Will You Be Prevented From Selling Your Used Items?

Ben Swann

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below. Sharing on Reddit and Newsvine will help the most.

Copyright Trolls' Bogus "Negligence" Theory Thrown Out Of Court Again

Mitch Stoltz
EFF

Judges on both coasts of the U.S. have now rejected one of the copyright trolls' favorite tactics - suing an Internet subscriber for "negligence" when someone else allegedly downloaded a movie illegally. Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern California federal court threw out a negligence suit by a Caribbean holding company against a Californian, Joshua Hatfield. The company, AF Holdings, had alleged that Mr. Hatfield allowed unnamed third parties to use his Internet connection to download a pornographic movie using BitTorrent, infringing copyright. Judge Hamilton ruled that Hatfield was not responsible for the actions of strangers. She joins Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York, who reached the same conclusions in another case in July.

The "negligence" strategy had three fatal flaws, according to the court. First, an Internet subscriber like Mr. Hatfield has no legal duty to police his Internet connection to protect copyright owners like AF Holdings. Second, even if AF had a valid "negligence" claim against Mr. Hatfield under state personal injury law, federal copyright law would override it. This is called preemption. And finally, even if copyright law didn't trump a negligence claim, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act probably would. 

Senators Unconcerned About Massive Consequences Of Criminalizing Embedding YouTube Videos

Image Source

Mike Masnick
TechDirt

This is really no surprise, but the same Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously approvedthe PROTECT IP Act, despite worries from internet experts and major media about how it would break the internet, has now also unanimously approved the anti-internet streaming bill that makes it a felony to stream certain videos online -- potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos.

What's really troubling here is that the media and plenty of concerned citizens have directly raised the issues about the unintended consequences of this law. And while Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons continue to insist that (of course) the law is not intended to be used against such people, they have made no move to fix the bill. Even supporters of this bill, who insisted that we were wrong about what the bill allowed, eventually conceded that our argument was accurate and that this bill could be used to put people in jail for embedding a YouTube video or doing a lip synch video.

And that's a huge, huge problem. Of course, no one thinks the bill is for that purpose directly or that it's going to be widely used for such purposes. However, the bill, as written, clearly allows law enforcement to charge people with a felony for that, assuming it meets a few other conditions. But those conditions are pretty minimal (ads on your page? you're in trouble...). The risk here of abuse is a serious risk, and it's incredibly troubling that Klobuchar, Cornyn and Coons failed to change or adapt the bill, and worse that the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed the bill to move forward in such a broken state. They were clearly made aware of problems with the bill, but directly chose not to make any changes. How do you explain that other than incompetence or corruption?

Read More at TechDirt

OPPOSE the PROTECT IP Act HERE

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Seized Domains Fight Back

Abigail Phillips
EFF

Since last year, we’ve watched withdismay Immigration and Customs Enforcement's increasing use of domain name seizures as part of its stepped-up IP enforcement strategy. Today, one of the seized domains is taking the issue to court.

Puerto 80, the Spanish company behind Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, which were seized in January of this year, today filed apetition in the Southern District of New York for the return of those domains. The Rojadirecta site, which is made up of user forums and link indexes, has been found by two Spanish courts specifically not to violate copyright. The substantive brief in support of the petition outlines not only the reasons why the domains should be returned, but also the absurd roadblocks Puerto 80 has encountered in its efforts to work with government authorities to get this matter resolved without judicial intervention.

We're very glad that Rojadirecta is fighting back so that this and other domain name seizures can receive more careful judicial consideration. We'll be following the case closely and expect to weigh in as amicus as well.

Attachment                                                                       Size
Petition for Release of Seized Goods Final.pdf            96.55 KB
MPA ISO Petition For Return of Property.pdf              208.51 KB

Visit Electronic Frontier Foundation to support Internet Freedom.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

ACTION ALERT: Reject the PROTECT IP Act

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a threatening sequel to last year's COICA Internet censorship bill that would—like its predecessor—invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation. Urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!

Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement. But innovation and free speech advocates know that PIPA is nothing more than a dangerous wish list that will compromise Internet security while doing little or nothing to encourage creative expression.

PROTECT IP = Private Rightsholders Opposed To Emerging Consumer Technologies, Innovation, and Progress

Worse Than China? U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers

ACTION ALERT: Tell Congress to Kill COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill

Demand Progress

We knew that members of Congress and their business allies were gearing up to pass a revised Internet Blacklist Bill -- which more than 325,000 Demand Progress members helped block last winter -- but we never expected it to be this atrocious.  Last year's bill has been renamed the "PROTECT IP" Act and it is far worse than its predecessor.  A summary of it is posted below.

Senators Leahy and Hatch pretended to weigh free speech concerns as they revised the bill.  Instead, the new legislation would institute a China-like censorship regime in the United States, whereby the Department of Justice could force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence.

Furthermore, it wouldn't just be the Attorney General who could add sites to the blacklist, but the new bill would allow any copyright holder to get sites blacklisted -- sure to result in an explosion of dubious and confused orders.

Will you urge Congress to oppose the PROTECT IP Act?  Just add your name at right.

PETITION TO CONGRESS:  The PROTECT IP Act demonstrates an astounding lack of respect for Internet freedom and free speech rights.  I urge you to oppose it.

Click HERE to read summary of the bill and sign petition

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Why Righthaven’s Copyright Assignment Is A Sham – And Why It Matters

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Kurt Opsahl
EFF

For several weeks EFF and co-counsel Fenwick & West have been trying to persuade a federal district court to unseal a critical document Stephens Media produced in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground. The document, th Strategic Alliance Agreementbetween Righthaven and Stephens Media (publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal), and our accompanying supplemental brief were unsealed on Friday.

As the court explained, “Righthaven and Stephens Media have attempted to create a cottage industry of filing copyright claims, making large claims for damages and then settling claims for pennies on the dollar, with defendants who do not want to incur the costs of defending the lawsuits.” While Righthaven’s business is suing bloggers for copyright infringement, it is not a publisher. It does not produce the works that are the basis for its numerous lawsuits. Instead, it trolls the Internet, looking for news articles published by Stephens Media (Las Vegas Review-Journal) or Media News Group (Denver Post) and, when it finds them, gets the publisher to “assign” the copyright so it can file a lawsuit. At least, that was the public story.

UK Government discusses blocking copyright infringing websites

Communications Minister Ed Vaizey has held talks behind closed doors with rights holders and ISPs about introducing web blocking for sites that breach copyright

DHS in the US has already seized thousands of domains
"suspected" of violating Copyright laws.

Dinah Greek
Computer Active

The Government is considering forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites that make it possible for people to illegally share copyrighted material.

Communications Minister Ed Vaizey confirmed on the Open Rights Group blog that he has been involved in behind-closed-doors discussions with copyright holders and ISPs about introducing these measures after a legal challenge from BT and Talktalk to the Digital Economy Act (DEA).

The entertainment industry wanted the law to force ISPs to write warning letters to alleged file sharers but ISPs say they fear this would breach data protection laws.

This issue is now subject to a judicial review in the High Court and the Government has put on hold the requirement for ISPs to write warning letters.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Copyright or Censorship? (Video)

Youtube - alawson911
It is my contention that spurious accusations of copyright infringement can be used to suppress videos that are not liked, in certain circles, and that YouTube's reporting procedure favours the accuser over the accused, who is not even given the minimum amount of information necessary to be able to challenge any claim, let alone a false one -- Anthony Lawson.



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Supporters of DHS Domain Name Seizures Undervalue Important Constitutional Protections

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

This site has been generally critical of recent United States policy toward copyright issues.  We have expressed discomfort with the Obama Administration's statements in support of Internet freedom, which seem to clash with a proposal to wiretap suspected infringers and the introduction of COICA legislation.

The most troubling issue has undoubtedly been the series of Government domain name seizures, through which the DHS takes the domain names of accused infringers without first giving the accused a chance to defend their site at a hearing.

Although we question the Constitutionality of the seizures, these issues deserve a vigorous debate that presents the well-reasoned arguments of all sides, including those that are convinced that the Government seizures are right and legal.  Unfortunately, last week, Terry Hart of Copyhype, who has been a vocal defender of the domain name seizures, chose to go beyond that defense to question the motives of the critics of the domain name seizures such as SitesAndBlogs.com and Techdirt.comand attempted to dismiss the importance of the Constitutional issues we have raised.

White House Wants It To Be A Felony To Stream Infringing Materials

Wikimedia Commons Image

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

One aspect of the White Paper that has grabbed headlines is the Obama Administration's recommendation that Congress clarify that felony copyright infringement includes infringement by streaming.  The current legal definition of felony copyright infringement only references "distribution" and "reproduction," which does not clearly include streaming.

There is some room to debate whether felony-level penalties (up to 10 years imprisonment) are too harsh for any intellectual property offense such as this or whether there are legitimate reasons to treat streaming different than other methods of distribution and reproduction.  However, asking Congress to clarify an unclear law is generally a reasonable request.

Obama Proposes Harsh New Copyright Laws for Internet

Do Obama's Proposed New Copyright Laws Go Too Far? (Part I)

Obama Administration IP Czar Victoria Espinel

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Tuesday, the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration's recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.  Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

New Proposal to Wiretap Suspected Infringers Raises Privacy Concerns

This is Part II of a series of articles analyzing specific aspects of the Obama Administration's White Paper (available for download here), recommending legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.  Click here for if you missed our overview of the White Paper in Part I.

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

One of the most troubling recommendations in the White Paper is the Obama Administration's request for Congress to grant its enforcement agencies the power "seek a wiretap for criminal copyright and trademark offenses."  This would require Congress to amend the Wiretap Act, which does not currently include copyright and trademark infringement among the offenses that justify a privacy invasion as extreme as a wiretap.

In order to preserve the private nature of communications, the Wiretap Act (as amended by the The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), 18 U.S.C. § 2511, makes it generally illegal for anyone, including the Government, to "intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication." However, the law has carved out certain exceptions to this rule under which the Government can request permission to intercept certain communications for a limited time.

Media Bloggers Association Stands Up To Copyright Troll Righthaven

It is unfortunate that Righthaven and the companies it "buys" the copyrighted property from are willing to financially wreck a person, often for mere carelessness as they are attempting to add to the public conversation.

Media Bloggers Association

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Today, the Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") filed its Reply Brief in theRighthaven, LLC v. Hyatt case.  The MBA is opposing Righthaven's attempt to convince the Nevada District Court to award it $150,000 in damages, the domain name for blogger Bill Hyatt's website (1ce.org)  and attorneys' fees.

Hyatt was sued by Righthaven last October after he allegedly copied a Las Vegas Review-Journalcolumn titled "FX's Manly Man Shows Hold Outsider Appeal."  When Hyatt did not respond to the lawsuit, he was defaulted by the court clerk's office.

A default is basically the equivalent of an admission of all liability by the defendant.  If the default is not set aside, the Court will skip the trial on the merits of the copyright claim and proceed directly to a determination of the damages against Hyatt.

5 Ways DHS Violates the Constitution with Website Domain Seizures

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

US cites Baidu, PirateBay, others in copyright piracy

Baidu is the 6th most trafficked website in the world
© AFP/File Simon Lim

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Monday named leading Chinese search engine Baidu and Swedish torrent download site Pirate Bay in a list of the world's top online and physical markets for pirated and counterfeit goods.

The US Trade Representative said the two websites, a host of others and more than 20 physical markets, like the widely known Silk Market in Beijing and Panthip Plaza in Bangkok, as "notorious" centers openly selling or enabling the sale of counterfeit or pirated goods, from software to industrial products to live sports television broadcasts.

While no action was threatened in the USTR's first global "Review of Notorious Markets", it said the markets were targets for copyright enforcement efforts and could be included in individual country reports on enforcement efforts.


"The United States urges the responsible authorities to intensify efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets," it said.

While the markets named spanned from physical sites in South America to Southeast Asia and Internet sites in a number of countries, Chinese offenders were the most numerous on the list.

It said that Baidu, the sixth most trafficked Internet website in the world, and the leader in China, according to web surveyor Alexa Internet, was enabling piracy with "deep linking" searches.

Such searches, for instance, could take a user directly to a page for a pirated download rather than to the website's home page.

Also named were business-to-business site Taobao, sports telecast rebroadcaster TV Ants, smartphone applications host 91.com; physical markets in Yiwu, Shenzhen and Beijing; and popular computer markets like Hailong PC Mall in Beijing and Shanghai's Yangpu Yigao Digital Square.

The USTR said that Taobao had moved to curb pirated and copyright-infringing goods on its site, but "it still has a long way to go in order to resolve those problems."

A slew of BitTorrent sites -- which permit speedy downloads of large files like music, videos and books -- were named, including The Pirate Bay, IsoHunt of Canada, Russia-based Rutracker, Demenoid of the Ukraine, and Publicbt.

Russia-based social network site Vkontakte was cited for permitting users "to provide access to allegedly infringing materials."

The list of physical markets included sites in Mexico City, Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Kiev, Jakarta, Hong Kong and Manila.

It said the entire economy of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay "is based in part on the trafficking of counterfeit and infringed goods, with a particular emphasis on electronic goods.

"This activity spills over into the entire Tri-Border Region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, creating a hotbed of piracy and counterfeiting."

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner