File sharing and piracy

three articles recently, two showing the opposite approaches that can be adopted by courts and one the absurdity of trying to get rid of the file sharing via the ISPs

ISP Tries To Charge Users To Block File Sharing... Ends Up Installing Malware That Exposes Private Info (TechDirt 14 June 2010)

Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked (TechDirt, 04 Jun 2010)

compared to

Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending (TechDirt, 08 June 2010) - the source in English language is Torrent Freak which has a link in Spanish to the interview given by the Lawyer Carlos Sanchez Almeida to Publico.es (04 June 2010) - research in Spanish gives access to the text of the judgment available on what seems to be the website of Almeida's law firm. http://www.bufetalmeida.com/602/caso-cvcdgo-pagina-de-enlaces-la-audiencia-provincial-de-madrid-confirma-el-auto-de-archivo.html The Google translation is not bad at all and confirms the translation made. It also reveals more clearly than my now poor understanding of Spanish could grasp. The Judges have referred to various cases, acknowledging that the law is not settled on this issue. Yet, for them

"since ancient times has been the loan or sale of books, movies, music and more. The difference now is primarily on the medium used was previously the paper or analog and now everything is digital format which allows an exchange much faster and higher quality and also a global reach through the Internet. And this exchange takes place in the network through file-sharing systems "P2P (or peer network) where there are no fixed clients and servers have a global reach as any Internet user can connect to your computer and share files that are divided, in turn, a large number of parties.

To use file sharing programs (Emule, etc.) Running the link or link to the document that is on the website so that the user's computer connects to a computer but not many who have various stages of This same document being shared among many users at once without anyone perceived why any financial reward."

In most English newspapers/blogs, the first part is quoted. Yet I find the second paragraph equally interesting: it is saying that file sharing is not about holding the copyrights of the book and making money on it. It is just like a village market place providing the platform for users to exchange.

How Much Do Most People Really Care About Privacy? (TechDirt, 02 June 2010) -

Digital Economy Act: after all the controversy, may well be dropped

UK Politicians Looking To Repeal Digital Economy Act (TechDirt, 19 March 2010)

London Wants To Offer Full WiFi Coverage... But How Will That Work With The Digital Economy Act? (TechDirt, 18 March 2010)

UK Regulator Says Digital Economy Act Only Applies To Big Wireline ISPs (TechDirt, 18 March 2010)

Copyrights bill in the UK

Sorry but don't have time right now to analyse:

"Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill" (TechDirt, 7 january 2010)

"UK Ministers 'Concede' Some Ridiculous Points in Digital Economy Bill In Attempt To Get Other Ridiculous Measures" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)

reinforcement what I said earlier "If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)

Digitalisation of books - comparing France and the UK

Already yesterday I thought of writing a post about it, while I was discovering the poverty, I would nearly say the misery if the word had been appropriate, of digitilased books in the UK accessible free of charge. I wanted an old book from 1824 printed in London about criminal libel; so one can guess that copyrights should not be an issue. Well, where do I find it online? Certainly not on the British Library website; it is appallingly bad as far as digital collections are concerned. Despite the hype about the Online Gallery, there is absolutely nothing. Compared to its English counterpart, the French Bibliothèque Nationale de France is light years ahead of the British Library. On its Gallica website, also accessible in English and Spanish, there are hundred of thousands of old books (mainly pre-1930s) having been scanned with often a text search available. In my fields, I have all the old books that I need and still use; I even have the first issues of the main French law journal on criminal law. And the RSS feed allows me to keep up to date with the new books added to the digital collection, all that free of charge to the user.
So one can criticise the French Government for sponsoring the programme, but frankly, I would prefer my taxes to go into the programme than leaving it to private companies to do the job. Why? because the 1824 I mentioned earlier was scanned by Google and available at Google books, but frankly, half of the information displayed on the search result is inaccurate, the references not corresponding to what has actually been digitalised.

"Sarkozy To Throw Another Billion At Digitizing Books" (TechDirt, 17 December 2009)

"Now France Fines Google For Scanning French Books" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)

and the European policy in the same lines as France's http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/web-inventor-snooping-authorities-threaten-internet/article-187987 (14 october 2009/25 November 2009)

Now, on Jan 12, having received a newsletter from a French website, I post the following. It is about an article from Le Monde (The newspaper in France) dating from 19 december 2009. It confirms what I have described about the poor quality of the digitalisation of books. One author said his book was digitalised without his authorisation and Google used non corrected/checked proofs of the book. In other words, it was worthless. In the article, is also mentioned the work of the BNF and its willingness to digitalise but with quality and with compliance with the copyrights law. "

Livre numérique : la justice française donne raison aux éditeurs face à Google (Le Monde, 19 Dec 2009)

Good wishes, piracy and censorhip: happy new year!

I cannot believe it is already the new year and ... that I have not written for the past month. I only took two weeks of holidays, but being busy elsewhere did not give time to sit down in front of the computer with an actual internet connection.
So here I am, wishing you a happy new year, with the best for 2010 and maybe less snow that here in Suffolk and Essex we receive!

Back to business: 2010 will probably be like 2009 for piracy. The same debates and the same lack of innovative thinking about creation, authors' rights and distribution when it comes to legal reforms.

1 - So for the UK, "UK Government Report Shows That Digital Economy Bill Will Cost More Than Highest 'Piracy' Estimates, Drive 40,000 Offline" (TechDirt, 28 December 2009)

"Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats" (TechDirt, 22 December 1009)

"UK Digital Economy Bill Section 124H Would Give Ability To Silently Censor Websites" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)

For the text of the Bill, its different amendments and the parliamentar process, one can have a look at the UK Parliament website which is improving on a regular basis: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

2 - and France: "Will France's Three Strikes Law Matter?" (TechDirt, 4 January 2010) The story is as follow. The database to be created with the names of the offenders has to be approved by the CNIL (the French quango established years ago to protect freedom of expression and privacy) which is careful in the methods used to hold the data, the length of time it is held, who has access, for which purposes etc... The problem is that the CNIL decided not to assess anything until it receives the details of the procedure that will be used, details awaiting finalisation in a decree (i.e. statutory instrument). Given the reputation of the CNIL, the French Government is stuck and just has to wait if it does not want to be seen as bypassing the CNIL's protecting role. See the text in French of the newspaper La Tribune, 23 December 2009

see also "French Government's Plan To Help Book Publishers Adapt: Have Them Embrace Three Strikes Plan" (TechDirt, 7 December 2009)

3 - I came accross the issue yesterday while working on the same article as last month. Reading again Levy's book on Becoming virtual: reality of the digital age, the passage on the changes brought by the acceleration of virtualisation in cyberspace struck me as ahead of his time (he wrote in 1998). He more or less noticed that the difference publishers, distributors and creators is abolished, or at least blurred, and that the model we rely upon, that of the printing press, is outdated and needs to be rethought. Technology should be used to promote distribution with fair use of authors' creations (= not charging like we do with publishers benefiting, but charging with authors receiving directly the money!).

Virtual worlds and theft

Apparently, somebody has been arrested for theft for hacking into accounts, use avatars and steal the virtual possessions. "Real-world arrest for man who stole RuneScape virtual characters" (Times, 30 November 2009)
For disapproval, "If You Gain Unauthorized Access To A Character In A Virtual World, Is It Theft?" (TechDirt, 01 December 2009)
Contra: "Is virtual boom our industrial revolution?" (TheGuardian, 10 September 2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/09/victor-keegan-virtual-world-revolution

Two controversial decisions

How on earth is it possible? That is my first immediate reaction. Compliance with rith to privacy dictates that private people cannot obtain access to what police forces can obtain... "Police right to hand over seized hardware, says judge" (ZDnet.co.uk, 17 November 2009)

And for encryption issues, "UK Man Jailed For Refusing To Decrypt His Files" (TechDirt, 02 December 2009)

Different issues on fraud and malware and a few arrests/suspicions

Well, I would have thought they were an obvious target? "Online bank fraud targeting corporate accounts" (ZDnet.co.uk, 04 November 2009)

"Facebook denies mass hijack was down to flaw" (ZDnet.co.uk, 11 November 2009) but a few weeks later, decides to change its approach to security as company policy! "Facebook forms safety advisory board" (07 December 2009)

I think here Google is over optimistic. Actually data security and privacy is the very reason why I choose not to use the different services available, despite the fact that it would have made my life much easier. "Google: Data is more secure in the cloud" (ZDnet.co.uk, 03 November 2009)

"UK police make Zeus Trojan arrests" (ZDnet. co.uk, 19 November 2009)
"Former YouSendIt chief accused of DoS attack" (ZDnet.co.uk, 02 November 2009)

Surveillance

"US gov't agencies sued over Facebook surveillance" (ZDnet.co.uk, 02 December 2009) Different watchdogs decided to ask the US federal government for their guidelines in how they use social networks to monitor citizens' behaviours.

A similar policy would not be amiss in the UK given the new UK cybersecurity Centre and the complete inadequacy of the RIPA to protect citizens' privacy from interference by whichever government agencies "Government curbs councils' Ripa powers" (ZDnet.co.uk, 04 November 2009)

"UK cybersecurity centre starting operations in March" (ZDnet.co.uk, 13 November 2009)

and the more general view of Thomas Berners-Lee "Web under threat from 'snooping' authorities" (Euractiv, 04 December 2010)

The new UK piracy Bill and the anti-piracy lobby

The new Bill works on the model of the three strikes law, with obviously no intervention of an independent body. Anybody can request the ISP to file a notice and it is the ISP that makes the decision. What about a fair trial in the UK?
Moreover, the list of 'offenders' can be requested by anybody victim of copyrights infringement. But in the past, did we not need a search warrant? i.e. a judge assessing the claim made by prosecution/victims?
For the bill itself, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.html

For a preview before the Bill went to Parliament, "Mandelson puts 'three strikes' internet plan in motion" (ZDnet.co.uk, 28 October 2009)

"Digital Economy Bill gets tough on file-sharers" (ZDnet.co.uk, 20 November 2009)

"Digital Economy Bill: Industry disputes gov't claims" (ZDnet.co.uk, 20 November 2009)
"Web giants attack Digital Economy Bill" (ZDnet.co.uk, 02 December 2009)

"GCHQ supplier pans government file-sharing plans" (ZDnet.co.uk, 27 November 2009) and
"UK Politicians Pushing Back On Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill" (TechDirt, 03 December 2009) but on the contrary, "Virgin Media to monitor traffic for file-sharing" (ZDnet.co.uk, 26 November 2009)

"Yes, But Will Sergey Brin Take Peter Mandelson Out To Dinner At A Fancy Resort?" (TechDirt, 02 December 2009)

The funny side of things is that mobile industry cannot identify offenders. So guess what? do not use your home computer. Use your smartphone! "Mobile industry 'cannot identify pirates' " (ZDnet.co.uk, 24 November 2009)

To put the whole debate in perspective, read this interesting article that shows how powerful is the lobby against piracy. There is nothing about morals here, but only about economic gain, and some cynics may add, about economic greed. "European ISPs attack secret Acta copyright talks" (ZDnet.co.uk, 02 December 2009)

See also, more generally on the use of the internet for surveillance purposes but without the traditional safeguards of a warrant, the interview of Tim Berners-Lee, the "Web inventor: 'Snooping' authorities threaten Internet" (Euractiv.com, 03 December 2009)

And the EU stand against this new trend of legislation, even before the UK Bill was drafted: "European 'internet freedom' law agreed" (ZDnet.co.uk, 05 November 2009) "One promise needed for internet freedom" (ZDnet.co.uk, 05 November 2009)

Hadopi 2; the piracy matter in France

As already pointed out, France enacted its legislation after the first censorship by the Constitutional council. Except that the law went back to the Council a second time (22 October 2009)... and Parliament was censored for not having explained in details what the procedure will be (incompetence negative). Hence, a third version of the statute: a future Hadopi 3.

Frankly, given the short comings of the Hadopis, one really wonders whether Parliament should not have just paused and thought a bit, rather than rushing about.



See (all in French) Marinese http://www.juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=1157 (3 november 2009)
Rojinsky, http://www.juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=1155 (28 October 2009)
Thoumyre being interviewed, 3 November 2009 http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/53927-claire-chazal-reponsabilite-diffamation-hadopi.htm
And for a longer analysis by V. Benabou, Glose de la loi favorisant la création et la protection de la creation (dite HADOPI) (Juriscom.net. 7 november 2009)

And the link towards the two Acts: http://www.service-public.fr/actualites/001268.html?xtor=EPR-140 that are on Legifrance

Obviously, the UK contemplates introducing similar legislation and does not seem to be put off neither by the peripetieas of French law, nor by the criticism the system attracted/attracts.
UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us (TechDirt, 12 November 2009)

On the international dimension of piracy, there is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Rees, 9 November 2009, http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/54030-acta-hadopi-riposte-surveillance-internet.htm)

Three strikes law in the UK?

France having enacted its legislation after the Constitutional Council's disapproval of the original draft, the UK is thinking of adopting the same law despite the EU's opposition.

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK? (TechDirt, 30 October 2009)

As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet (TechDirt, 28 October 2009)

UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline (TechDirt, 27 October 2009)

France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief' (TechDirt, 22 October 2009)

Fraud and Russia

Self-explanatory. Soca: Russian cyber gang bribed police (ZDnet.co.uk, 22 October 2009)

IT expertise for law enforcement

Police hunt down IT forensics expertise (ZDnet.co.uk, 02 october 2009) the Metropolitan police puts £32 millions aside to buy IT equipments...

And the US Governement is looking for 10000 IT experts US on hunt for 1,000 cybersecurity experts (ZDnet.co.uk, 05 October 2009)

And the new Centre for Secure Information Technologies (CSIT), has been opened at Queen's University Belfast (ZDnet.co.uk, 24 september 2009)

Reports of crime: difficulties in the UK

Whereas France has now a unique website to report cybercrimes, the UK still struggles, with no sight of relief yet.

E-crime victims uncertain where to turn (ZDnet.co.uk, 27 August 2009)

From 30 April 2009, but valuable. It is about the UK Internet Watch Foundation, that self-regulatory body (yet using taxpayer's money), filtering the internet. We had already questioned the transparency of the filtering. The IWF own report does not reassure much about the utility of its role, not about the criteria it uses to do its job.

Child Porn Blacklist Group Claims Its Approach Is Working, But There Are Lots Of Questions(TechDirt, 30 April 2009)

See previous post http://cybercrimeatessex.blogspot.com/2009/02/transparency-in-cybercrime.html