∅yvind Kaldestad writes in to point us to a story he wrote for a Norwegian publication, that shows the ongoing trend of the entertainment industry pressuring ISPs in Europe to block file sharing or kick file sharers off their networks. However, in this case, it looks like the ISPs (smartly) are fighting back, and they've got the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) at their backs. A law firm representing entertainment industry interests sent letters to various Norwegian ISPs, demanding they send specific letters to those suspected of unauthorized file sharing. The letter requests a signature accepting responsibility for their file sharing activities and renouncing all future unauthorized file sharing. However, the ISPs quickly rejected such letters, and the NCC warned people not to sign such a letter, as it makes the consumer liable for activities they might not actually have committed, and also removes the due process they are entitled to. The NCC also notes that, despite the claims in the letters, the Norwegian ISPs are unlikely to be liable for the actions of its users under both Norwegian and international law. Once again, this seems to be part of a highly coordinated campaign by the entertainment industry (and the IFPI specifically) to get ISPs to be their policemen and to prop up their obsolete business model.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

∅yvind Kaldestad writes in to point us to a story he wrote for a Norwegian publication, that shows the ongoing trend of the entertainment industry pressuring ISPs in Europe to block file sharing or kick file sharers off their networks. However, in this case, it looks like the ISPs (smartly) are fighting back, and they've got the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) at their backs. A law firm representing entertainment industry interests sent letters to various Norwegian ISPs, demanding they send specific letters to those suspected of unauthorized file sharing. The letter requests a signature accepting responsibility for their file sharing activities and renouncing all future unauthorized file sharing. However, the ISPs quickly rejected such letters, and the NCC warned people not to sign such a letter, as it makes the consumer liable for activities they might not actually have committed, and also removes the due process they are entitled to. The NCC also notes that, despite the claims in the letters, the Norwegian ISPs are unlikely to be liable for the actions of its users under both Norwegian and international law. Once again, this seems to be part of a highly coordinated campaign by the entertainment industry (and the IFPI specifically) to get ISPs to be their policemen and to prop up their obsolete business model.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've been pointing out for a while that analysts who try to measure "the PDA market" are wasting everybody's time. The addition of personal organizer functionality to mobile phones (or we could just as easily say, the addition of wireless telephony features to PDAs) meant that phones and PDAs were now part of one big "mobile communications device" market. The next step in that trend, already underway, is the gradual merging of the smart phone and MP3 player markets. An analyst is predicting that half of all cell phones will double as MP3 players by 2011. The cell phone market is getting close to saturation in the developed world, which means that manufacturers have to keep adding new features in order to convince customers to upgrade. I really hope this doesn't mean we'll have to spend the next five years debunking silly stories about the decline of "the MP3 player market."

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've been pointing out for a while that analysts who try to measure "the PDA market" are wasting everybody's time. The addition of personal organizer functionality to mobile phones (or we could just as easily say, the addition of wireless telephony features to PDAs) meant that phones and PDAs were now part of one big "mobile communications device" market. The next step in that trend, already underway, is the gradual merging of the smart phone and MP3 player markets. An analyst is predicting that half of all cell phones will double as MP3 players by 2011. The cell phone market is getting close to saturation in the developed world, which means that manufacturers have to keep adding new features in order to convince customers to upgrade. I really hope this doesn't mean we'll have to spend the next five years debunking silly stories about the decline of "the MP3 player market."

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MySQL's execs have always been outspoken critics of software patents. Back in 2004, we wrote about the company CEO's well-reasoned article about how software patents had become the nuclear stockpiling of the modern era. Companies were forced to patent everything just to have enough ammo to make sure others didn't sue them for patent infringement, and the end result was huge legal bills and wasted money that wasn't going towards innovation at all. Since then, the company has remained vehemently against software patents. However, now that Sun has purchased MySQL, the company is apparently being pushed to cut back on its anti-software patent stance. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent in some blog posts highlighting how Sun has removed MySQL's anti-software patent page. To be fair, among larger companies, Sun has certainly shown a much better understanding of how patents can be anti-innovation as well as how the patent system is often abused. But, at the same time, it also has a bunch of patents and has demonstrated in quite explicit fashion just how those patent nuclear wars work. So, of companies out there, Sun seems less bad concerning software patents than other firms. But it's still rather disappointing to see it erase MySQL's excellent public stance against software patents from the web -- even if it did make a silly April Fool's joke about open source software this week.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've complained plenty about elected officials who don't understand technology but have no problem regulating it -- but the problem extends way beyond elected officials. Tim Wu has a bunch of recommendations on how the next President can fix tech policy in the US and it pretty much all boils down to one thing: appoint people who actually understand technology. That means not appointing lobbyists and lawyers to the FCC and getting a real infrastructure expert to be a "broadband czar." These aren't bad ideas, but it's positively frightening that it even needs to be brought up at all. Have we really reached the point that almost everyone in charge of crafting tech-related policy doesn't have even the slightest tech background?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It's been clear for quite some time that Radiohead more or less stumbled into its position as "embracing" new music distribution models. The band has admitted that the idea of doing a name your own price download offering was suggested by the band's manager just before they put the album online. They didn't really think it through, they just did it. And, since then, it's been clear that the band doesn't quite grasp the wider economics of what it's doing. It never made sense for the band to get rid of the download offering, but it did. And now, the band is getting some publicity for asking its fans to remix a new single from the band, apparently a song the band has struggled to complete for quite a while. However, the details are anything but fan friendly. Fans are asked to buy the five separate tracks (bass, voice, guitar, strings/effects and drums) and only once all five have been bought are they given access to a program to mix the tracks. And, as a bunch of readers have sent in, the terms are not particularly friendly -- basically saying that the fans have no rights whatsoever, Radiohead gets everything and no one should expect any prizes for participating. In other words, this is Radiohead getting fans to pay the band to do its work.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There's a really inflammatory headline and opening paragraph in an article in the Times Online in the UK stating that "book piracy on the internet will ultimately drive authors to stop writing." This claim is actually unsubstantiated by history (which has actually shown book piracy ends up helping authors) or, actually, by the rest of the article. Rather than a reactionary RIAA-style response from the UK's Society of Authors, the article shows that the group isn't so much fearing internet piracy, but simply noting that business models need to change. Once you get beyond the headline and first paragraph, it's actually a rather refreshing article, as the head of the Society of Authors basically says that new business models are needed, and even suggests a few.

This isn't a "doom and gloom" story as the opening suggests, but rather a "let's figure out how to change before it's forced upon us uncomfortably." While many are covering this story as if the authors group is acting like the RIAA, the head of the Society even notes: "We have to evolve and create a very different pay system, possibly by making the content available free to all and finding a way to get paid separately." That seems like a rather reasonable and thoughtful approach to a changing marketplace, rather than a "sky is falling! run! run! run! sue! sue! sue!" response. The group seems to recognize that shared files can act as promotion, and the article even highlights the story of the first known literary "pirates" who were later applauded by the author, who was thrilled at the publicity the piracy generated.

This actually is a really interesting (and even surprising) recognition by authors that the business model they're used to is changing. It's just too bad that the Times Online chose to portray it in a totally inaccurate manner.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There's a really inflammatory headline and opening paragraph in an article in the Times Online in the UK stating that "book piracy on the internet will ultimately drive authors to stop writing." This claim is actually unsubstantiated by history (which has actually shown book piracy ends up helping authors) or, actually, by the rest of the article. Rather than a reactionary RIAA-style response from the UK's Society of Authors, the article shows that the group isn't so much fearing internet piracy, but simply noting that business models need to change. Once you get beyond the headline and first paragraph, it's actually a rather refreshing article, as the head of the Society of Authors basically says that new business models are needed, and even suggests a few.

This isn't a "doom and gloom" story as the opening suggests, but rather a "let's figure out how to change before it's forced upon us uncomfortably." While many are covering this story as if the authors group is acting like the RIAA, the head of the Society even notes: "We have to evolve and create a very different pay system, possibly by making the content available free to all and finding a way to get paid separately." That seems like a rather reasonable and thoughtful approach to a changing marketplace, rather than a "sky is falling! run! run! run! sue! sue! sue!" response. The group seems to recognize that shared files can act as promotion, and the article even highlights the story of the first known literary "pirates" who were later applauded by the author, who was thrilled at the publicity the piracy generated.

This actually is a really interesting (and even surprising) recognition by authors that the business model they're used to is changing. It's just too bad that the Times Online chose to portray it in a totally inaccurate manner.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Well, try to sort this one out. Slashdot, News.com and Ray Beckerman are all saying that the court in the Elektra vs. Barker case have dealt the RIAA a "setback" by rejecting the "make available" theory of copyright infringement. That sounds good, right? But hold on. The EFF (who filed an amicus brief against the "making available" claim), Billboard and ZeroPaid are all claiming a big RIAA victory in the decision. It would certainly appear that both claims are in complete contrast to one another.

The reality is somewhere in between -- but leaning very much (unfortunately) towards the RIAA's view of things. If you haven't been following the debate, the RIAA (and the MPAA) have been claiming that they can sue someone for copyright infringement if they put unauthorized files into a shared folder, i.e., making those files available to be shared. Others, such as the EFF, point out that in order to violate copyright law, you have to show that someone actually distributed the unauthorized file, otherwise, it's hard to see how they actually violated the law (i.e., no copy was made, thus no copyright violation). I find this latter argument more convincing, but it's certainly unsettled law. Courts have mostly split on the issue, with some deciding one way and others deciding the other. The RIAA likes to claim that this is settled law -- but it is not.

This latest case became a battleground over the issue, with both viewpoints getting a bunch of amicus briefs from third parties (including the Justice Department, who sided with the RIAA). It also took place in a court that is recognized as having a good grasp on copyright issues, meaning that it could weigh more heavily on other court decisions. So how did it actually play out when you have both sides claiming victory? Well, read the full confusing decision below to see:

What appears to have happened (and I'm no lawyer), is that the court was convinced that "publishing" and "distribution" are synonymous under the law. Thus, "publishing" content could be seen as "distribution." The EFF's response convincingly argues why this is wrong, but it's a bit late now. Thus, under that definition, if the court is convinced that putting a file into a shared folder is the equivalent of "publishing," then that could be a violation. However, the court hedges a bit, by saying that "making available" by itself is too broad and not clearly supported by the law (or the courts). So, as far as I can read it, it's saying that "publishing" is distribution, so the RIAA (or any other copyright holder) can get away with showing evidence of publishing. At the same time, it argues that merely "making available" isn't enough to be infringement, but if the copyright holder can convince the court that putting a file in a shared folder is the equivalent of "publishing" then that's good enough. So, yes, technically the court said making available isn't infringement, but it also expanded the definition of distribution such that it may just be a technicality that "making available" isn't infringement. This ruling pretty clearly leans towards the RIAA's belief in how copyright law should act.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story