A pub in the UK has been fined ₤8,000 for illegal downloading, when really all it did was provide the internet access to a third party user responsible for the illegal activity. The pub is a wireless hotspot offering Wi-Fi connections to its customers, one of whom downloaded copyrighted material while using the Wi-Fi service. Unfortunately, however, the activity can only be traced back to the IP address of the hotspot, and so investigation of the illegal activity does not produce the individual infringer. This case is believed to be the first in the UK in which a wireless hotspot has been successfully sued for an infringement occurring on its network, and becomes significant in what similar rulings and fines—which amount to $13,000—would do to the internet café type business model. It is impossible for such providing companies to monitor what users on their network are doing, and so the applicability of such fines becomes a risk perhaps too great to take.
The risk is compounded by the imminent Digital Economy Bill in the UK which has yet to pass but would enforce a 3-strike rule where repeat infringers would be cut off from internet service. While the 3-strike rule likely would not apply to internet hotspot providers as they are not individual subscribers, the potential to be held responsible for customers’ infringements and denied internet access is daunting to the business plan. Making matters worse, “the rights holder seeking infringers of their copyright would probably not know that the IP address in question was not that of a subscriber,” notes UK law professor Lilian Edwards, “It would then be up to the hotspot operator to point out that they were not the end user downloading copyrighted material,” but “when would they get to say that? Maybe straightaway, maybe not until after disconnection—it’s not currently clear.”
Essentially, while the hotspot would “not be responsible in theory,” the laws and proceedings “surrounding open Wi-Fi networks and the liability of those running them is a grey area.” Even if the hotspot would not be targetable by the 3-strike rule as only subscribers can be sanctioned, it remains unclear whether the fine for copyright infringement would be waved as well. Do you think the hotspot should be responsible for users’ infringements? If they were not responsible, and infringers were individually untraceable, would this lead to increased infringements on hotspot connections where rights holders would be powerless to fight back? If they are held responsible, will this risk mean the end of internet cafés, and apparently internet pubs?

If you searched for Michelle Obama in Google Images earlier today, you may have been disturbed by the first result, an extremely racist and offensive picture of the First Lady photoshopped to resemble a monkey. Google had removed the image after it had first appeared at the top of results last week, because the host webpage was infected with malware. However, the photo has since been published by other websites that are virus-free and comply with Google’s rules, so this time, there is really nothing that Google can do. The company is using their ad space to explain that, as a search engine, Google’s only function is to reflect content that is available online, and a site’s ranking is based on complex algorithms that use an abundance of factors, including how people are linking to content across the Web, the words surrounding an image, and words in a file name, to determine the best result to a given query. Perhaps this situation will cause Google administrators to question if this recipe for providing relevant results should be reviewed.

It appears the high ranking is a the result of tech prank and calls to mind a similar mishap that occurred when George W. Bush was in office, in which a picture of the President was a top result when one Googled “miserable failure.” These antics, coined “Google bombs,” are organized efforts to change search results by linking repeatedly to a web page or image with certain key terms, as we discussed regarding links of Wikipedia which now carry a “do not follow” tag to reduce spamming on the encyclopedia and ensure such links are not artificially  inflated in popularity.

Google has apologized (sort of) for this upsetting experience, but is an apology really necessary? Should Google even consider requests to censor results? Google is probably asked to remove offensive search results or at least drop them in ranking all the time but to actually do so would severely compromise its reputation of neutrality and the integrity of its search results. A company seeking to create the world’s largest library cannot engage in censorship. Moreover, the impartial availability of such an image allows Americans to have important and necessary conversations about current political and racial relations in our country, reflecting opinions and controversies that are more contemporary than anything that can be found in other forms of mass media, even periodicals.

Another, and perhaps more important, good that can come of this situation is news coverage of the image actually highlights the way Google works, a topic of which most people remain clueless despite their heavy dependance on the search engine in their everyday lives. We have to remember that Google is created by humans and is far from perfect, and perhaps further actions need to be taken to make it more difficult for users to bomb especially if Google is to maintain its monopolistic control over the search engine industry.

So, I have not watched an episode of Project Runway since Christian Siriano won in season 4.

Photo Credit to bgwilson89 at flickr.

However, someone alerted me to a copyright infringement that took place during the season finale.

One of the contestants took material from New York Magazine, word for word, changed the typography, and then put it on shirts meant for her “final collection” at fashion week.

When producers realized that she had used copyrighted material, they forced her to change the imagery.

Here’s a blog post that summarizes the various copyright disputes that popped up during the two-part Finale episode:

http://projectrungay.blogspot.com/2009/11/controversy-spoilerish.html

The words she used on her clothing were lifted from NY Magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2008/

(Honestly, she couldn’t come up with her own reasons to love NY? There are so many of them!)

NY Magazine’s reaction:

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/11/irinas_project_runway_shirt_kn.html

I have to echo one of the comments on the NYMagazine blog.

Did she really think no one would notice? She would be on national television, and her design would be seen by millions. Also, NY Magazine obsessively blogs about Project Runway and would definitely see the design sooner or later.

Is this a case of not being aware of copyright law? Or did she deliberately take the words and images out of desperation?

This brings me to another question:

Do we need to teach people about copyright law?

I don’t know about you guys, but all I ever learned in “computer class” (aka Oregon Trail time in school) was to make sure that information was correct and links were reputable. We never learned about attribution, or copyright infringement, or what copyright really means.

You’re reading this blog because you are interested in copyright law. Does the average layperson really need to know about copyright?

We all learned not to plagiarize, but why did we never learn about copyright or fair use? We learned about MLA citations for terms papers, but we are not told how to cite people’s photographs online.

Is copyright law just the next logical step in teaching people how to be more Internet savvy and media literate?

Before taking this class, I had never heard of net neutrality, let alone understood what it meant for me as a daily Internet user. Since seeing the bright light that is copyright, net neutrality really is a concept that people should learn more about because if net neutrality were to disappear, then it would not only affect big corporations but also the average user. After Tim Wu’s talk, I was on CNN and happened upon the above clip, which really got to the heart of net neutrality and what it means for the average user.

Tim Wu describes the Internet as meritocratic in that the little guys like Gary Maricle who sells chilies on the Internet has the same access to the Internet as companies such as AT&T. If net neutrality were to change, then companies like AT&T would be able to pay more for faster service, thus providing priority service for those who can afford it. This priority service could have devastating consequences. The current system allows for innovation to occur. Maricle can afford his website at $200 a month to sell his chilies. He can include high-resolution pictures and text because he has unlimited bandwidth. If net neutrality were to change, the amount of bandwidth that Maricle uses would cost too much overhead for his business to survive. Therefore, entry into the market level would be impossible for some small businesses, and innovation outside of major corporations would be hard to afford.

On October 22, 2009 the FCC approved of a plan that would continue to protect net neutrality. The rules are open for debate for 60 days to allow the public to weigh in on the rules. The rules include:

1. Broadband providers must not block users from sending legal content on the Internet.
2. Broadband providers must allow user to connect any devices and use any applications that do not harm the network.
3. Broadband providers must not prevent competitions among ISPs and online services.
4. Broadband providers cannot discriminate against content services such as VoIP services.
5. Broadband providers must disclose information concerning network management.

Not everyone has supported the FCC’s proposed rules. Senator McCain’s Internet Freedom Act of 2009 would limit the authority of the FCC to propose regulations on the Internet. On the other hand, some companies like Mozilla support the new FCC rules. John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla, and Mitchell Baker, chair of Mozilla, said in a statement, “The fundamental technologies of the Internet have always been open; the FCC’s proposed rules would merely preserve that openness.”

Net neutrality provides openness and access to the Internet that is vital for innovation to occur. Even as “little people,” we can start a business online because we can afford to do so. If the rules of net neutrality were to disappear, our Internet access would change dramatically. We could get onto AT&T’s website or any other corporation who can afford life in the “fast lane,” while the people like Gary Maricle would be forced to change the way he does business. Net neutrality is vital to the openness that is the World Wide Web. As copyright aficionados, do you believe net neutrality is important to keeping the Internet innovative and democratic? Is there a possible compromise between supporters and opponents of net neutrality that would provide priority service without affecting innovation?

As I was flipping through last week’s Entertainment Weekly, I came across a review/promotion for a new cookbook called Top Secret Recipes Unlocked, a cookbook by Todd Wilbur. Wilbur, who originally started off trying to make the top secret Mrs. Fields recipe from a chain letter that circulated in the late ’80s, has sold over 4 million books filled with “scores of original clone recipes, insider secrets and food lore” for the “perfect clone of famous brand-name products.” These products range from Stouffer’s Macaroni and Cheese to Olive Garden’s signature breadsticks to Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Most reviews (at least those on his website) rave about the accuracy of these recipes and the similarities his recipes have to the real deal tastes we are all so familiar with.

Obviously, as we have gone over many times in class, recipes cannot be copyrighted. That is, Olive Garden or Krispy Kreme cannot sue Todd Wilbur for copyright infringement. Perhaps an even further protection for Wilbur is that he creates his own recipes from trial and error. He does do some investigative digging with menus, using ingredients readily displayed in the descriptions of food items, but he does not have access to restaurants’ “secret recipes.” He simply makes his own, using lots of trial and error. And intuition. Essentially, he’s made a living divulging huge companies’ secret recipes, and legally there can’t be many repercussions.

One repercussion, however, relates more to trademark than copyright. The titles for the recipes he’s created are the same titles of what would appear on the menu at the original restaurant. He even uses the companies’ own ® signs in his title. Here is the recipe for Heinz® Heinz 57® ketchup. Of course, if Heinz is upset at Wilbur for trademark infringement (and copyright infringement, though they couldn’t do anything about that), Heinz would have to proactively go after Wilbur, as we know, their trademark is not automatically protected.
What do you all think of Wilbur’s cookbook? Does it seem fair that he is making millions off of other companies’ and restaurants’ recipes? As far as I’ve researched, no legal action has been taken against Wilbur. One could argue that the process of developing these recipes is highly creative, and because he is coming up with these recipes on his own, all is fair. Do you agree? On a completely unrelated note, it’s only $10 at Amazon, and I’m thinking it’ll make an awesome Christmas gift for my grandma.

According to boingboing.net, (lets ignore the anonymous source for now) the UK is lobbying to implement some pretty radical steps towards copyright protection. The article states that they are planning to give their Secretary of State the power to make “secondary legislation” to amend provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patent act (1988) This would essentially give them power to create mandates without the oversight or input of Parliament. This would give them authority to create new penalties for infringements, along with granting them power to grant copyright holders “investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect uses, Remove websites, etc.” The Secretary of State would also reserve the power to form copyright watchdogs, which would effectively police their proposed measures.

The Pirate Finder General is after you.

This huge amount of power is extremely problematic considering the discretion their Secretary of State has towards in copyright protection and privacy rights. To place one person in control of how copyrights are protected, without the checks and balances of a political system, is frightening because it allocates so much power to that person.

The article also says they are even proposing to look into the content of sites that allow users to send large amounts of information, think rapidshare, megaupload, etc.  If we thought that packet inspection was bad, this is on the next level. It seems like internet users rights these days are becoming less and less important in the scope of an evolving digital economy, and now with government initiatives like this that favor the rights of producers over privacy and free speech rights of citizens means this problem is not going to have a happy ending.

It is a radical proposal if you ask me, and I don’t know why Parliament would vote for this, seeing that they would in effect be giving away some of their power, but at the same time, maybe they see this as an easy way to have someone else deal with it. Give the article a read and see what you think, my favorite term is the Priate-Finder-General. Sounds pretty scary.

I definitely want to write another post about this when I have some more time on my hands cause I think it really touches on the “commerce” part of the class. But in the meantime I wanted to bring one thing up before class.

In the EFF article, the proposal is this: “the music industry forms several “collecting societies,” which then offer file-sharing music fans the opportunity to “get legit” in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say a total of $5-10 per month.” Just wanted to run a quick poll of the class to see how many of you do this? Be honest.

I would.

 Despite the downturn in the economy and the increase of free media related content – the media industry is remaining steady!  According to the NPD Group, already existing services and other newer kinds of subscription services (Netflix, etc.) are growing – here are their findings:

• overall monthly per-capita entertainment-content subscription spending rose to $115, an increase of 7% from a year ago
• As of August 2009, 81% of U.S. households subscribed to a pay TV service with a similar percentage of households (76%) paying for internet subscriptions.
• 17% percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio
• 14% subscribed to online gaming subscription services

Here are some more results: “In an expanded analysis of U.S. search enquires by ComScore for the past 2 months, Google Sites led the search market with 13.5 billion search queries, followed by Yahoo! Sites with 2.7 billion queries and Microsoft Sites with 1.5 billion searches. Bing experienced the largest growth rate of the top ten expanded search properties with an 8% increase in query volume to more than 1.2 billion searches. Facebook’s search volume dropped precipitously to just 331 million

 searched in Oct.”

So, now can all of those companies trying to sue youtube be quiet?  Subscription spending rose 7% – it doesn’t matter if I can watch a crappy version of Gossip Girl online with a “buffering” message every 3 minutes, I’d rather record it and watch it at my convenience.  I doubt I’m the only one who believes services like DVR and Tivo have positively impacted the television industry on the consumer front.  If DVR and Tivo did not exist I’d probably have my computer hooked up to my television screen and deal with the crappy version – I simply do not have time to work my life around TV shows (I know, how depressing).

Also, Lily Allen, you can relax because people are still paying for music in some form (satellite/online radio) now all you have to do is fight the law that lets radio get away with not paying the recording artist (thats not the consumers fault!).

As much as the new digital age has dramatically increased the amount of copyright infringement and therefore profit, it appears the content industry is slowly picking themselves up by taking some new approaches.

Verizon has become the latest ISP to agree to send out copyright notices on behalf of the recording, TV, and film industries. While other companies such as AT&T, Comcast, and Cox already engage in the practice, Verizon has typically stood aside rather than enter into the realm of copyright infringement policing. With the announcement that it would begin sending out notices, Verizon issued this statement: “We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights…without that enforcement, intellectual property won’t be generated at all. At the same time, it’s important for our customers to be assured that they won’t have their privacy rights trampled.” The notices do not include any sort of threat of legal action or punishment, such as termination of service as Cox has threatened chronic infringers in the past. It simply states that the user is accused of inappropriate sharing or behavior, notifying them that they are involved in illegal activity, asking them to delete any illegal content, and pointing them toward legal content as an alternative.

As the RIAA announced that it would no longer be suing individual file sharers, and broadcast networks and film companies have begun to move some of their copyrighted material online in ad sponsored and controlled forms, it seems that these big companies are coming to terms with the fact that the internet means an end to their old business models, but they are still grappling with how to remain in control and maintain their profits. The enlisting of ISPs to do the leg work of monitoring and notifying internet users who are still bypassing the legal content in favor of illegal file sharing and downloading seems to be an attempt to regain control without being the evil accusers. The bigger question is why Verizon has all of a sudden become so willing to participate. A CNET article notes that the high level of piracy is “allegedly clogging their pipes,” which would be a straightforward reason. The article also points out that broadband companies are looking for increased access to premium content and are hoping to benefit from better relationships with the media outlets.

To me, the notices themselves seem highly unlikely to have a huge impact on illegal users, as they do not indicate action toward any sort of penalty. Perhaps knowing that one’s actions and illegal activities are being tracked is enough to scare some infringers, but to me the notices seem more like the first step toward a more severe crackdown. Other countries have already become much more severe in their treatment of infringing users, with policies such as the 3 strike rule that was passed as law in France, and it seems U.S. companies are trying to take a less intrusive step to begin to head in the same direction.