Control Freaks

As the web has grown, we have seen a growing number of issues relating to infringing content. We respond expeditiously to requests to remove such content from our services, and have been improving our procedures over time. But as the web grows, and the number of requests grows with it, we are working to develop new ways to better address the underlying problem.

That's why today we're announcing four changes that we'll be implementing over the next several months:

• We'll act on reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. We will build tools to improve the submission process to make it easier for rightsholders to submit DMCA takedown requests for Google products (starting with Blogger and web Search). And for copyright owners who use the tools responsibly, we'll reduce our average response time to 24 hours or less. At the same time, we'll improve our counter-notice tools for those who believe their content was wrongly removed and enable public searching of takedown requests.
   
• We will prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete. While it's hard to know for sure when search terms are being used to find infringing content, we'll do our best to prevent Autocomplete from displaying the terms most frequently used for that purpose.
   
• We will improve our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials. Building on our existing DMCA takedown procedures, we will be working with rightsholders to identify, and, when appropriate, expel violators from the AdSense program.
   
• We will experiment to make authorised preview content more readily accessible in search results. Not surprisingly, we're big fans of making authorised content more accessible on the Internet. Most users want to access legitimate content and are interested in sites that make that content available to them (even if only on a preview basis). We'll be looking at ways to make this content easier to index and find.

The Homeland Security Department's customs enforcement division has gone on a Web site shutdown spree.

To date, 82 domains have been seized after being accused of selling counterfeit goods, with products sold ranging from music, DVD box sets and software to clothing and sporting goods.

Others linked to copyright-infringing file-sharing materials, at least one site was a Google-like search engine, causing alarm among web freedom advocates who worry the move steps over the line into censorship.

All the shut sites are now displaying a Homeland Security warning that copyright infringers can face up to five years in prison.

According to a report at TorrentFreak, the search engine that was shut down -- Torrent-Finder.com -- neither hosted copyrighted material nor directly linked to places where it could be found. Instead, the site opened new windows to sites that did link to file-sharing materials.

Homeland Security's ability to shut down sites without a court order evidently comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a Clinton-era law that allows Web sites to be closed on the basis of a copyright complaint. Critics have long assailed the DMCA for being too broad, as complainants don't need to prove copyright infringement before a site can be taken down.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security shut down a popular hip-hop music site, RapGodfathers.com, which had nearly 150,000 members. The site claims it is compliant with copyright laws, as it doesn't host copyrighted materials. However, its users posted links to file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload, where copyrighted material may have been shared.

These domains are now the property of Homeland Security, writes Gareth Halfacree at Thinq.co.uk, And there's no indication that their original owners will ever be able to get them back.

 

It seems that the RIAA and other music industry organizations have become bored with only harassing people who may or may not have illegally shared songs online. Now they have begun branching out and harassing the writers and publications who dare cover stories about file-sharing options.

After a recent article was posted covering alternatives to Limewire, after the P2P service was shut down by the RIAA, PC Magazine received a letter signed by the RIAA and 16 other music industry organizations admonishing them for promoting piracy. The letter also referred to a second article which reported the resurrection of Limewire in the form of Limewire: Pirate Edition.

Apparently, the groups didn't fact-check their accusations well enough before sending their correspondence off to PC Magazine's editors since the second article was actually published by rival publication PC World.

We write to express our deep disappointment with your decision to publish Chloe Albanesius' October 27 article, 'LimeWire is Dead: What are the Alternatives?' as well as Sarah Jacobsson Purewal's November 9, 2010 article 'LimeWire is Quietly Resurrected: It's Baaack!', the letter states. Both articles are nothing more than a roadmap for continued music piracy. The disclaimer in the first, 'PC Magazine does not condone the download of copyrighted or illegal material,' rings hollow to say the least.

The European Parliament has welcomed a controversial international intellectual property treaty as a step in the right direction but has reiterated calls for clarity on the impact of the law on existing EU rights.

The Parliament rejected the chance to adopt a much more critical stance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a treaty being negotiated between countries including the US, Mexico, Japan, Korea and others.

It voted against a resolution that said that it deplored the fact that the treaty was negotiated by just a handful of selected countries and that questioned its very legal basis.

Instead the Parliament voted to adopt a resolution that said that it welcomed changes that were made to satisfy its previous demands and that it would help EU countries to export with less fear of meeting infringing activity abroad.

TalkTalk and BT have been granted judicial review of the Digital Economy Act by the High Court.

A judge will now scrutinise whether the act is legal and justifiable, and could make wide-ranging recommendations.

BT and TalkTalk argued that the legislation had been rushed through parliament before the election.

Internet service providers (ISPs) are unhappy with the part of the act that requires them to take action against suspected illegal file-sharers.

Depending on the judge's ruling, the government may be forced to change or even scrap the legislation.

Andrew Heaney, director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk said he was very pleased that the High Court had recognised the concerns of ISPs: The act was rushed through parliament in the 'wash-up' with only 6% of MPs attending the brief debate and has very serious flaws.

The provisions to try and reduce illegal file-sharing are unfair, won't work and will potentially result in millions of innocent customers who have broken no law suffering and having their privacy invaded.

He called on the government to put the legislation on hold pending the enquiry.

A judge will conduct a full review in February, considering whether the parts of the act that deal with illegal file-sharing are in breach of the e-commerce directive, which rules that ISPs cannot be held liable for traffic on their networks. The act will also be measured against EU privacy and technical standards legislation.

Update: The ISP's Case

16th November 2010. Based on article from  bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

TalkTalk and BT claim that provisions of the Act governing online copyright infringement are incompatible with EU on the following four points:

1. TalkTalK and BT should have been notified under the EU Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC, as amended by 98/48 EC) in writing by the European Commission because the provisions listed in the DEA are burdensome. Under this directive, any technical regulations that require notification from a company to a third party must be submitted in writing to the European Commission. The UK has not notified the EC in the case of the DEA.
    
2. The provisions are incompatible with the EU Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) which sets out a legal certainty on communications and transparency on a variety of services including ISPs. The specific provisions of the DEA violate this directive.
    
3. The provisions contradict the EU Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive which outlines data processing for ISPs among other groups.
    
4. And finally, the provisions are disproportionate in that they infringe:

a. The free movement of services under the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union;
b. Article 3(4) of the E-Commerce Directive;
c. Article 15(1) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive;
d. UK Human Rights Act 1998 and to Articles 8 and/or 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights relating to privacy and freedom of expression.

Games developer Treyarch has revealed censorship details about the upcoming first-person shooter Call of Duty: Black Ops .

The German edition has been cut as follows:

Call of Duty Black Ops screenshot

• A scene where an enemy is shot in slow motion with copious amounts of gore has been toned down for the German release.
• A torture scene involving a prisoner has been completely eliminated from the German version.
• The song Sympathy for the Devil by Mick Jagger has been removed.
• No explosions that lead to limb loss.
• Removal of what Germany deems anti-constitutional symbols .

Update: Steam Control Freakery

29th October 2010. From computerandvideogames.com

German punters hoping to get hold of the PC version of the shooter won't be able to play PAL versions imported from other EU territories, meaning they'll have to make do with a cut, localised version, according to PC Games (via MCV).

According to the reports, the Steam network will only authorise fully localised German versions of Black Ops , meaning copies imported from other EU territories won't be playable.

Four of the world's largest record companies have failed in an attempt to get the three strikes rule enforced against illegal filesharers in Ireland.

Warner Music, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG and EMI brought the case against UPC, one of Ireland's largest broadband providers, in order to establish a legal precedent that would force internet service providers to cut off illegal filesharers' internet connections.

But the Irish high court ruled that laws to identify and cut off internet users were not enforceable in Ireland.

In a judgment published today, Justice Peter Charleton said that laws were not in place to block the internet connections of those accused of sharing copyrighted content. However, he acknowledged that the creative industries are being blighted by internet piracy.

This not only undermines their [the creative industries] business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living . It is destructive of an important native industry.

In the High Court, UK ISPs BT and Plusnet have refused to hand over subscriber data to lawyers acting for independent record label, Ministry of Sound.

Their objections followed the catastrophic subscriber data leak from ACS:Law.

Lawyers Gallant Macmillan hoped that the Court would order the ISPs to hand over the identities of hundreds of alleged filesharers so that Ministry of Sound can prise a cash settlement out of them.

However, in contrast to their earlier stances, BT and and their subsidiary Plusnet refused to cooperate. Chief Master Winegarten, who hears most if not all of these types of cases in the UK, granted BT's request for an adjournment of the hearing.

In a statement, Plusnet's COO Richard Fletcher wrote: The incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people's confidence in the current process.

We're pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future.

We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS:Law prompted us to take further action today.

The hearing will continue on January 12th 2011. At this stage it seems unlikely that any more court orders of this type will be granted in the meantime.

Tate Britain had attempted to ban adverse publicity for Turner Prize art.

But now Tate has backed down in a row with photographers who had boycotted the launch of this year's Turner Prize. Photographers had refused to attend the art exhibition after being asked to sign a form banning any images or words being published which could result in any adverse publicity .

However, a Tate spokeswoman said that the photographers would now be allowed into the London launch without signing the contract. The contract also gives the gallery permission to copy, reproduce, record, store and disseminate the photographer's work without paying royalties.

Among the photographers who boycotted the event included staff working for the Evening Standard, Reuters and the Press Association.

A painting of the scene where scientist David Kelly died, a recording of a Scottish folk lament and a collection of broken canvasses laid on top of each other are among the 'artwork' featured in this year's Turner Prize exhibition.

Julian Assange's rare interview and a lack of press freedom

Based on article from  guardian.co.uk

Last Thursday, Julian Assange appeared in a debate pitting him against the Times columnist David Aaronovitch at London's City University that was sold out within hours, with TV crews and photographers flying in from around the world.

Assange found himself having to defend WikiLeaks, in particular the leaking of documents detailing Nato's actions in Afghanistan. How would he feel if any Afghan citizens were killed as a result?

The circumstances surrounding the debate were bizarre. Assange agreed to debate with one of his sternest critics. But he had his own stipulations: no press photographers at the event; it could only be filmed by a camerawoman sanctioned by Index and the university; there would be no press calls, or live stream.

How could Index, the UK's leading free expression organisation, keep out broadcast media? In the end we decided it was worth going ahead. People in the lecture theatre would be free to tweet and liveblog.

As the debate ended, the photographers and film crews were allowed in. A sensible compromise had been reached. But the situation demonstrated the tightrope that free-speech campaigners walk every day.

The worrying IP infringement bill thankfully failed to sneak in ahead of the Senate adjournment for recess.

The change in plans should delight some of the bill's critics, at least, who expressed concern that the legislation was moving forward quickly.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now won't be considering the dangerously flawed Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) bill until after the midterm elections, at least.

This is a real victory! The entertainment industry and their allies in Congress had hoped this bill would be quickly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with no debate before the Senators went home for the October recess.

The bill will be back soon enough though.

Under the proposed legislation, the Justice Department would file a civil action against accused pirate domain names. If the domain name resides in the U.S., the attorney general could then request that the court issue an order finding that the domain name in question is dedicated to infringing activities. The Justice Department would have the authority to serve the accused site's U.S.-based registrar with an order to shut down the site.