News Roundup - November 2009

Net disconnection requires involvement of judge, says Commissioner
(LINK)
Law firm interested in hearing from banned Xbox Live gamers
(LINK)
Why do people keep buying CDs?
(LINK)
EU waits for wise men to deliver digi-books plan
(LINK)
YouTube to promote its full-length TV shows with press and bus ads
(LINK)
Anti-Piracy Outfits Demand Cash Without Proof
(LINK)
Mandelson Gets His Own Digital Economy Bill Protest Song
(LINK)
Mininova Deletes All Infringing Torrents and Goes ‘Legal’
(LINK)
AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes
(LINK)
30,000 Internet Users to Receive File-Sharing Cash Demands
(LINK)
File-sharer disconnection law published to continuing opposition
(LINK)
Sweden sees music sales soar after crackdown on filesharing
(LINK)
Barack Obama criticises internet censorship at meeting in China
(LINK)
Lady Gaga Earns Slightly More From Spotify Than Piracy
(LINK)
MPAA Says Copyright-Treaty Critics Hate Hollywood
(LINK)
Filesharing laws to hit websites and newsgroups too
(LINK)
Internet: A threat to government or the other way around?
(LINK)
Military Video System Is Like YouTube With Artillery
(LINK)
Google adds automatic captions to YouTube
(LINK)
YouTube is profitable, says YouTube and Google founding investor
(LINK)
Government confirms plan to disconnect alleged file-sharers
(LINK)
Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing
(LINK)
YouTube launches UK TV section with more than 60 partners
(LINK)
Is Xbox Live ban the ultimate answer to piracy?
(LINK)
YouTube Direct service to link citizen reporters and news organisations
(LINK)
Pirate Bay Ship Hijackers Let Logo Hostage Go
(LINK)
MC Hammer: STOP… The Music Piracy Crackdown
(LINK)
Leaked Documents Reveal Anti-Piracy Cash Operation
(LINK)
Copyright Czar Vote Heads to Full Senate
(LINK)
Handy Chart Tracks Proposed Amendments to Patriot Act
(LINK)
Judge Sides With RIAA in ‘Sham’ Litigation Class Action
(LINK)
China heralds success of iPhone TV
(LINK)
UK.gov denies innocent will be hit by filesharing regime
(LINK)
Anti-Piracy Group Responds to Media, Not DRM Breaker
(LINK)
Game Developer Promotes Game on Torrent Sites
(LINK)
Copyright Treaty Is Policy Laundering at Its Finest
(LINK)
MPAA Wants Congress to ‘Encourage’ 3 Strikes, Filtering
(LINK)
YouTube tests skippable pre-roll ads
(LINK)

Look Who's Twittering Us Now

It's always nice to see that people out there are paying attention to this fledgling enterprise! Here are some of the people and posts that are attracting attention:

http://twitter.com/moviepiracy/status/4512234751

http://twitter.com/moviepiracy

http://friendfeed.com/davisfreeberg/f0890ad7/internet-television-law-blog-fm-im-not

http://friendfeed.com/davisfreeberg

(FM) Google Books - Satan's Library...

...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet.

The Google Book Project has been controversial since it first began in October, 2004. My intention with this post, my last guest blawging here, is to give a very brief synopsis of the issues that are causing such consternation and to point out some of the more interesting arguments that are being presented. If it seems that I am in anyway biased towards Google that's because I am, I'd love to work in Google's legal department, and I love it when stuff is free (I have a long held belief that if you're paying for anything online then you're being robbed). Also, in 2007, while I was a student in University College Cork, I authored a paper entitled "Don't Be Evil - The Google 'Book Search' Project". The paper dealt with an examination of Google's "Book Search" Project and whether it would pass a "fair use" copyright test. I was pretty proud of my work, and it was even shortlisted for the prestigious Matheson Ormsby Prentice Undergraduate Prize in Information Technology Law. As a result, I have tried to keep an eye on the Project.

Issue

The primary issue that has everyone talking in recent months is Google's controversial deal to scan and digitize in copyright, but out of print works, including "orphan" works, i.e. works where it is almost impossible to identify the copyright holder(1). This has lead to investigations by the US government over their concern about the possibility of a Google monopoly over "orphan" works, and also generated a great deal of consternation amongst Google's rivals: Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Arguments

Those against the deal argue that Google will have an inordinate amount of control over an enormous volume of information and that what is needed is strict regulation of this kind of activity(2). While those in favour of the deal are keen to point out that if Google has the resources and the capability to save "orphan" works then it should, even if the motivation is profit(3).

Conclusion

As I stated in the conclusion to my paper, "After all, as George Orwell wrote: “Who controls the past controls the future”, and Google could be said to be going a long way towards this end... Similarly it could be seen as creating the need for more responsibility from corporations such as Google, who are now effectively acting as the stewards of information for the public. But these worries might well be unfounded seeing as Google believes, at least informally, in the phrase: “Don’t be evil”.

Today, I would argue that more regulation is never a good thing (most governments aren't able to use the regulations already in place, let alone cluttering up the law libraries with even more). However, keeping a watchful eye on Google should be encouraged, and when I look at the debate that the deal has created I admit to smiling a little, because if Google does become evil in the future then thanks to the internet everyone is going to know about it.

You can find a copy of my paper HERE

Footnotes

(1) "Orphan" Works, Wikipedia Entry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
(2) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/28/google_book_research_corpus/
(3) http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=23506

(FM) Meanwhile, Somewhere Over the Atlantic Ocean...

“The privacy and dignity of our citizens [are] being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen -- a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a [person's] life.”(1)

If a police officer were to come to your house and ask to come in and conduct a search without a warrant most people, assured of their rights from watching copious amounts of Law and Order, would flatly refuse and then call their attorney.

The same would go for your workplace or the locked trunk of your car. But what then about your cell phone or your laptop?

Imagine the upset and confusion that must have arisen when Bush came up with this doozy(2). Now your laptop, which for many people is not just a piece of hardware, but is instead a portable office, a diary, a shopping mall and a cinema to name but a few, is no longer a place where you could assume that you had an expectation of privacy. Shocking and disappointing as this was for me (an admitted foreigner) and my perception of the USA's proud tradition of civil liberties, more shocking still was the news that Obama was in favour of the new rules with a few minor adjustments.

If you fly as often as I do, my argument is very simple; I spend a lot of time on my laptop, and I do very many private things on my laptop (check e-mail, search for any random thing that pops into my head) then I should surely have a legitimate expectation of privacy which is not outweighed by issues of national security. Unfortunately, airport authorities need not even have any suspicion of wrongdoing to prompt the search. Granted airports have been traditionally exempt from constitutional protections (SCARY), but it's an interesting thought that even though you are carrying around your entire life, from trade secret business documents to medical records, on your computer, the law does not recognise these important possibilities.

I know many people will cry: "Who cares? It's only an issue if you have something to hide. I don't do anything illegal on my laptop." My reply, as always, is this: who draws the line, and who's to say that what is perfectly legal today won't be illegal tomorrow. As this very policy proves.

Footnote

(1) http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_privacy_and_dignity_of_our_citizens-are-being/330279.html

(2) Obama upholds Bush laptop search policy - with new safeguards
(LINK)