Sunday, 9 January 2011
JPBarlow John Perry Barlow
RT @wikileaks: All 637,000 of our followers are target of DOJ subpoena against Twitter, Sec. 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA
Special Report: Music Industry’s Lavish Lobby Campaign For Digital Rights
The music industry has spent tens of millions of dollars to lobby government officials worldwide during the past decade, but whether or not the initiative has helped to shape a viable legal and commercial framework is a subject of debate.
According to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis based on data collected from the United States Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR), the recorded music industry and the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) have spent over $90 million in lobbying efforts in the United States alone since 2000.
The total represents money spent after CD sales began to see steep declines in revenue as file sharing became more common. The music industry spent $4.0 million in lobbying in 2000, a figure which rose significantly to $17.5 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The industry also has actively lobbied officials with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and affiliated organisations, although data indicating how much it spent for these groups is not readily available.
The sum spent on lobbying efforts to enforce copyright protections reflects an effort to thwart file sharing that is more ambitious in scale compared to other media industry groups in the United States. The motion picture industry, for example, spent less than half of what the music industry invested in lobbying during the 2000-2010 period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ statistics. The RIAA and recording industry players have also spent over $50 million in legal fees for the industry’s lawsuit campaign intended to thwart illegal file sharing, according to tax filings and estimates by attorneys involved in the litigation.
“The music industry is spending more than other media groups,” said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “They have accelerated their spending to a much bigger degree.” There are some industries, such as health and pharmaceuticals, or automobiles, that have spent more on lobbying during that time but the music industry’s investment is unprecedented in media.
The music industry has also actively lobbied legislators in Europe to help influence digital file protection laws, although it is difficult to determine its total spending there since the information is not as publicly available as it is in the United States. Legislators in France and United Kingdom, where recording companies Vivendi and Virgin are based, respectively, have sought aggressive enforcement policies intended to limit or ban user accounts that are allegedly used for illegal file sharing.
Under the pending legislative groundwork for a graduated response initiative in the UK, alleged infringers would receive warning letters and could see disruptions in their internet access. Under France’s Hadopi law, a government organisation has reportedly begun to contact customers warning them that their internet access could be suspended if their ISP accounts are used to share media files without authorisation.
Lobbying has taken many different forms in the United States, while rules and ethical mandates represent a complex legal framework to work through, which is the case for other industries in the United States.
“I think that ethics reforms should prevent too much direct wining and dining,” says Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director, and a Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow at Public Knowledge. “A lot of that money goes into salaries, ad buys, travel, and the occasional party or event where some of that wining and dining takes place on a more distributed level, though again, ethics rules restrictions apply.”
While such far-reaching legislation such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Copyright Term Extension Act were drafted prior to 2000 in the United States, laws and mandates advocated by the music industry have become stricter since then, Siy said.
“There’s been a steady push for increased penalties for infringement, as well as presumptions built into the law to make it easier to win cases against alleged infringers,” Siy said. “New causes of action [for plaintiffs in US courts] have been passed, too, including an anti-camcording statute built into federal law.”
The US Higher Education Opportunity Act passed in 2008, for example, mandates that colleges and universities actively take measures to monitor for and limit file sharing by students as a condition to receive federal aid money, Siy noted.
“So there’s probably a fair bit that’s gone on even in the absence of something quite as flashy as some of the better-known efforts [such as the DMCA and the Copyright Term Extension Act],” Siy said.
New laws intended to protect and enforce digital music copyright as well as the music industry’s high-profile litigation campaign receive considerable attention and have generated significant controversy, yet the measures are but one part of an initiative to help the music industry make the transition to the digital age, proponents say.
“The music industry is responding to the digital environment in three basic ways: licensing repertoire in new ways that respond to what the consumer wants, public education to explain copyright laws and highlight legal services, and copyright enforcement to protect our rights,” said Adrian Strain, director of communications for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
“All three of these strategies are crucial, and it’s safe to say that we wouldn’t even have a digital business or be able to offer an answer to piracy if we hadn’t responded with all three,” Strain said. “However, none of these strategies can solve the problem of digital piracy by itself.”
New business models the music industry has developed during the past few years include new subscription models and access to digital music that is free for consumers, Strain said.
“Our digital business is way ahead of other creative industries, with 30 percent of music sales coming from digital channels,” Strain said. “But none of this commercial activity and innovation can succeed unless there is proper protection of music rights and effective intellectual property enforcement.”
However, copyright laws that enforce protections on a global scale are still necessary, but in parallel, more viable alternative business models need to be developed to collect royalties, said David Stopps, director of copyright and related rights for the Music Managers Forum UK.
“The music industry has moved too slowly in its attempt to create new business models,” Stopps said. “We need to make it much easier for new business models to get off the ground and to prove themselves.”
Major record companies licence digital services, but the terms involved are difficult to build a viable business model around, especially for startups, Stopps said. “You have to have a lot of money to do it and you have to have a lot of time. You would need a couple of years to license [the songs] and a couple of million in the bank,” he said.
“New startup businesses should be able to access all content under a compulsory licence for a period of, say, six months,” he added. “We have to make it easier for new business models to get access to content.”
Meanwhile, for some digital rights proponents, any kind of heavy-handed legal enforcement intended to limit content sharing between consumers is destined to fail, while alternative business models have been more than inadequate.
“The very first time a major music industry executive heard about Napster and got nervous, they turned left and went down and talked to their lawyers instead of walking out of their office and turning right and heading down to the business section,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director [corrected] for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “That was the fundamental mistake.”
Bruce Gain - ip-watch.org
According to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis based on data collected from the United States Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR), the recorded music industry and the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) have spent over $90 million in lobbying efforts in the United States alone since 2000.
The total represents money spent after CD sales began to see steep declines in revenue as file sharing became more common. The music industry spent $4.0 million in lobbying in 2000, a figure which rose significantly to $17.5 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The industry also has actively lobbied officials with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and affiliated organisations, although data indicating how much it spent for these groups is not readily available.
The sum spent on lobbying efforts to enforce copyright protections reflects an effort to thwart file sharing that is more ambitious in scale compared to other media industry groups in the United States. The motion picture industry, for example, spent less than half of what the music industry invested in lobbying during the 2000-2010 period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ statistics. The RIAA and recording industry players have also spent over $50 million in legal fees for the industry’s lawsuit campaign intended to thwart illegal file sharing, according to tax filings and estimates by attorneys involved in the litigation.
“The music industry is spending more than other media groups,” said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “They have accelerated their spending to a much bigger degree.” There are some industries, such as health and pharmaceuticals, or automobiles, that have spent more on lobbying during that time but the music industry’s investment is unprecedented in media.
The music industry has also actively lobbied legislators in Europe to help influence digital file protection laws, although it is difficult to determine its total spending there since the information is not as publicly available as it is in the United States. Legislators in France and United Kingdom, where recording companies Vivendi and Virgin are based, respectively, have sought aggressive enforcement policies intended to limit or ban user accounts that are allegedly used for illegal file sharing.
Under the pending legislative groundwork for a graduated response initiative in the UK, alleged infringers would receive warning letters and could see disruptions in their internet access. Under France’s Hadopi law, a government organisation has reportedly begun to contact customers warning them that their internet access could be suspended if their ISP accounts are used to share media files without authorisation.
Lobbying has taken many different forms in the United States, while rules and ethical mandates represent a complex legal framework to work through, which is the case for other industries in the United States.
“I think that ethics reforms should prevent too much direct wining and dining,” says Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director, and a Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow at Public Knowledge. “A lot of that money goes into salaries, ad buys, travel, and the occasional party or event where some of that wining and dining takes place on a more distributed level, though again, ethics rules restrictions apply.”
While such far-reaching legislation such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Copyright Term Extension Act were drafted prior to 2000 in the United States, laws and mandates advocated by the music industry have become stricter since then, Siy said.
“There’s been a steady push for increased penalties for infringement, as well as presumptions built into the law to make it easier to win cases against alleged infringers,” Siy said. “New causes of action [for plaintiffs in US courts] have been passed, too, including an anti-camcording statute built into federal law.”
The US Higher Education Opportunity Act passed in 2008, for example, mandates that colleges and universities actively take measures to monitor for and limit file sharing by students as a condition to receive federal aid money, Siy noted.
“So there’s probably a fair bit that’s gone on even in the absence of something quite as flashy as some of the better-known efforts [such as the DMCA and the Copyright Term Extension Act],” Siy said.
New laws intended to protect and enforce digital music copyright as well as the music industry’s high-profile litigation campaign receive considerable attention and have generated significant controversy, yet the measures are but one part of an initiative to help the music industry make the transition to the digital age, proponents say.
“The music industry is responding to the digital environment in three basic ways: licensing repertoire in new ways that respond to what the consumer wants, public education to explain copyright laws and highlight legal services, and copyright enforcement to protect our rights,” said Adrian Strain, director of communications for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
“All three of these strategies are crucial, and it’s safe to say that we wouldn’t even have a digital business or be able to offer an answer to piracy if we hadn’t responded with all three,” Strain said. “However, none of these strategies can solve the problem of digital piracy by itself.”
New business models the music industry has developed during the past few years include new subscription models and access to digital music that is free for consumers, Strain said.
“Our digital business is way ahead of other creative industries, with 30 percent of music sales coming from digital channels,” Strain said. “But none of this commercial activity and innovation can succeed unless there is proper protection of music rights and effective intellectual property enforcement.”
However, copyright laws that enforce protections on a global scale are still necessary, but in parallel, more viable alternative business models need to be developed to collect royalties, said David Stopps, director of copyright and related rights for the Music Managers Forum UK.
“The music industry has moved too slowly in its attempt to create new business models,” Stopps said. “We need to make it much easier for new business models to get off the ground and to prove themselves.”
Major record companies licence digital services, but the terms involved are difficult to build a viable business model around, especially for startups, Stopps said. “You have to have a lot of money to do it and you have to have a lot of time. You would need a couple of years to license [the songs] and a couple of million in the bank,” he said.
“New startup businesses should be able to access all content under a compulsory licence for a period of, say, six months,” he added. “We have to make it easier for new business models to get access to content.”
Meanwhile, for some digital rights proponents, any kind of heavy-handed legal enforcement intended to limit content sharing between consumers is destined to fail, while alternative business models have been more than inadequate.
“The very first time a major music industry executive heard about Napster and got nervous, they turned left and went down and talked to their lawyers instead of walking out of their office and turning right and heading down to the business section,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director [corrected] for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “That was the fundamental mistake.”
Bruce Gain - ip-watch.org
Palin's plan unfolding
Sarah Palin’s call to arms, “Don’t Retreat, Reload” finally results in a tragic shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman. Three term Representative Gabrielle Giffords, representing Arizona’s 8th district and caught in Palin’s cross-hairs, was gunned down today and shot in the head. One of her aides was killed and at least 12 others injured. In March, Sarah Palin posted this ad on her facebook page and tweeted, “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Pls see my Facebook page.
MORE @'The Mudflats'
Don Letts - The Punk Rock Movie (1978)
Musician and filmmaker Don Letts made this Super 8 documentary of the London punk rock scene in 1977. Shot mostly at the Roxy, a short-lived punk club that hosted every important rock band in the neighborhood, The Punk Rock Movie captures an exciting moment in the development of some artists that are still imitated and adulated today. While the Sex Pistols and the Clash are likely to be the most familiar names in attendance, The Punk Rock Movie spends plenty of time on some legendary acts that never licked the same brass ring.
Fans of the under-documented Johnny Thunders will want to see the footage of the Heartbreakers live on tour in England. Siouxsie & the Banshees, X-Ray Spex, and Eater are other notable rockers who are seen in rare early performances. Backstage revelry and tour bus boredom is preserved as well, with the dark side represented by unflinching scenes of drugs and self-abuse. Most of the film is live, loud, breakneck rock, featuring some energetic footage of the Sex Pistols at the height of their hype and the Clash set for stun and gathering its army. (Fred Beldin)via
Icelandic Interior Minister Says Wikileaks-case is “Odd and Grave”
In an interview with mbl.is Icelandic Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson said that at first sight the case of US authorities against Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir seems to be “very odd and grave.” He said that at this stage he can’t express himself on the case but hopes to get information from Jónsdóttir.
Minister of Interior Ögmundur Jónasson. Photo: Althingi Jónasson said: “Of course it is a very serious matter, if a demand has been put forward that she submit personal information to US authrities. She is an Icelandic member of Althingi and furthermore a member of the Foreign Relations committee of Althingi.”
<>Jónasson continued: “The information from Wikileaks and others have only hurt people who work behind the scenes. I think that if we manage to make government transparent and give all of us some insight into what is happening in countries involved in warfare it can only be for the good.”
@'Iceland Review'
<>Jónasson continued: “The information from Wikileaks and others have only hurt people who work behind the scenes. I think that if we manage to make government transparent and give all of us some insight into what is happening in countries involved in warfare it can only be for the good.”
@'Iceland Review'
ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald
These obsessive, repressive leak investigations are occurring under a President who campaigned on transparency & whistle-blower protections
Saturday, 8 January 2011
HELLO Kenny Dalglish #YNWA (again)
It was thought he would stay in charge for the FA Cup game with Manchester United tomorrow, but owner John Henry has moved to bring in club legend Dalglish.
John Henry said: "We are grateful for Roy's efforts over the past six months, but both parties thought it in the best interests of the club that he stand down from his position as team manager. We wish him all the best for the future."
Roy Hodgson said the last few months had been the most challenging of his career.
He added: "Being asked to manage Liverpool Football Club was a great privilege. Any manager would be honoured to manage a club with such an incredible history, such embedded tradition and such an amazing set of fans. Liverpool is one of the great clubs in world football...
Neil MacDonald @'Liverpool Echo'
DOJ subpoenas Twitter records of several WikiLeaks volunteers
Last night, Birgitta Jónsdóttir -- a former WikiLeaks volunteer and current member of the Icelandic Parliament -- announced (on Twitter) that she had been notified by Twitter that the DOJ had served a Subpoena demanding information "about all my tweets and more since November 1st 2009." Several news outlets, including The Guardian, wrote about Jónsdóttir's announcement.
What hasn't been reported is that the Subpoena served on Twitter -- which is actually an Order from a federal court that the DOJ requested -- seeks the same information for numerous other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange. It also seeks the same information for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks' Twitter account.
The information demanded by the DOJ is sweeping in scope. It includes all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards. It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present. A copy of the Order served on Twitter is here...
What hasn't been reported is that the Subpoena served on Twitter -- which is actually an Order from a federal court that the DOJ requested -- seeks the same information for numerous other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange. It also seeks the same information for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks' Twitter account.
The information demanded by the DOJ is sweeping in scope. It includes all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards. It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present. A copy of the Order served on Twitter is here...
Continue reading
Glenn Greenwald @'Salon'
Searching Seizing Computers, Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations | DM Access, No Prob | PDF (big) http://bit.ly/gH17En
@exiledsurfer exiledsurfer
Seems like only yesterday the US vilified China for demanding Google turn over users' private data. #twitter#wikileaks http://is.gd/kkXL6
rop_g Rop Gonggrijp
For all these people that were asking: this kind of thing is why people run their own mail servers. Get it now?
RT @TechCrunch Twitter Informs Users Of DOJ WikiLeaks Court Order. Advises they contact EFF. http://tcrn.ch/h9s1B4
If anyone from @twitter legal is reading - I'd like confirm that I am contesting any subpoenas - I do not consent. My lawyer will call.
SoundCloud: The New Content Identification System
"Starting in the last few weeks we’ve turned on an automatic content identification system, similar to those used on other major media sharing sites. The system is used primarily for identifying audio that rightsholders have requested to be taken off SoundCloud. This is good news because it makes it easier for artists, labels and other content owners to control how the content they’ve created is available. And when you upload your own audio to SoundCloud, we can find out more quickly if somebody is uploading a copy to their own page without your permission.
For the vast majority of SoundCloud users, there won’t be any changes. You can keep on creating, recording and uploading original content (and any audio that you have the rights to upload) without any interruption. But we’ve already received some questions about this, so we wanted to give everyone the heads up.
In cases where users upload audio that is owned by rightsholders who have requested a takedown, we are hiding the upload entirely and sending an e-mail to explain the situation and give the user options for next steps. If you receive one of these e-mails and feel that the upload was flagged in error, because you actually have permission to upload the audio, there’s a simple dispute process. We’ll review the dispute, unhide the upload, and it will appear in your profile again with all stats and comments intact."
Read More Here
@birgittaj Birgitta Jónsdóttir
department of justice are requesting twitter to provide the info - i got 10 days to stop it via legal process before twitter hands it over.
Feds Subpoena Twitter Seeking Information on Ex-WikiLeaks Volunteer
2012 Australian of the Year Awards
As foreshadowed after missing out in the 2011 Awards selection process, Assange has now been formally re-nominated for the 2012 Australian of the Year Awards.
The nomination was made on 8 January 2011. The nomination reference is: 2012-1318.
You may use this reference number to submit supporting materials which you deem appropriate, before 31 August 2011, to the National Australia Day Council at: awardsinfo@australiaday.org.au
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
