Piracy

If you haven’t read about it, the New York Times reported yesterday that: Microsoft May Build a Copyright Cop Into Every Zune. Essentially, the large content provider would withhold their content from a distributor unless the distributor put in effective measures to prevent against piracy. We’re not talking about DRM here, we’re talking about filtering software, whether it resides on the playback device like a Zune or iPod, or in the software on a syncing computer that stores the consumers’ library of music and movies like the Zune or iTunes software. This software would troll your library checking for content that was somehow infringing or unauthorized. It may even be spyware that could report back to someone about the contents of your media library.

Earlier today, the House Judiciary Committee approved HR 4279, the Pro-IP bill, which would increase penalties for violations of intellectual property laws, among other items.

The following is the statement of Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“We are pleased that the Committee amended the bill (HR 4279) to make clear there has to be a ‘substantial connection’ between property to be seized, such as a computer, a car or a house, and any violations of the copyright law. Now that the Committee has approved the bill, we look forward to legislative action on Orphan Works legislation, (HR 5889), that would work to restore balance in copyright law.”

Yesterday, the FCC took a field trip to the campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. There it heard from two panels of experts and policy shapers on the issue of network management and more broadly net neutrality. If you didn’t see it, or listen to the FCC’s stream of it, thankfully, it’s been video recorded and put on the web…

Panel I: Network Management and Consumer Expectations

Professor Lessig presented one of his illustrative keynotes at the start, and apparently he recorded the live audio and dubbed it to the video later:

OK. Hopefully you all realized that S. 4108, the APRIL Act of 2008, was a joke. After all, there were a few excesses in there that would indicate how ludicrous the bill is.

Sam Gustin of Portfolio.com reports that Warner Music group has given recording industry veteran (and friend of PK) Jim Griffin a three-year contract to develop a plan that would allow consumers to have access to all the online music they want for a monthly fee that would be bundled into their internet service bill.

Griffin has been urging the industry for years to move in this direction, arguing that suing customers and attacking technological innovation were dead ends that would not lead to any additional sales or fans. Why not try a fee of this type and get something for music shared online, as opposed to the nothing that they receive now? Griffin was right then, and he is right now. But the industry, faced with precipitously dropping CD sales and download sales that while robust, will never make up the difference, is finally listening.

On March 19, I was invited to a symposium at Penn Law entitled “Copyright and the Internet: Solutions for a Digital World.” The panel before mine was dedicated to reconciling copyright and the first amendment in the areas of filtering, takedown notices, and fair use.

The panel discussion was fascinating, and covered more ground than I can do justice to here. What I want to focus on was a particular point addressed by Jannifer Pariser, Senior Vice President of Sony BMG’s Litigation and Anti-Piracy department.

Last month, Public Knowledge submitted comments to the European Commission in response to this communication on online creative content. The Commission was asking for input about a variety of topics, including making DRM interoperable, creating licenses that would work across national boundaries within the EU, and how to deal with online piracy.

PK’s comments focused on just two of the 11 separate questions put for the by the Commission, about potential enforcement mechanisms against online infringement. Those questions were:

10) Do you consider the Memorandum of Understanding, recently adopted in France, as an example to followed?

11) Do you consider that applying filtering measures would be an effective way to prevent online copyright infringements?

“Share your music—lose your identity.” It could be the rallying cry of a hipper-than-thou music fan who only likes bands “before they were cool.” But no, it’s the title of an op-ed by Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), Ranking Member of the House IP Subcommittee. In it, he links copyright infringement with the risk of identity theft.

Specifically, he cites the example of Gregory Kopiloff, who pled guilty to committing identity theft with personal information he scrounged off of the computers of LimeWire users.

Coble then proceeds with his commentary, implicitly equating this security risk with both copyright infringement and p2p software generally. This is a real mistake, and a real cause for concern if that’s the attitude policymakers take when approaching online copyright enforcement.

Often enough, in discussions about issues like orphan works, we’re constantly emphasizing the fact that just about everything is copyrighted. I think it’s important to revisit this idea, in the context of plans around the world to have ISPs ban users from the Internet for copyright infringement. (Current efforts include proposals in France (translation here), the UK, and Australia.)

Over the past several years, motion picture studio lobbyists have been assuring policymakers, investors and the public that they will not make the same mistake that record companies did when the latter waited for years to make music legally available over the Internet. As a result, fans seeking music online had little alternative than to use free music services, many of which were not legal. And while online services like iTunes and Rhapsody finally did create a legal market for music, it was too late for the recording industry to put the free music genie back in the bottle.