CricketMX.com

September 6, 2006
Thomas Mennecke


If there ever were a music store that had the best shot in converting the millions of file-sharers, Napster would have been it. Bertelsmann certainly believed this, as it invested nearly $100 million in the now defunct P2P network. The German media giant also tried to purchase Napster’s intellectual property, however the takeover was rejected by the courts.

This situation left Bertelsmann in a bit of financial trouble. Although it never took over Napster’s intellectual property rights, it did fund the company with vast amounts of cash before it closed. In a bizarre twist to the online copyright wars, Bertelsmann’s fellow music publishers turned and sued the German media giant for promoting piracy.

Ever since this failed venture, Bertelsmann has been trying to dig itself out of litigation by settling with various publishers. However todays announcement is by far the most progress made to date, as a settlement has been made with Universal. The two media companies have announced that Bertelsmann will settle with Universal for $60 million.

The settlement will act as a “…reimbursement of legal fees and expenses and covers the resolution of the legal claims of Universal’s recorded music and music publishing businesses, as well as those of BMG Music Publishing. Bertelsmann admits no liability in making this settlement,â€

30 Days of DRM - Day 19: Backup Copies of Digital Consumer Products (Circumvention Rights)
From Michael Geist

Copyright reform is frequently characterized as "modernizing outdated copyright laws" (e.g. see yesterday's excellent Ottawa Citizen's masthead editorial). Leaving aside the fact that Canadian copyright law has undergone two major revisions in less than 20 years (along with several smaller changes), the reality is that the modernization is almost entirely focused on the interests' of a select few industries. Consider the issue of backup copies. Yesterday's post addressed a right of circumvention for backup copies of software, reflecting the need to preserve provisions in the Copyright Act that are nearly 20 years old. Those provisions rightly recognize that software programs are an intangible product that is susceptible to loss. Creating a backup copy right is a simple way to allow consumers to protect their investment.

If the government is serious about modernizing the Copyright Act, it could do worse than to start by modernizing the backup copy provision.
In 1988, backing up digital data meant backing up software programs. Today, digital data includes CDs, DVDs, and video games. All of these products suffer from the same frailties as software programs, namely the ease with which hard drives become corrupted or CDs and DVDs scratched and non-functional. From a policy perspective, the issue is the same - ensuring that consumers have a simple way to protect their investment.

"Modernizing" copyright law should include bringing this provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make a backup copy to all digital consumer products. As with the backing up software programs, TPMs quickly emerge as a concern since they can be used to block the ability to make such copies. Copyright law should be amended to permit consumers to make backup copies of their digital products, accompanied by a circumvention right to ensure that backup copying is not blocked by the combination of TPMs and anti-circumvention legislation.
michaelgeist.ca/wiki

Sally Hawkins - p2pnet, Australia

p2pnet.net News:- The Australian Government has announced proposed changes to the Copyright Act to implement its undertakings with the United State’s Free Trade Agreement.

Particularly interesting are the new offences bringing in civil remedies and criminal penalties where a person circumvents DRM, previously not within the Act, and further criminal penalties for dealing in circumvention devices and services with offenders facing up to five years imprisonment and/or fines of 550 penalty units (currently $60,500).

Exceptions currently in the Bill cover:

* Interoperability between software
* Encryption research
* Computer security testing
* Online privacy
* Law enforcement and national security, and
* Libraries and other related institutions.

Comments on the exposure draft of the Bill will also be accepted until 22 September 2006 with the intention of introducing it to Parliament in mid October.

The copyright regulations will also be amended to include access where, for example:

* The DRM is obsolete, lost, damaged, defective, malfunctioning or unusable and a replacement is not provided, and
* The DRM damages a product, or where circumvention is necessary to repair a product.

These exceptions will be clarified in the exposure draft of the Regulations to be released for comment in the next month.

The attorney general’s department is willing to consider other suggestions and is seeking comments by September 22.

These may include such things as:

* Making back-up copies of software
* Correcting errors in software
* Allowing institutions to help those with an intellectual disability
* Making copies of works for broadcasts, and
* Making copies of copyright material for criticism, review or news reporting by broadcasters.
p2pnet

From Michael Geist

Concerns about the impact of anti-circumvention legislation on public access and use of public domain materials is frequently addressed by arguing that the legislation only protects works that are subject to copyright. Since public domain materials fall outside that definition, works such as old public domain films that are enclosed with DRM could be lawfully circumvented. Those assurances notwithstanding, without the inclusion of a public domain circumvention right, circumventing DRM on works that combine public domain content with materials still subject to copyright could give rise to liability. In other words, pure public domain may be circumvented (provided you have the tools to circumvent), but once someone builds on a public domain work, they will benefit from the anti-circumvention provisions.
michaelgeist.ca/wiki

Check 0ut this Article on p2pnet , It talks about how the RIAA are suing people who have allegedly engaged in copyright infringement by using p2p networks either by downloading or uploading music files that the RIAA own the intellectual property rights.

RIAA started its case against the digital XM Satellite Radio, America's biggest satellite radio station, back in May, alleging that it was promoting the theft of copyright material. Now, the Songwriters Guild has lent its legal support, in the form of filing an amicus brief in the case (volunteering to offer information to help a court decide a matter).
PC Pro

South Korean P2P service Soribada was forced to close its free P2P service. It re-opened as an authorized subscription service in July with signed contracts with 350 music rights holders. So you think the music industry would be happy with the new revenue source, right? ... No. Thirteen companies now want to renege on their deals due to Soribada's success. They seek to fight the fixed rate unlimited download price.
P2P-weblog

Has The Free Market Failed The US When It Comes To Broadband?

As the network neutrality debate has gone on and on, there are some aspects that are very troubling. The tech world is notorious for having what's basically a libertarian/free market approach to the world -- and applying that to the network neutrality debate gives plenty of good and convincing reasons why letting Congress regulate on this now will create problems down the road. Those are some of the reasons why I agree that legislation right now would be a dangerous move (especially as some of the laws are written). It's tough (if not impossible) for Congress to understand how this technology will evolve -- and trying to regulate it could stifle perfectly reasonable uses. At the same time, even if the laws seem reasonable, the companies in the space will likely figure out loopholes or other ways to use the regulations to their advantage. However, at the same time, it's really troublesome to see the telcos mostly ignoring that very reasonable line of argument, preferring to trot out made up horror stories and outright lies to try to make their point. It certainly raises questions about what they're trying to hide. If you're right, you should be able to make your point without resorting to disingenuous arguments.
techdirt

The Dutch anti-piracy organization BREIN collected the name of one of the bigger “uploadersâ€

EMI wants millions and your IP address in revenge for Beachles
The producer of a mashup album that combined the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band has been threatened with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit by EMI, the Beatles' music publisher. EMI has also demanded that he turn over the IP addresses of the hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded the mash-ups, presumably so that EMI can sue all of us, too.
boingboing

30 Days of DRM - Day 21: Print Disabilities (Circumvention Rights)

30 Days of DRM - Day 22: Libraries (Circumvention Rights)

Police blotter: Cops raid Usenet provider over porn

Voicenet Communications and subsidiary Omni Telecom were raided in January 2004 as part of an Bucks County, Pa., investigation into child pornography. During the raid, servers and other computer hardware were, according to the companies, "illegally seized" and business operations were substantially impaired.
C|Net News

The owner of a software piracy Web site has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison--the longest sentence ever handed down for software piracy.

Nathan Peterson, 27, of Los Angeles, sold copyrighted software at a huge discount on his site, iBackups.net, prosecutors said. The FBI began investigating the site in 2003 and shut it down in February 2005.
ZNet

RIAA Says That Without Pretrial Discovery, It Does Not Have Enough Facts to Oppose Paul Wilke's Summary Judgment Motion

In Elektra v. Wilke, the Chicago RIAA case in which defendant Paul Wilke has moved for summary judgment, the RIAA has filed a motion for "expedited discovery", alleging that it does not have sufficient evidence to withstand Mr. Wilke's motion. The RIAA's lawyer said

"Plaintiffs cannot at this time,
without an opportunity for
full discovery
present by affidavit
facts essential to justify
their opposition to Defendant's motion.

In his summary judgment motion * Mr. Wilke had stated that

1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under.
2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded] He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CD's owned by Mr. Wilke.
3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.

recordingindustryvspeople