Maximum PC copyright RSS Feed

Google Hoping to Profit from YouTube's Copyright Issues

Bart Salisbury — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:44:44 -0600

You got to hand it to Google, they are one for novel ideas. And, in this case, perhaps an idea that makes sense. Piracy is a tough thing to combat. A lot of effort goes into anti-piracy efforts, and little benefit seems to emerge. Rather than copyright owners fight with Google’s YouTube over the posting of their material, Google is proposing they try to make a buck from it instead.

Google’s proposition is quite simple. Making use of a ‘fingerprinting’ system Google has developed (Audio ID and Video ID), copyright owners could tag and track their content on YouTube. The content identification system, already in use on YouTube, allows to see where and how often their material is viewed. Rights holders could use the system to block their content, or they could take a small cut of YouTube’s advertising revenue, based on the how much viewing statistics.

It would seem like a win-win situation. Copyrights holders would have to take responsibility for their content on YouTube, making sure it is properly tagged for tracking, and blocking what they see fit. YouTube would be relieved of the burden of lawsuits by copyright holders, and would be better situated to generate advertising revenue that is currently shying away from the site because of its legal issues. Both sides would get to wet their beaks in a bigger pot of advertising revenue. And YouTubers will be still free to watch all their favorite, currently tainted, copyrighted material.

Image Credit: Wifredor/Wikipedia Commons, YouTube

Are Pirate Downloads 150 Times More Profitable for Copyright Holders?

Paul Lilly — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:32:18 -0500

According to TorrentFreak.com, copyright holders have found a way to turn the table on software piracy and profit from the practice of stealing software.

Citing a PowerPoint presentation (in German) by foreign pirate-tracking outfit DigiRights Solutions, TorrentFreak reports that alleged file sharers are sent out emails requesting them to pay about $650 per offense. For its efforts, DigiRights keeps 80 percent of the money to cover IT costs, administration costs, and attorney fees, while the remaining 20 percent is passed on to the copyright holders, TorrentFreak reports.

For copyright holders, that breaks down to $130 for every illicit download, or about 150 times more from pursuing file sharers than from selling actual music. Of course, this only applies to those who actually pay, and according to the report, 25 percent of all recipients cough up the cash, no questions asked.

Read more here, then hit the jump and sound off.

RealNetworks Still Fighting the Good Fight, Plans to Appeal RealDVD Case

Paul Lilly — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:45:01 -0500

Down but not out, RealNetworks said it will file an appeal and ask that a court ruling to ban sales of its DVD-copying software, RealDVD, be lifted.

The original ruling dates back to August when a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt sales of the software after film studios successfully argued that RealDVD violated copyright law. The injunction drew major interest from consumers looking for some clarification in the murky Fair Use waters.

RealNetwork's appeal only addresses the injunction, not the case itself, which, barring a resolution, is moving towards a jury trial.

"What they're going to argue is that somehow the legal basis for the injunction is wanting," said Denise Howell, an appellate and technology lawyer. "They will say that there has been an error of law somewhere along the way but they're going to try and undo the injunction. Real is facing an uphill battle."

Image Credit: RealNetworks

New Evidence Bad News for YouTube in Viacom Case

Bart Salisbury — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:00:54 -0500

It appears that Google/YouTube’s Sgt. Shultz defense in it’s $1 billion copyright infringement case with Viacom might not fly. Apparently YouTube did know something as newly disclosed YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube’s own managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site, and further did some of the uploading themselves. Oops!

Google’s key point of protection against Viacom’s action is the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) that it was unaware of the uploading or existence of copyrighted material on its site, and when notified of such expeditiously act to remove it. Viacom and others have long been suspicious of Google’s “I know nothing” defense, and with the disclosure of these emails appear vindicated.

The revelation hasn’t left YouTube completely defenseless. It appears that Viacom’s employees were partly responsible for uploading Viacom’s copyrighted content onto YouTube. YouTube argues that if Viacom is doing the uploading how is it possible for YouTube to distinguish which material is kosher, and which isn’t. Viacom counters with The Wizard of Oz defense: “never mind that man behind the curtain,” maintaining that doesn’t really matter. It’s appears only a matter of time before the Chewbacca defense is trotted out.

Image Credit: Viacom, YouTube

Byte Rights: Back to School

Quinn Norton — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

As the summer wanes, the days get shorter, and the wind starts hinting of fall, you’ll naturally ask, what’s hawt in curriculum this year? Forget sex ed and intelligent design, the latest educational brawl is copyright!

Curriculums are being shipped to thousands of schools across America to teach our children all about intellectual property—every lesson plan authored by a lobbying group or industry association. It’s even legally required now in California’s famously overfunded schools.

I’m pretty into this copyright thing, but I still try to drop by the real world on occasion, just to see how it’s going. In real life, schools are struggling with larger classes and fewer resources. Now, instead of music or art (or my favorite elective, ninjutsu), we’re going to have our overworked teachers inculcating children about one side or the other of the copyfight? Great.

The BSA (Business Software Association), MPAA, RIAA, and even EFF are all into it. The lesson plans play to type—the EFF, geeky; the rightholders, incomprehensible—explaining more about the attitudes of the people that created them than they do about IP.

According to the BSA in its online K-2 “Cyber Tree House,” it’s uncool for kindergartners to “download or share copyrighted software programs, music, movies, or games without paying for them” or “copy pictures or books and magazines without permission from the author or artist.”

The MPAA has—I’m not kidding—”Lucky and Flo, the world’s first-ever DVD-sniffing dogs...” who are “trained to detect pirated DVDs.” Ah, childhood memories of being talked down to by people who think kids are idiots.

The EFF’s lesson plan ends in a mock trial of “the legal drama of Walt Disney Studios v. Faden.” I love the EFF, but the kids into that drama already applied to be EFF interns over the summer.

But as lost in minutia as the EFF might be, the rightholders’ lesson plans occasionally veer into naked contempt. Kids won’t hear the ideology; they’ll hear that minutia, or that contempt. Or, hopefully, it will all get ignored by teachers, and kids will hear band instruments, poetry, or the hissing of Bunsen burners.

Quinn Norton writes about copyright for Wired News and other publications. Her work has ranged from legal journalism to the inner life of pirate organizations.

Murphy's Law: Sometimes, an Open-Source Virus is Just a Virus

David Murphy — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:37:53 -0500

The phrase "open-source" is such a sexy term.

It's so hip and fresh. Open-source singlehandedly represents the latest and greatest thinking in the modern-day technological movement. Drop it into a conversation and you're suddenly talking like a futurist. Throw it into a company's strategic roadmap and suddenly we've created innovation and depth. Suggest that virus-makers are embracing open-source, and you've got the attention (and clicks) of Web geeks worldwide.

Wait a minute. Open-source viruses? How does that work?

If you think about the actual definition of open-source for a moment, you'll wind up being as confused as I am about this latest bit of fad reporting to pass around the Web. According to an article from CNET, virus-makers are apparently transforming their wares into open-source projects and using the power of the group to achieve advancements in virus deployment, nasty features, and scanner obfuscation.

That's all well and good (for the virus-makers), but that's as open-source a situation as an apple is an orange. What's being described is an example of collaboration and communication based around a common or to-be developed piece of code. That sounds like open-source--an apple and an orange are both pieces of fruit, after all. But that's not really open-source because we're ignoring the critical elements that help define what open-source software truly is. Virus-makers aren't going open-source in the slightest. They're spinning derivative works from older viruses and developing free code while holding hands and singing the Pirates of the Caribbean song, but that's it. And it's hardly a new fad.

Since the beginning of geek time, the more nefarious members of the technology world have worked together to try and create newer means for achieving their less-than-upstanding desires. This notion of collaboration can be as simple as taking an older crack and retrofitting it for newer editions of a program, or as far-ranging and complicated as the operation of an entire distribution network for stolen CD images. Are either of these examples of open-source? No.

What makes a software project open-source is not the fact that people are teaming up during its creation. Open-source software conforms to a specific set of tenets for creation and distribution. In essence, the definition of open-source centers on the licensing issues that permit one to take code, modify code, and release code under a similar license for others to play around with. The licensing elements are critical to the open-source equation: They allow for one to meaningful contribute to a communal work without running afoul of the normal copyright law that protects all software code. Well, almost all.

The code for viruses, by their very nature, cannot be copyrighted. Or, at least, I have yet to read about a virus creator suing another code-monkey for violating his or her ability to independently build and release malware--if this ever comes up in the courts, please let me know. I'll be the one in the front row with the popcorn.

I jest, but it's a lot like calling the police to complain that someone stole your bag of cocaine. You might be able to get some sort of legal retribution against said thief, but that doesn't mean that your activities are in any way afforded the same legal protections as the types of property or possessions the law was designed to protect. Even if a virus maker wanted to craft a particular bit of software around the GPL, the absence of the underlying copyright function would render the whole point moot--not to mention that the inability (or lack of desire) to offer up the source code to all interested participants (like, say, law enforcement) would render said license void on its face. And those are just the two examples I can come up with off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

Is this a stupid semantics debate? Yes and no. Given the vitriol that can accompany the ages-old "open-source is not free" discussion, I don't think it's that far-fetched to call an "open-source virus" exactly what it is: a public domain program, at best. Reserving the correct phrase for its correct usage minimizes confusion and, more importantly, helps hold off the eventual transformation of "open source" into the next big synonym for "community-driven." It also gives us a chance to ponder what a closed-source virus program would look like.

And, of course, what would happen if someone listed one of those on The Pirate Bay.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

Swedish Authorities Finding it Difficult to Sink Pirate Bay from Internet

Paul Lilly — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:49:46 -0500

The Swedish courts are doing everything it can to decimate The Pirate Bay -- at least in its current form -- from the Internet, and that includes ordering the torrent tracking site's ISP to disconnect TPB from the Internet. The penalty for failing to comply would have been 500,000 kroner, or $70,600, so the ISP did what was ordered saying it had no choice but to uphold the law.

Game, set, match for the Swedish courts then, right? Not so fast. Rather than jump ship and throw in the towel, The Pirate Bay just jumped servers instead. And true to TPB's form, it had a defiant message for Swedish authorites.

"Even though large parts of the Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the lfpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end," TPB said in a statement.

In related news, Global Gaming Factor will vote this Thursday whether or not to proceed with plans to purchase the controversial site and proceed to turn it legit.

US Government Doesn't See Anything Wrong with $1.92 Million File Sharing Verdict

Paul Lilly — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:12:52 -0500

Jammie Thomas is running out of options. Found guilty in 2007 of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $220,000 for willfully making available 24 songs via peer-to-peer, she now owes a whopping $1.92 million following a retrial earlier this year. Surely the Department of Justice would step in and find the nearly $2 million fine unconstitutional, right?

Wrong. According to ArsTechnica, the huge of amount of damages (Thomas ended up owing $80,000 per song) were not intended just to apply to big corporations, but also to "deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights." The only time the DOJ would have a problem with a fine is if it become "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportional to the offense and obviously unreasonable," something for which a $1.92 million fine for sharing 24 songs doesn't qualify.

"We are pleased the Administration has filed a brief supporting our position," an RIAA spokesperson told ArsTechnica. "Its views are consistent with the views of every previous Administration that has weighed in on this issue."

So where does Thomas go from here? Probably bankruptcy court.

Image Credit: regent.edu