|
Students to Lose Web Use - April 21, 2003
U.S. Backs Record Labels in Pursuit of Music Sharer - April 20, 2003
Verizon Must Identify Music File Swapper - January 22, 2003
Antipiracy Foes Reach Agreement - January 16, 2003
Piracy to hurt music firms?
NEWS ARCHIVES
Students
Lose Web Use in Copyright Case
THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
STATE
COLLEGE, Pa. -- Penn State deprived 220 students of high-speed Internet
connections in their dorms after it found they were sharing copyrighted
material, the university said Monday.
"Basically,
we received a complaint," said Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig,
who said he could not reveal who registered the complaint.
"Upon
investigation, we found that the students had publicly listed copyright-infringing
materials on their systems to other members of this network,"
he added.
Music
and movie industry groups have urged universities to curb the sharing
of copyrighted files and penalize violators.
Students,
who often have fast Internet connections and little cash, are seen
as the vanguard in a wave of downloading that the entertainment
industry claims is cutting into its profits.
"I
was kind of surprised at being caught," Jason Steiner, a freshman
in aerospace engineering, told The Daily Collegian, Penn State's
student newspaper. "I was sitting there online and all of a
sudden I wasn't, with no idea why."
The
sanctioned students all live in campus residence halls. They can
still access their campus accounts from other computers.
The
connections to their dorm rooms will be restored once the copyrighted
materials have been removed, Kendig said.
On
March 31, Penn State's executive vice president and provost, Rodney
Erickson, sent an e-mail to more than 110,000 students, administrators,
faculty and staff reminding them that the university prohibits sharing
copyrighted material and warning that such sharing is against the
law.
Earlier
this month, 85 students at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.,
were disciplined for using the school's network to trade copyrighted
music and movies.
On the Net: http://www.psu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.
Backs Record Labels in Pursuit of Music Sharer
BY
AMY HARMON
The
Bush administration has sided with the recording industry in its
court battle to force Internet providers to disclose the identities
of subscribers who may be illegally trading materials online.
A Justice Department brief supports the claim by the Recording Industry
Association of America that it should be able to force Verizon Communications
under the digital copyright law to identify a subscriber suspected
of providing more than 600 songs from well-known artists for other
Internet users to download.
The subpoena was sought by the music industry under the 1998 Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, which allows companies a shortcut to obtain
Internet users' names without a judge's order under certain circumstances.
Verizon asserts that the shortcut was meant to be limited to cases
where the material on Web sites is stored on the Internet provider's
computers. To extend the statute to material that resides on subscribers'
computers, like songs and movies that are traded using KaZaA and
other popular peer-to-peer software, Verizon says, violates the
constitutionally protected rights of free speech and due process
of Internet subscribers.
But in a filing with the Federal District Court in Washington on
Friday, the Department of Justice wrote that the law did not violate
the free speech rights of everyday users because it was directed
only at those who violate copyrights.
The law's subpoena provision "targets the identity of alleged copyright
infringers, not spoken words or conduct commonly associated with
expression," the Justice Department wrote in its brief. The brief
also asserted that the law did not violate due process protections
because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the process
set up by the digital copyright law, which requires that copyright
holders ask a court clerk for an order to compel Internet providers
to surrender customer names.
Sarah B. Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for
Verizon, said the company was disappointed by the Justice Department
brief. Lifting the requirement on copyright holders to go before
a judge to request identifying information, she said, would permit
any copyright holder easily to obtain personal information about
an Internet subscriber. "This would let copyright holders use the
court's power to send people threatening letters and never sue,"
Ms. Deutsch said.
The recording industry welcomed the Justice Department brief. "The
government's filing today supports the proposition that we have
long advocated — copyright owners' have a clear and unambiguous
entitlement to determine who is infringing their copyrights online,
and that entitlement passes constitutional muster," said Matthew
J. Oppenheim, senior vice president for business and legal affairs
at the recording industry group. "Verizon's persistent efforts to
protect copyright thieves on pirate peer-to-peer networks will not
succeed."
Legal experts said the Justice Department's brief was a significant
setback for Verizon. Judge John D. Bates, who has ordered Verizon
to turn over the name of the subscriber at issue in the case, held
a hearing on April 1 on the constitutional issues in the case. He
must decide whether to grant Verizon's request to stay his order
pending an appeal. "To have the government entering the case to
defend the law certainly makes the law as interpreted look more
legitimate," said Jessica Litman, a professor of copyright law at
Wayne State University.
But Professor Litman said the appeals court could still rule in
Verizon's favor based on an interpretation of how Congress intended
the law to be applied. When it was passed in 1998, peer-to-peer
software like KaZaA, which allows users to trade files directly
from their home computers, did not exist. "The Web was only five
years old in 1998," she added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Must Identify Music File Swapper
Ruling
in a piracy case is boon to the entertainment industry but worries
privacy advocates
By Jon Healey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January
22, 2003 LOS ANGELES -- Ruling that there is no right to anonymity
when sharing music online, a federal judge Tuesday ordered the Internet
unit of Verizon Communications Inc. to reveal the name of a customer
accused of piracy by the Recording Industry Assn. of America.
The
decision, which Verizon plans to appeal, is a boon not only to major
record labels but also to Hollywood studios, book publishers, video
game developers and other copyright holders whose works are copied
freely online.
U.S.
District Judge John D. Bates in Washington ruled that a copyright
holder can force an Internet service provider to disclose the names
of customers accused of piracy without having to file individual
lawsuits against alleged violators.
If
upheld, Bates' ruling would make it easier for the RIAA to take
its fight against piracy directly to the heaviest users of online
file-sharing networks, such as Kazaa and Morpheus.
But
critics of the decision said it gives people accused of copyright
infringement less legal protection than those accused of other crimes.
"Anyone
can claim to be a copyright holder, and anyone can use this process
to obtain your identity, whether you've infringed a copyright or
not," said Sarah B. Deutsch, Verizon's associate general counsel.
"This case will have a chilling effect on private communications,
such as e-mail, surfing the Internet or the sending of files between
private parties."
RIAA
President Cary Sherman acknowledged plans to pursue only the consumer
involved in the case at hand.
"We
look forward to contacting the account holder whose identity we
were seeking so we can let them know that what they are doing is
illegal," Sherman said.
The
case comes at a crucial juncture for the music industry, which is
changing its legal strategy to turn up the heat on consumers who
copy music online.
The
major labels and music publishers have won a series of key rulings
against file-sharing services such as Napster Inc., which enable
users to copy music, movies and other items from one another's computers.
Yet those rulings haven't stopped file-sharing systems from proliferating
— or CD sales from plummeting.
To
attack piracy at its roots, the labels want to send a clear, chilling
message directly to consumers that unauthorized copying is illegal.
In particular, they're focusing on the people who make large amounts
of music available for others to copy through an online network.
The
goal is to shatter users' sense of anonymity and immunity, weakening
the appeal of file-sharing services. After obtaining the identity
of users through their Internet providers, RIAA could send them
letters demanding that they stop infringing copyrights or risk large
financial penalties and the loss of their Internet access.
Efforts
began last summer, when an RIAA anti-piracy investigator found an
unidentified Kazaa user offering more than 600 songs for copying.
The investigator traced the user to a set of Internet addresses
in the Pittsburgh area served by Verizon Internet Services Inc.
RIAA
then used a controversial 1998 federal law, the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, to obtain a subpoena from a court clerk in Washington.
The subpoena, which was issued after the RIAA submitted a sworn
statement identifying the allegedly infringing files, instructed
Verizon to identify the person whose account was associated with
the Internet addresses.
Verizon
refused to comply, saying the allegedly pirated material was on
the user's personal computer, not on Verizon's network. And the
DMCA's subpoena power, Verizon argued, applies only to alleged infringers
whose pirated booty is on the provider's network — for example,
when they're on a Web site operated by the provider on a customer's
behalf.
Verizon's
attorneys said the company would identify the user only if the music
labels filed a "John Doe" lawsuit against the person before
issuing a subpoena. Once a lawsuit is filed, the alleged infringer
would receive notice and be able to challenge any attempt to disclose
his or her identity.
In
a 35-page opinion, Bates said Verizon's arguments run counter to
the wording and intent of the law.
"The
statute contemplates a rapid subpoena process designed quickly to
identify apparent infringers and then curtail the infringement,"
Bates wrote, adding that Congress wanted the process to move quickly
because of "the ease with which digital works can be copied
and distributed worldwide virtually instantaneously."
The
judge also noted that the DMCA struck a balance, giving Internet
service providers immunity from copyright lawsuits in exchange for
their help in "identifying and dealing with infringers who
misuse the service providers' systems."
Bates
also said the DMCA's safeguards give more protection against baseless
subpoenas than a John Doe lawsuit would. Although he did not rule
on the constitutionality of the subpoena provision, Bates said this
was not "an instance where the anonymity of an Internet user
merits free speech and privacy protections."
Cindy
Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an
advocacy group for online civil liberties, however, said that "before
you violate a user's privacy and require an ISP to out them, you
normally have to make a case in front of a judge."
"This
ruling appears to say that that's true for everybody and every claim,
whether it's defamation or trade secret or [securities] violations,
except if you're Hollywood," Cohn said. "And Hollywood
gets your name just on a say-so."
Stewart
Baker, general counsel for the U.S. Internet Service Provider Assn.,
shared Cohn's concern about the potential for abusing the subpoena
process.
"Everybody
who can write is a copyright owner and can make a claim of infringement,"
Baker said. "If there are abuses, we'll do as ISPs what we
can to prevent them, but this decision doesn't leave a lot of room
for ISPs to contest these subpoenas."
Seeing
the potential effect on the entire entertainment industry and Internet
users at large, the Hollywood studios and music publishers intervened
on the RIAA's behalf, while numerous Internet service providers,
consumer advocates and civil liberties groups sided with Verizon.
Copyright
© 2003, The Los Angeles Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Antipiracy Foes Reach Agreement
January 16, 2003
Source
Article
Music and technology industry lobbyists signed a rhetorical peace
accord at an event in Washington DC on Tuesday afternoon and pledged
to work more closely to thwart Internet piracy in the future.
The
press conference was designed to highlight a list of seven principles
that the trade associations jointly drafted in a bid to head off
a series of legislative proposals that would do everything from
imposing anticopying standards on PC and electronics makers to regulating
the sale of copy-protected CDs. The three groups are the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Business Software
Alliance, and the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP).
Instead
of fighting before Congress over what new laws are necessary, the
groups say they'll work together to educate the public, sue pirates,
and develop "unilateral technical protection measures that
limit unauthorised access, copying or redistribution" of copyrighted
materials.
RIAA
chief executive Hilary Rosen said she expects the debate in the
future to shift toward "technical protection measures, which
heretofore have not gotten that much attention" from hardware
and software makers.
The
other principles include: greater public awareness of copyright
laws, satisfying "consumer expectations," civil lawsuits
and criminal prosecutions against pirates, and opposition to "government
mandates".
"A
government technology mandate won't solve the problem of online
piracy," said Ken Kay, executive director of the CSPP, which
represents Dell, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, NCR, IBM,
EMC and Unisys.
Notably
absent from the press conference were groups like the Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA) that have been more aggressive
than the RIAA in supporting expansive changes to copyright law.
Ideologically,
the recording industry groups and the information technology groups
have never been far apart. They've used similar tactics to combat
piracy, ranging from sending cease-and-desist letters to Internet
service providers to joining law enforcement in raids on CD or software
reproduction facilities. Both groups lobbied for the controversial
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and neither wants
to change it.
Technology
companies and copyright holders have spurred each other to rhetorical
excesses over the past six months, but it has been the consumer-electronics
companies and Hollywood studios that have taken the most extreme
positions. Neither of those two groups was involved in the discussions
that led to Tuesday's press conference.
The
three groups involved said they will begin to plan a high-level
meeting of executives over the next several weeks who will talk
about how to turn the principles into concrete proposals. Those
meetings will be unlikely to include groups that did not sign on
to the initial document, such as the MPAA or Consumer
Electronics Association.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Piracy to hurt music firms?
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - More than $3 billion in lost revenue will
slip through the hands of major recording labels by 2005.
How
does piracy affect everyone?
What many people fail to realize is that the harm caused by piracy
affects more than they may think. It affects the U.S. economy -
with a 27% piracy rate in the United States, the economic
effects are significant - in 1998, there was a loss of over 25,000
jobs and a loss of over US $400 million in tax revenues
as a result of piracy.
Pirating
is stealing and the more revenue that is lost because of stolen
goods, the less that can be spent by companies for further research
and development for new products and new innovations. Everyone suffers
from the acts of a few.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
