My original plan had been to write up a quick summary of today's markup, but at this writing, the House Judiciary Committee has discussed less than half of over 50 pending proposed amendments to SOPA. However, there's a clear trend in the committee regarding amendments—nearly every one voted on so far has been defeated.

I'd been live-tweeting a blow-by-blow of the proceedings so far, but the main takeaways from the markup are probably best recounted thematically, rather than chronologically, since a lot of themes get repeated with each amendment 's introduction and debate.

There's various levels of debate being engaged in during this markup. First, there's the discussion of the bill text. Then there's the discussion of the bill's effects. Third is the discussion of proponents' and opponents' motives.

On today's podcast, we walk through the agreement on online copyright infringement between ISPs and content holders, the data portability spat between Facebook and Google, and get a primer on using music on the campaign trail.  We also discuss the benefits and challenges of building local community networks with Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self Reliance and muninetworks.org.

You can download the audio directly by clicking here (MP3) or stream it using the player below:

Want to subscribe to our podcast? Click here for the MP3 feed.

UPDATE: Added mention of the $35 appeal fee in the "Appeals" section below.

Today, major ISPs joined the RIAA and MPAA in announcing a joint program to deal with file-sharing. The document governing this agreement, a "Copyright Alert System," is hosted here. Public Knowledge and the Center for Democracy and Technology issued a joint statement on the CAS, available here.

Beyond that, what does this agreement represent? It extends some of the characteristics of some ISPs' existing voluntary notice-forwarding agreements, while stopping short of a three-strikes-and-you're-out procedure.

The Senate is gearing up for another go-round on rogue websites legislation, and this time, they've jettisoned the "COICA" label in favor of calling it the "PROTECT IP Act." Like a summer blockbuster sequel, it tightens up some things, adds a few new villains, but in the end reprises the same general plot.

Yesterday, IMSLP, a website dedicated to archiving public domain sheet music lost its domain name due to a complaint sent by the UK’s Music Publishers Association to the site’s registrar, GoDaddy. The notice incorrectly claimed that IMSLP’s copy of Rachmaninoff’s The Bells infringed copyright. (Coverage by TorrentFreak, Michael Geist, and BoingBoing.)

Today we, along with EFF and the Open Technology Initiative, filed comments in the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force Inquiry on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy.  The Task Force, run by the NTIA is the Department’s attempt to start thinking about Copyright issues and how they impact the economy.  Our filing might be interesting for you because it summarizes many of the major issues in copyright policy today.

A decision from a federal district court in New York today affirmed that online hosts shouldn't have to pay if their users are infringing. The opinion, issued by Judge Louis Stanton of the Southern District of New York, found on summary judgment that Google and YouTube qualified for the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. By acting to take down infringing postings when it was notified of them, YouTube was able to meet the standards of the law, despite the fact that Viacom complained that YouTube generally knew that infringing works were on the site.

 

CLICK HERE TO WRITE THE WHITE HOUSE NOW

The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continues to roll along with negotiations taking place in Switzerland in the coming weeks. Rumor has it that these negotiations might be bringing us to a finalized ACTA soon, despite protests from public interest groups, technology companies, and legislators around the world that its ham-fisted approach to enforcement can do grave harm to consumers, innovation, communication, and can even make it harder for lifesaving medications to reach populations in need. It’s time to make sure that your voices are heard on this important issue. And we have two ways that you can do that. One is by signing a declaration of principles crafted by a coalition of experts assembled at American University. The other, more direct method is by writing to the President himself, using our action alert submission form.

The leaked ACTA Internet chapter has a footnote that says an ISP can only hang on to its "safe harbor" by implementing certain policies designed to discourage the use of their networks for copyright infringement, and that "An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers." Three strikes and you're out.

USTR's claim that ACTA wouldn't "change" US law is plausible (if not comforting). Similar language is already part of US law (17 U.S.C. 512 §(i)(1)(A))--as is the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, which assures that no person can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One would hope that, like the existing statute, the ACTA language will be read in the context of the Constitution, which assures that mere accusations of copyright infringement are not enough to kick someone off the Internet. One would also hope that other countries, if they end up agreeing to a version of ACTA with this language, also understand that a "repeat infringer" must have been afforded due process.

For those of us who believe that the Internet should remain an open, democratic and non-discriminatory platform, with few exceptions, the last two years have brought a steady stream of bad news from Down Under. First, there were rumblings that Australia was seeking to implement a "three strikes" policy toward those accused of online filesharing. Next, New Zealand came close to instituting its own three strikes mandate, though thanks to the efforts of activists, that deeply-flawed law was struck down at the last minute. Finally, after a number of previous, failed attempts, the Australian government announced that it plans to mandate the use of real-time filtering technologies on public ISPs sometime during the next year. Just when it seemed like no one in the Australian and New Zealand governments appreciated the damaging effects of such policies, an Australian federal court judge has ruled that the ISP iiNet is not responsible for the actions of its subscribers. In the landmark ruling (full text here), which will likely have ramifications in the U.S. and elsewhere, the judge rebuffs Hollywood's attempt to require iiNet to act as a copyright cop, dealing a blow to three strikes in the process. Let's take a closer look.