Sources Would Still Be Legal

from the truly-remarkable dept

Two years ago, Techdirt noted the price that Switzerland paid for daring to suggest that unauthorized file-sharing really wasn't such a problem: it was put on the USTR naughty step, aka the "Special 301 list." A post on Intellectual Property Watch explains the current copyright situation in Switzerland:

Anybody can download a movie or a soundtrack and share it with his family in the realm of the private sphere. The downloaded movie or soundtrack cannot, however, be made public on the internet -- for example through a social media platform -- or transmitted to third persons, the [Swiss] official said.

Switzerland is in the process of revising its copyright laws, and you might expect that by now it has been "persuaded" by the US to change its mind about allowing people to download files freely and share them in this way, but to its credit, that doesn't seem to be the case (pdf). Here's what the official Swiss working group carrying out the review of copyright, known as AGUR12, is recommending:

In view of the measures proposed below... downloading from illegal sources, as provided for in current law according to the prevailing doctrine, should remain legal.

The proposed measures mentioned there concern new responsibilities for ISPs, designed to help remove unauthorized online content. These include "takedown":

Hosting providers should remove content that has been illegally uploaded when notified to do so by the rights holder or a competent authority.

"Staydown":

Hosting providers, whose business model is clearly designed for the infringement of copyright by users, or who intentionally promote running the risk of performing illegal acts through measures or omissions for which they are responsible, need to remove illegally uploaded content when notified to do so by the rights holder and take all reasonable measures to prevent any further illegal uploading of such content.

And blocking:

On the order of the authorities, access providers located in Switzerland need, in serious cases, to block access to web portals that feature obvious illegal sources by means of IP and DNS blocking. The blocking of approved content along with unapproved content (overblocking) is to be avoided, as far as possible, by the competent authorities. All blocking measures are to be made publicly known in an appropriate form by the competent authorities and they may not compromise the technical functionality of the IP or DNS system.

AGUR12 also proposes introducing a new warning system for users, which concerns sharing materials on P2P networks:

An overzealous enforcement of the law is problematic and is perceived as being aggressive because internet users are often unclear about the legal situation. Prior notification may remedy this. It is therefore important to create the possibility for access providers to issue a one-off notification, when notified by the rights holder or a competent authority, to owners of internet connections who seriously infringe copyright by using peer-to-peer networks. Rights owners should adequately compensate access providers for the costs incurred for delivering such notification. Upon receipt of the notification, the subscriber will then have to take appropriate steps to prevent continued use of his connection for copyright infringement via peer-to-peer networks in order to avoid facing joint civil liability in the event of recurrence. To this end, the necessary legal basis is to be established and a guarantee of judicial review is to be observed; in particular, ISPs and consumer organisations must have the possibility of appealing to the competent authority upon notification from a rights holder.

As these excerpts of the recommended changes indicate, while revising their laws for the digital age, the Swiss seem to be keen to maintain their refreshingly moderate and rational approach to copyright. Which doubtless means that we can expect to see the country placed on the Special 301 list for some years to come.

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

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, downloading, intermediary liability, isps, legality, special 301, switzerland

Study: Half Of All Young People In UK Think Digital Content Should Be Free To Download

from the speed-and-convenience dept

One of the abiding delusions of the copyright industry is that if people -- especially the young -- could somehow be "educated" about the value of intellectual monopolies, they would learn to love them -- despite the fact that there is zero evidence any copyright "education" campaign has worked. In this context, some interesting research from the UK, reported by TorrentFreak, explored the attitudes of both young and old to accessing online content. Here's one of the striking results of that work, which suggests that the copyright industries are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of future online users:

half of the up-and-coming generation believes that the Internet should be a content free-for-all. A total of 49% of the 8 to 15-year-olds questioned said that they believe that people should be able to download the content they want from the Internet for nothing.

The following is particularly noteworthy:

The mainstream entertainment companies invariably insist that downloading movies and music without permission is tantamount to stealing. However, when it comes to the UK's children the survey suggests that Big Entertainment has a mountain to climb to have that notion widely adopted. While 16% of children accept that it's wrong to obtain content for free without the creator's permission, just 7% believe that file-sharing is a form of stealing.

That is, 93% of the 614 young people interviewed do not accept the copyright industry's relentless attempts to brand file-sharing as "stealing." This result is comparable with that found by Swedish research among a similar age group. The rest of the UK survey throws useful light on what the main problem is here. Once again, it seems to be about the affordability and usability and online services:

Among the children, whose resources are often more limited, 44% said their motivation was financial, with a quarter of 16-24 year olds reporting that file-sharing is the only way they can afford to access content online.

Unsurprisingly, the issue of accessibility came in at a close second place for both [age] groups. The speed and convenience of file-sharing was cited as a key motivator for use by 41% of adults and 38% of the children.

As Techdirt keeps pointing out to the copyright industry, all these studies suggest the same solution to reducing unauthorized sharing: offering easy-to-use services at fair prices. When will it ever learn? Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: accessibility, copyright, culture, downloading, education, kids

Latest 'Think Of The Children' Scaremongering: Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them

from the don't-look-now dept

Just last week we heard how Russia has extended its "think of the children" law to include copyright infringement. That was a classic case of function creep, but here's a more direct invocation of "the children" in order to attack unauthorized downloads of files, this time in the UK:

One in five young film fans (18%) admit they have been disturbed by the movies they have watched on pirate websites and two thirds (65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first.

While almost half of children and teens (42%) admit to being aware of rules in place at home designed to restrict what they can and can't look at on the internet, the research commissioned by The Industry Trust for IP Awareness, in partnership with the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), shows a quarter (25%) download or stream movies from unofficial sources, which offer no guidance on age ratings.

Now, there are a heap of issues with this. For example, what exactly does "disturbed" mean in this context? Some films are deeply disturbing, but in a good sense ("Schinder's List", for example, rated "15"), because they bring new but troubling knowledge: does "disturbing" include those? Or only the "bad" ones -- in which case, how is "bad" defined? Unfortunately, I can't find the original research to explore that, or even to see how the questions were framed (always a critical issue for such surveys.)

But leaving aside all those methodological questions, there is a key flaw with this "for the children" argument, which is that we don't know what percentage of children who watch legal downloads and DVDs are "disturbed" by what they see. That's a key number, because it needs to be lower than the one pertaining to pirate sites if the latter is to have any relevance. It might be, for example, that children are more disturbed by their parents' cinematic library than by what they search out for themselves online; after all, such searches are likely to be based on recommendations from their friends, or on what children read on other sites -- in other words, an informed choice with plenty of context.

What's interesting here is how the currently-fashionable "think of the children" trope is being deployed as part of a campaign against piracy. As such, it's part of a long tradition of trying to frighten people away from unauthorized downloads by suggesting that they fund terrorism, are packed with malware or make your hair fall out (OK, I made up that last one.)

So here's a suggestion. Instead of resorting to scaremongering, which never works anyway, why doesn't the British film industry try offering a range of good online products at fair prices? After all, it seems to be working elsewhere....

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

Filed Under: children, copyright, downloading, infringement, think of the children

New Zealand Censors Horror Film, Making It Extra Popular With Downloaders

from the well,-duh dept

This should go without saying at this point, but as government continually try to censor stuff, the internet just kind of mocks them. New Zealand censors have apparently decided that the horror flick Maniac -- a Cannes Film Festival selection that is starring Elijah Wood -- is just too damn scary for New Zealand sensibilities, and banned it. However, as TorrentFreak notes, banning the film seems to have only resulted in it getting downloaded a ridiculous amount in New Zealand. Of course, if New Zealand censors hadn't been so squeamish and actually allowed the movie to play in the country, the filmmakers would actually be making money. Instead, they get none of it. Of course, you also have to wonder how much extra publicity New Zealand censors gave to this movie by declaring that it was too scary for Kiwis to watch.

Filed Under: attention, censorship, downloading, horror films, maniac, movies, publicity

The End Of The Original Three Strikes Program, And Other Stories About Online Infringement From On The Media

from the listen-up dept

I'm an avid listener of the radio show On the Media, and the latest episode touched on a variety of topics concerning copyright infringement online that may interest some folks here (after their discussion of how the press reported on Anthony Weiner's latest Weinering and the UK porn filter). The section on infringement kicked off with a fantastic segment with our own Glyn Moody discussing the end of the original Hadopi program, which will no longer be kicking people off the internet, and has shut down the costly bureaucracy that ran such a program (moving some of the people into another agency). He also discusses how increasing evidence has shown that having legal alternatives reduces infringement.

The other story that caught my attention was a brief interview with Alex Winter about his new documentary called Downloaded which I've been meaning to watch. From everything I've heard, Winter does a great job telling the story of the original Napster and its battles, while also profiling those who lined up against it. The documentary doesn't "take one side," but shows that the story was a lot more complex and nuanced than many made out at the time. If you enjoy that, you might also like a much longer interview with Winter (who, you might also know as "Bill" alongside Keanu Reeve's "Ted" in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure) that was aired recently on The Nerdist.

Among the other segments is one report on the Joel Tenenbaum case that includes interesting interviews with Tenenbaum himself, his main lawyer Charles Nesson who crafted the disastrous and ill-thought-out strategy of his legal campaign, and also the judge in the original district court trial, Nancy Gertner, talking about how she couldn't believe how frequently the RIAA was taking advantage of clueless kids doing some file sharing. Also, a discussion with author Peter Mountford about helping a Russian translator make an unauthorized translation of his book (a story we covered as well), and finally the show checked with the FBI about how truthful the FBI warning is at the beginning of every DVD you watch (answer: not very).

As always, lots of good stuff.

Filed Under: alex winter, copyright, downloading, infringement, peter mountford, three strikes

Making Mobile Video Streaming Better By Operating In The 'Unused Spectrum' Of Copyright Law

from the they're-right!-IP-law-DOES-promote-innovation! dept

The streaming video experience on many mobile phone networks frequently flat out sucks. A YouTube video that would never trouble your home wi-fi connection sputters to a near halt before dividing its time between buffering and coughing up bursts of unsynched video and sound. And while having Netflix available on your phone seems to be a technological marvel, it's pretty useless in the wild. Plus, many phone data plans have been capped at very low levels, making streaming a full movie potentially very expensive.

Thanks to the entertainment industry, you can't even temporarily download a streamed movie to watch it later in order to bypass lousy connection speeds or data overages. This includes streaming services where the buffet pricing allows you to watch the same movie dozens of times consecutively, if that's your thing. A buffered copy is an infringing copy (in their eyes, but not a key court's), even if the temporary file deletes itself after consumption. The entities behind the TPP push are still hoping to subject buffered copies to licensing, even though the key Cablevision ruling in the 2nd Circuit said that such copies are not infringing.

As it stands now, the entertainment industry is unable to set up its toll booth on buffer copies, but that hasn't stopped it from trying. Between the ongoing push for buffer licenses and differing IP laws in various countries, providers of streaming services have played it safe by not offering a "download and view later" option. Even a self-deleting, single use file would be considered a violation of copyright law.

Fortunately, Dr. Shivendra S. Panwar has devised a workaround process that should satisfy both rights holders and mobile users.

Streamloading is Dr. Panwar's term for his new fusion of streaming and downloading. He hopes it will help wireless carriers get more mileage out of their bandwidth, while also helping data consumers watch more videos on the go.

The technology works by bisecting video into two layers. First is a base layer, which streams during viewing, then there would be a higher layer, which the user would pre-download from some high-bandwidth location like the home or office. While the higher layer would be useless on its own, and thus in compliance with intellectual property laws whose aim is to prevent free sharing, it would nonetheless comprise about 3/4ths of the total data.

Because the streamed base layer would be necessary to unlock the viewing experience while still constituting only about 1/4th of the data, effective and lawful streaming on the go would require fairly low bandwidths. The low bandwidth required to stream the content would mean that data-heavy movies and TV shows would be watchable on your phone even in zones of spotty coverage.

It seems to be a rather elegant solution and one that you would hope would satisfy rights holders. Of course, we've seen the entertainment industry throw the brakes on other technological advancements, especially if it sees the new innovation to be potentially pirateable and short a toll booth or two. See also the ongoing Aereo battle, in which TV broadcasters have claimed the very inelegant process deployed by Aereo (in order to comply with every possibly applicable section of copyright law) is actually evidence that Aereo's service is infringing. Checking and double-checking your processes against IP law only gets you so far. After that, you're subject to the entertainment industry's version of the "heckler's veto."

Panwar has high hopes for this process, which would operate in an area still untested by copyright law. It looks like a win for consumers and possibly even streaming services, but I'm not sure wireless providers will like it as much as Panwar believes they will.

I see this as a triple win scenario. Carriers are facing a bandwidth crunch. The 4G LTE systems are not keeping up with demand for data. AT&T has said publicly that they might run out of capacity this year. A crude way for them to control demand is to raise data charges, which would drive away customers. Anything delivering quality data at a lower cost is good for the carriers. That's the first win.

Carriers may talk a lot about "bandwidth crunches" and "data hogs," but it's all just a sales pitch with slightly apocalyptic undertones ("running out of capacity;" "stressing our infrastructure") designed to keep customers strapped into low limit data plans with high overage fees. It's been basically a way to print money from day one. Finding a way to move less data over their networks will make you a friend of the people, but wireless providers' reactions will range from indifferent to antagonistic as a more efficient process cuts into their cash cows. About the only way to sell them on this is to tie the delivery system exclusively to one of their favored, net-neutrality-violating services and portals so they can deliver "preferred" data without further taxing their undertaxed infrastructure. "Delivering data at a lower cost" has been going on for years, even as service prices continue to increase.

Other than that, the process looks like it could make mobile video streaming a rather enjoyable experience, rather than a tedious near-slideshow that sucks for everyone involved but your wireless provider.

Filed Under: copyright, downloading, video streaming