France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights

It's no secret that Nicolas Sarkozy is a strong supporter of more draconian copyright laws, and has also been talking about the need to clamp down on free expression online. Even so, it's still a bit shocking to see him outright declare that copyright is more important than human rights online:


That's from a Google translation of the French which is a little awkward. Using a different translator, it translates the "until there is no consensus" to be "as long as there will be no consensus." French speakers, feel free to confirm. But it appears the French government is saying that it refuses to sign a declaration concerning human rights online unless those who sign on agree to admit that freedom of expression and communication is less important than copyright. That's insane.

As Glyn Moody writes in the link above, this very much goes counter to France's actual interests. The country, which is well known for promoting French culture above foreign cultures, doesn't seem to realize that locking up its culture will do the exact opposite of what its officials seem to expect:


Or, as Moody puts it more succinctly in his post's title: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity... Monopoly.

From Sans,
--MediaNews Severs Business Relationship with Righthaven
(September 7 & 8, 2011)
MediaNews Group is terminating its business relationship with
Righthaven, the organization that has made headlines for suing bloggers
and website owners for alleged copyright infringement for posting online
content originally published in print publications. Righthaven was
founded expressly "to monetize print news content through copyright
infringement lawsuits." While some of the lawsuits it has filed have
resulted in out-of-court settlements, judges have repeatedly told
Righthaven that it does not have the legal standing to file the lawsuits
in the first place.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... dumb-idea/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... e-support/

Hotfile sues Warner Bros claiming fraud and abuse

File-hosting service Hotfile has fired a law suit at Warner Bros., alleging 'fraud and abuse'.

Hotfile says the film maker systematically abuses an anti-piracy tool Hotfile made available to it, to take down content the company doesn’t actually hold the copyright to.

“Warner has made repeated, reckless and irresponsible misrepresentations to Hotfile falsely claiming to own copyrights in material from Hotfile.com,” the suit states

Warner has a Special Rightsholder Account (SRA) with Hotfile that allows it to remove any number of files that may infringe its copyright. On its complaint Hotfile, claims Warner systematically misuses this tool, taking down material willy-nilly.

Game demos and open source software have been downed in Warner's over-enthusiastic purges, Hotfile claims.

“The single file deleted by Warner that had been most frequently downloaded by Hotfile users—five times more frequently than any other file—was a freeware software title wrongfully deleted by Warner. The software publisher that uploaded the file used Hotfile.com as a means for distribution of its open source software. Warner was not authorized by the software publisher to delete the file,” the complaint alleges.

The suit may have been prompted by the fact that five Hollywood film studios, including Warner Bros are suing Hotfile over copyright claims.

Hotfile says Warner earns from the take-downs as the result of an arrangement by which Warner ccan replace downed content with ecommerce links

“By increasing the number of links it was taking down with Hotfile’s SRA, and indeed falsely inflating these numbers, Warner was increasing the number of times it could present e-commerce links to Hotfile’s users for its own enrichment,” the suit notes

Hotfile wants a a jury trial and seeks compensation for losses and damage to its reputation.

Obama signs 1st major patent law change since 1952

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) — President Barack Obama signed into law Friday a major overhaul of the U.S. patent system, a measure designed to ease the way for inventors to bring their products to market. "We can't afford to drag our feet any longer," the president said.

Passed in a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, the America Invents Act is the first significant change in patent law since 1952. It has been hailed as a milestone that would spur innovation and create jobs.

The bill is meant to ensure that the patent office, now facing a backlog of 1.2 million pending patents, has the money to expedite the application process. It now takes an average of three years to get a patent approved. More than 700,000 applications have yet to be reviewed.

"Somewhere in that stack of applications could be the next technological breakthrough, the next miracle drug," Obama said. "We should be making it easier and faster to turn new ideas into jobs."

The president signed the bill after touring Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, where he examined students' work, including a wheelchair that responds to brain waves. Obama at one point had to step aside as he admired the technological displays. "I don't want to get run over by a robot," he said.

The law aims to streamline the patent process and reduce costly legal battles. It was backed by companies including Google and Apple as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Small-scale inventors are divided on the legislation, with some arguing that it gives an advantage to big corporations.

Obama was joined at the signing ceremony by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, the two main sponsors of the legislation.

The European Commission agreed this week to extend the mechanical
copyright on sound recordings to 70 years from 50 years. It still has
to be nodded through by the EU Council of Ministers, but this is
almost certain to happen. Great news for The Beatles. Terrible news
for consumers and for artists whose recordings are owned by
corporations which have no interest in repackaging them.
News articles here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... r-end.html
and here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/se ... aw-beatles

Court reinstates $675,000 damages in downloading case


Joel Tenenbaum

BOSTON -- An appeals court reinstated a $675,000 verdict against a Boston University student who illegally downloaded 30 songs and shared them on the Internet, but left the door open for the trial judge to reduce the award again.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, representing four record labels, for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks. In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each of the songs he illegally downloaded and shared.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner later reduced the award to $67,500, finding the original penalty "unconstitutionally excessive."

In his appeal, Tenenbaum sought to overturn the penalty. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and the other record labels represented by the RIAA asked that the full award be reinstated.

In a ruling issued late Friday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that Gertner made a mistake by delving into a constitutional question when common law gave her the tools to reduce the judgment.

Common law practice allows a judge to reduce a jury verdict deemed excessive. When that is done, the winning party can either pay the smaller amount or demand a new trial. Had Gertner invoked common law first, as she should have done, Sony would have had that choice, the 1st Circuit said in its ruling.

The court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider Tenenbaum's request to reduce the judgment based on excessiveness without deciding any constitutional challenge.

Tenenbaum, who is pursuing a doctorate in physics, said he was surprised by the ruling.

"I am kind of dumbstruck," Tenenbaum said. "This is obviously more absurd than it was before."

His attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, declined to comment on the ruling.

In his appeal, Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying." He also said Sony was not entitled to monetary damages without a showing of actual harm, and he claimed there was no harm by his downloading and sharing of songs.

The 1st Circuit said none of those arguments have merit.

Lawyers for the Recording Industry Association of America argued that the economic impact of illegal downloading is much greater than the sharing of one song. They said illegal downloading hurt the recording industry by reducing income and profits.

"We are pleased the court agreed with us that the finding of liability was correct and that the District Court erred in finding the verdict unconstitutional," Jennifer Pariser, senior vice president for litigation and legal affairs for the group said in a statement.

In the only other music-downloading case against an individual to go to trial, a judge in July reduced the penalty imposed on a Minnesota woman for illegally sharing 24 songs online, from $1.5 million to $54,000.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said the penalty of $62,500 per song imposed by the jury was unreasonable. He reduced that amount to $2,250 per song, the same amount used by Gertner in her ruling in the Tenenbaum case.

Three juries have ruled against the woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset.

--Some BitTorrent Software Downloads Briefly Infected with Malware
(September 13 & 14, 2011)
Attackers managed to tamper with downloads on the uTorrent website. As
a result, users attempting to download software from the site found
their computers infected with malware. The malware was being served for
about two hours on Wednesday, September 14. The malware is a phony
antivirus tool called Security Shield, which tells users that their
computers are infected with malware and asks for payment before fixing
the alleged problem. Initial reports said the BitTorrent site was
affected as well, but this was found to be untrue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14912616
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/13 ... ware_hack/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-201057 ... ncol;title
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/bitto ... care-39687

--Man Pleads Guilty to Uploading First-Run Films to BitTorrent
(September 13 & 15, 2011)
Wes DeSoto has pleaded guilty to criminal copyright-infringement for
leaking copies of first-run movies to BitTorrent. Because he is a member
of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), DeSoto had access to screening copies
of the five films, which included Black Swan, The Kings Speech and 127
Hours. DeSoto was pinpointed as the source of the leaked films through
the SAG watermark on the copies of the movies and by the IP address
associated with the username that had uploaded the films. The maximum
penalty allowed by law in this case is three years in prison and a fine
of US $250,000 or more, but the government is seeking three years of
probation and restitution.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... r-seeding/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 64549.html