Tag Archive for 'Electronic Frontier Foundation'

Controlling the Internet

Published on December 11, 2007 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted on: Digital Music News / ArsTechnica ?

As if throttling Bit Torrent, blocking access to sites like AllofMP3.com and PirateBay, and endless industry litigation aren’t eroding net neutrality enough, the IFPI is taking it a step further.? The IFPI is an international version of the RIAA, and the recently sent a memo to the European Union about file sharing.

The IFPI wants to see Europe’s internet monitored, managed, and controlled.? They are presenting a “complete solution to piracy”.? This three step process looks something like this:

1.? Scan the entire internet for audio files, and block files that don’t match up to a database of music.? This practice is called content filtering.? Although it seems benign, the practice of monitoring the entire internet is a slippery slope toward full scale surveillance.? Aside from harming commerce and academic research, having a huge government database of people’s web activity can be used for more malicious purposes then chasing down people who are illegally downloading music.

2.? Blocking peer to peer protocols.? A protocol is a standard for connecting and sharing data, and p2p networks have their own protocol.? If ISPs systematically ferret out and block these protocols, academics and businesses won’t be able to share large files, either.

3.? Blocking websites that offer illegal content.? Although the practice of blocking sites that offer pirated music is a method of controlling the practice, it is a legal precedent that governments can block web sites.? The power of the internet is its freedom, and blocking sites is a step toward censoring that freedom.? Once governments are free to block one kind of website, where will they draw the line?
Consider that a corporation is lobbying a government to restrict and monitor the internet airwaves.? If the IFPA has their way, they are setting the stage for full scale internet controls and censorship. While the intention of protecting their corporate interests isn’t truly malicious, the methods they suggest pave the way for an internet that is no longer open and free.
Bottom Line:? Setting a precedent for government control of the internet is a precursor to full scale internet censorship.? Considering the human tendency to use any means at our disposal, creating this kind of monitoring and control apparatus is a disturbing action for personal liberty.

RIAA/MPAA – Holes

Published on April 7, 2007 in Article and Blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted on: Passably News:

Have you ever heard of Pretexting? It’s a manipulation technique often used to fool organizations into disclosing private information. In December of 2006, a California Law was proposed: “…any person…obtaining or attempting to obtain…personal information about a customer or employee contained in the records of a business …by making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations…”. Although the bill was unanimously endorsed by members of the CA Senate, the MPAA stepped in and had the bill killed (see Wired Magazine, “MPAA Kills Anti-Pretexting Bill”, 12/1/06). To put it simply, the MPAA and RIAA demand the right to lie to us in the name of Copyright Protection.

It seems the RIAA and MPAA are willing to allow privacy laws to deteriorate for all of us to protect their profit margins. The question on my mind is: Why should the MPAA and RIAA get special freedoms to prosecute people for file sharing?

Back in 2003, the MPAA and RIAA filed for a permanent Antitrust exemption. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch. It contains a revision to The Copyright Laws of the US in Title 17 of the US Code. Here’s the revised copyright law of the US according this (thankfully non-passed) bill by Sen. Hatch (the revision is underlined):

For purposes of this chapter … any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a) except that the court in its discretion may determine that such parts are separate works if the court concludes that they are distinct works having independent economic value.

These are the tactics of the MPAA and RIAA are using to transform entertainment. Creating exceptions to copyright laws and the having legal permissions to lie, cheat, and sue us into buying media for the prices they set, and in the forms they dictate.

21st century entertainment is not based on mafia style coercion by transnational media conglomerates. An outdated business model cannot survive by excusing themselves form laws the rest of us have to follow. Corporations are legally recognized as people. People cannot have laws rewritten for their personal benefit.

Polyvibe Records‘ response is our forward thinking business model. We do not take our artists’ copyrights. Our prices are set by the perceived value of our audience. Our digital albums are 100% MP3. And best of all, we make sure our artists’ are taken care of financially and personally. Taking copyrights from artists, then prosecuting others for sharing them is in the past. The future is ours.

Limewire Fights Back Against RIAA

Published on October 11, 2006 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted on: Axiomsun

Limewire was sued recently by the RIAA in yet another attempt to control the public’s consumption of media.? Once again, the RIAA has selected their own interpretation of MGM vs. Grokster.? Although that case defined the infrigement as having to be active by a group or service, the RIAA and MPAA continue to chase any group that offers p2p portal sfor file sharing. They contuinue to claim that organizations like Limewire bear the entire responsibility for how their users behave.? I always love this argument, becuase it;s the same as saying that if you sell a gun to someone, you are responsible if they use ti to rob a bank.? Of course, there’s no constitutional amendment protecting our right to bear file sharing software.
So now Limewire has filed a countersuit, accusing the RIAA of anti-trust violations.? This suit claims the RIAA is trying to “destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.” (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18)

It’s good to see that someone is finally standing up to the transnational conglomerates, although it remains to be seen what will come of it.? The good news about all this is it would appear the balance is finally tipping, and the death knell for the music ‘industry’ is ringing louder than ever.

Frequently Awkward Questions for the Entertainment Industry

Published on July 14, 2006 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Music

  1. The RIAA has sued more than 20,000 music fans for file sharing, yet file sharing continues to rapidly increase both online and offline.? When will you stop suing music fans?
  2. The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing, who have on average paid a $3,750 settlement.? That’s over $75,000,000.? Has any money collected from your lawsuits gone to pay actual artists? Where’s all that money going?
  3. The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing.? Recently, an RIAA representative reportedly suggested that “students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford [P2P lawsuit] settlements.” Do you stand by this advice? Is this really good advice for our children’s futures?
  4. The RIAA said that it only went after individual file sharers because you couldn’t go after P2P system creators. After the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision, shouldn’t you stop going after music fans?
  5. Major entertainment companies have repeatedly brought lawsuits to block new technologies, including the VCR, Digital Audio Tape recorders, the first MP3 player, the ReplayTV PVR, and now P2P software. Why is your industry so hostile to new technologies?
  6. DRM has clearly failed to stop songs from getting on file sharing networks, but it does prevent me from moving lawfully purchased music onto my iPod and other portable devices.? Unlike the major record labels, many popular indie labels offer mp3 downloads through sites like eMusic.? Why won’t you let fans purchase mp3s as well?
  7. The RIAA says that it doesn’t mind if I rip CDs to my personal computer and put them on my iPod.? Do I need your permission to do this or can I legally do it even if you object?
  8. Recording off the radio is clearly permitted by copyright law and something Americans have done for over 25 years, but the RIAA supports legislation restricting devices that record from digital radio. Why are you against TiVo for radio?
  9. Sony BMG recently implemented a DRM technology that damaged users’ computers.? But for independent researchers’ analyses, this serious flaw may have gone undiscovered. After this scandal, will record labels allow any computer scientist or security expert to examine these products and agree not to sue them under the DMCA?

Video

  1. The major movie studios have been enjoying some of their most profitable years in history over the past five years. Can you cite to any specific studies that prove noncommercial file sharing among fans, as opposed to commercial DVD piracy, has hurt the studios’ bottom line in any significant way?
  2. Is it legal for me to bypass CSS DVD encryption in order to skip the “unskippable” previews at the beginning of so many DVDs? Why should I have to be forced to watch these ads when I already bought the DVD?
  3. Is it legal for me to skip the commercials when I play back time-shifted TV recordings on my TiVo or other PVR? How is this different than getting up and going to the bathroom?
  4. Why are there region-code restrictions on DVDs? How does this prevent copyright infringement? Is it illegal for me to buy or and use a region-free DVD player, or to modify a DVD player to be region-free?
  5. In several lawsuits, the MPAA has repeatedly said that it’s illegal to make a back-up of a DVD that I purchased.? Why is this illegal?
  6. Is it ever legal for me to use software like DVD Shrink or Handbrake to rip a digital copy of a DVD I own onto a video iPod or my laptop? What if I want clips to use for a class report? Or if a teacher wants to include a clip in a PowerPoint slide?
  7. Is there anything illegal about copying TV shows I’ve recorded off the air onto my video iPod?
  8. If the MPAA-backed “broadcast flag” bill passes, I won’t be able to move recorded TV content digitally to my current video iPod.? Why should TV studios get to take away my ability to lawfully time- and space-shift?
  9. Major entertainment companies have repeatedly brought lawsuits to block new technologies, including the VCR, Digital Audio Tape recorders, the first MP3 player, the ReplayTV PVR, and now P2P software. Why is your industry so hostile to new technologies?
  10. Hollywood is pushing legislation to “plug the analog hole.” These restrictions won’t keep copyrighted video off of file sharing networks, but they will block me from excerpting a recorded TV show for a school report or using tools like the Slingbox to send recorded TV shows to myself over the Internet.? Why are you trying to restrict these legitimae uses?

Questions posed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Reprinted with permission. Spotted on Boing Boing and Digg.

NO Bits for you!

Published on July 13, 2006 in Article and Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

What is this world coming to?
It seems that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is one tenant of freedom we can cross off our personal liberties list.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI, not to be confused with the British Pornographic Industry) has begun to lobby for a new tactic in dealing with internet pirates. BPI has sent two letters to different broadband ISPs in the UK to terminate the DSL service of customers that BPI has identified as copyright thieves. Instead of the standard, Cease & Desist action that allows anyone (read: any corporation) to censor any web site by accusing them of copyright infringement, the BPI would like to be able to shut down the internet connections of anyone they deem unworthy of using it because of alleged illegal activity.
It makes me sick to my stomach to even type this.
These are the same tactics the Church of Scientology uses when protecting their cash cow from detractors. Diebold used it against IndyMedia to keep critical facts about the defects in their voting machines from reaching the public. Earth to BPI: Is this really the company you want to keep?!
Copyrights are intended to protect creative expression. Corporations keep thinking that their concerns over their failing business models give them the right to trample our rights to free speech, and now due process in the court of law. Why bother having to spend money on expensive lawyers and lawsuits to prove their cases, with evidence mind you, in a court of law and to a judge, when you can just accuse someone and have them silenced and taken off the internet completely?
The Cease & Desist policy (also known as notice and takedown) is at the heart of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The BPI is attempting to get the United Nations to adopt the new thinking, Notice and Termination, and make it a part of global policy (the C&D policy started with UN and was adopted by the US as the DMCA; a similar law has been adopted by the European Union).
There are more chilling facts to this story, but I can barely stand to even repeat them right now. I think it’s time for Polyvibe to up it’s contribution to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
originally published on dr.xnlb.com