Take a quick perusal through the list of groups that have written letters in support of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/issues/cybersecurity.
What do basically all of these groups have in common? They either a) provide products or services that will be mandated by the Act or b) lobby/represent those companies. This isn't proof that we do or don't need some sort of cybersecurity legislation, but it sheds some light on why "everyone" supports it - "everyone" stands to increase budgets or make money.
Same story for the hearings in February. You have DHS (wins the turf war under the CSA12), Stewart Baker (works for law firm that will get tons of work under the Act), Microsoft (will get tons of money securing networks), Tom Ridge (on behalf of US Chamber of Commerce).
I was there and saw the talk. There was a lot of what she said that I disagree with, but the linked article badly misinterpreted what she said.
What Shira was referring to was the fact that while your Cable internet account may be cut off, you are not banned from using work, library, internet cafe, iphone, etc... "Account" means "internet service account" not "user account on a PC".
It is important to be accurate when discrediting the RIAA and IFPI - they say plenty that makes no sense. Getting what they say wrong makes the actually silly stuff they say harder to successfully fight.
Harry Fox, here we come. Yes, the songs would be based off of copyrighted works, but compulsory licensing for "covers" have been around since the 1909 Act.
To me, this is an "electronic cover" and would cost whoever made such recreations about $.09/copy. Not free but certainly manageable if you wanted to use the system to release "concerts" by known artists.
There are 2 copyrights usually at issue with songs- the melody/lyrics/etc.. (song writer) and the sound recording made and distributed (record company).
This would likely not infringe the sound recording copyrights of record companies. Record execs would likely fight this vigorously and if needed get Congress to step in to "save the children", but as the Copyright Act is written if you re-create a song rather than copy it, you are in the clear with regards to the record companies. You still need to clear the song writer copyright though - which is where Harry Fox Agency comes in.
Another example of why the 19th century approach we take to copyright makes no sense.
Incidentally, the argument Mike references fails because it just grows copies. So the "copy" becomes, say, the collective RAM of 25 routers and switches. But it is still a copy. The problem is that courts have interpreted "fixed" _really_ loosely to include any fixation for any amount of time, even if transient. Of course, nowhere else in law or common sense does "fixed" include momentary, intentionally transient positions. If Shaq is running and Ming runs into him charging down the lane, it is not charging because Shaq's location is not fixed.
Not true - Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings the 2nd circuit said a 1.2 second duration in a buffer is of "transient duration" and not fixed.
The main problem here is that copyright is being applied with a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. "Copies" are not how we should be thinking about digital manifestations of works.
Data is duplicated every time it is accessed - that's just how computers work. We should be thinking about copyright in terms of access or another concept that is not tied to physical distribution of a physical good. Until then we will have endless problems trying to apply copyright law to the digital world that will result in judicial fictions and band-aid approaches that get in the way and help no one.
First sale of digital goods is at an interesting place legally. The Copyright Act restricts first sale to people who "own" (17 USC § 109(A)) copies of copyrighted goods. Digital content producers and software developers are writing EULAs and TOSs in a way to argue, successfully in most cases so far, that digital copies are "leases" rather than "sales" and thus not subject to first sale.
There are several arguments being put forth to counter that assertion, but they have really only seen success when physical CDs or media have been sold, and even then not always. Kindle books are a good example of this - publishers claim to own the ebook copies they "lease". I personally publishers will eventually lose this argument but it will be a while.
This story has absolutely nothing to do with a blogger held liable for something he may not have said and everything to do with a bad decision to try and represent yourself, failing to follow the procedures of the court and paying the price. This is civil procedure law, not libel law.
The guy did not respond to a discovery request asking him to admit or deny that he was the author. When that happens judges can and often do assume that the results would have been adverse to the non-responding party. He then failed to show up for the summary judgment hearing.
He claims he didn't receive "notice" of the request or hearing, but it seems like he expected to be served with notice formally every time he needed to do something. It doesn't work like that.
Finally got wise and hired a lawyer, but unless he has a very good reason for not responding to discovery or show up he's probably screwed. It sucks that justice in the US requires the cost of a lawyer even if you are clearly not guilty, but such is the system.
The only takeaway from this story is DON'T BE YOUR OWN LAWYER.
Wierd Harold: Please direct those of us skeptical of your views to one example of an ISP held liable under the DMCA?
We definitely would have seen RIAA and other like organizations go after universities if what you say is true. I have never read the DMCA to mean or seen evidence that suggests that you are correct, so until you can give me a court decision that I can look up to verify, I call BS.
I agree - the couple of articles I have read on the case have left me banging my head on the wall saying 'WHY??'. There is a big problem with her hard drive replacement story, the fact that she has a history (admitted) of using and being familiar with pre-legit Napster, and her username issues.
If this is civil rather than criminal (I think it is) I don't like the defense's chances. The defense needs to drop the 'a hacker did it' and focus on 'can you PROVE that SHE shared THOSE songs - if they can't don't convict'.
I also agree with Mike's position - the RIAA is making awful business decisions, but they are for the most part on the right side of the letter of the law (if not always in thier tactics their contentions). The best way to get the RIAA to change isn't to defy them legally, it is to vote with your pocketbook.
This was an awful case to bring to trial to make a statement against the RIAA. It is going to set a bad precedent and the RIAA wouldn't be there if they didn't think they would win.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by AndyB.
Why the rush? Simple: $$
Take a quick perusal through the list of groups that have written letters in support of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/issues/cybersecurity.
What do basically all of these groups have in common? They either a) provide products or services that will be mandated by the Act or b) lobby/represent those companies. This isn't proof that we do or don't need some sort of cybersecurity legislation, but it sheds some light on why "everyone" supports it - "everyone" stands to increase budgets or make money.
Same story for the hearings in February. You have DHS (wins the turf war under the CSA12), Stewart Baker (works for law firm that will get tons of work under the Act), Microsoft (will get tons of money securing networks), Tom Ridge (on behalf of US Chamber of Commerce).
That isn't an accurate representation of what she said
I was there and saw the talk. There was a lot of what she said that I disagree with, but the linked article badly misinterpreted what she said.
What Shira was referring to was the fact that while your Cable internet account may be cut off, you are not banned from using work, library, internet cafe, iphone, etc... "Account" means "internet service account" not "user account on a PC".
It is important to be accurate when discrediting the RIAA and IFPI - they say plenty that makes no sense. Getting what they say wrong makes the actually silly stuff they say harder to successfully fight.
Good ol' compulsory license
Harry Fox, here we come. Yes, the songs would be based off of copyrighted works, but compulsory licensing for "covers" have been around since the 1909 Act.
To me, this is an "electronic cover" and would cost whoever made such recreations about $.09/copy. Not free but certainly manageable if you wanted to use the system to release "concerts" by known artists.
There are 2 copyrights usually at issue with songs- the melody/lyrics/etc.. (song writer) and the sound recording made and distributed (record company).
This would likely not infringe the sound recording copyrights of record companies. Record execs would likely fight this vigorously and if needed get Congress to step in to "save the children", but as the Copyright Act is written if you re-create a song rather than copy it, you are in the clear with regards to the record companies. You still need to clear the song writer copyright though - which is where Harry Fox Agency comes in.
Another example of why the 19th century approach we take to copyright makes no sense.
Re: Re: Copies
Incidentally, the argument Mike references fails because it just grows copies. So the "copy" becomes, say, the collective RAM of 25 routers and switches. But it is still a copy. The problem is that courts have interpreted "fixed" _really_ loosely to include any fixation for any amount of time, even if transient. Of course, nowhere else in law or common sense does "fixed" include momentary, intentionally transient positions. If Shaq is running and Ming runs into him charging down the lane, it is not charging because Shaq's location is not fixed. Not true - Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings the 2nd circuit said a 1.2 second duration in a buffer is of "transient duration" and not fixed. The main problem here is that copyright is being applied with a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. "Copies" are not how we should be thinking about digital manifestations of works. Data is duplicated every time it is accessed - that's just how computers work. We should be thinking about copyright in terms of access or another concept that is not tied to physical distribution of a physical good. Until then we will have endless problems trying to apply copyright law to the digital world that will result in judicial fictions and band-aid approaches that get in the way and help no one.
Digital First Sale
First sale of digital goods is at an interesting place legally. The Copyright Act restricts first sale to people who "own" (17 USC § 109(A)) copies of copyrighted goods. Digital content producers and software developers are writing EULAs and TOSs in a way to argue, successfully in most cases so far, that digital copies are "leases" rather than "sales" and thus not subject to first sale.
There are several arguments being put forth to counter that assertion, but they have really only seen success when physical CDs or media have been sold, and even then not always. Kindle books are a good example of this - publishers claim to own the ebook copies they "lease". I personally publishers will eventually lose this argument but it will be a while.
This should not be seen as chilling
This story has absolutely nothing to do with a blogger held liable for something he may not have said and everything to do with a bad decision to try and represent yourself, failing to follow the procedures of the court and paying the price. This is civil procedure law, not libel law.
The guy did not respond to a discovery request asking him to admit or deny that he was the author. When that happens judges can and often do assume that the results would have been adverse to the non-responding party. He then failed to show up for the summary judgment hearing.
He claims he didn't receive "notice" of the request or hearing, but it seems like he expected to be served with notice formally every time he needed to do something. It doesn't work like that.
Finally got wise and hired a lawyer, but unless he has a very good reason for not responding to discovery or show up he's probably screwed. It sucks that justice in the US requires the cost of a lawyer even if you are clearly not guilty, but such is the system.
The only takeaway from this story is DON'T BE YOUR OWN LAWYER.
Harold - Name one
Wierd Harold: Please direct those of us skeptical of your views to one example of an ISP held liable under the DMCA?
We definitely would have seen RIAA and other like organizations go after universities if what you say is true. I have never read the DMCA to mean or seen evidence that suggests that you are correct, so until you can give me a court decision that I can look up to verify, I call BS.
RIAA Defense
I agree - the couple of articles I have read on the case have left me banging my head on the wall saying 'WHY??'. There is a big problem with her hard drive replacement story, the fact that she has a history (admitted) of using and being familiar with pre-legit Napster, and her username issues.
If this is civil rather than criminal (I think it is) I don't like the defense's chances. The defense needs to drop the 'a hacker did it' and focus on 'can you PROVE that SHE shared THOSE songs - if they can't don't convict'.
I also agree with Mike's position - the RIAA is making awful business decisions, but they are for the most part on the right side of the letter of the law (if not always in thier tactics their contentions). The best way to get the RIAA to change isn't to defy them legally, it is to vote with your pocketbook.
This was an awful case to bring to trial to make a statement against the RIAA. It is going to set a bad precedent and the RIAA wouldn't be there if they didn't think they would win.