Just announced that the founders of The Pirate Bay have been found guilty of breaking copyright laws.
They’ve been fined €2.7 million and given a year in prison.
No doubt they’ll appeal.
There’s an online news conference at 1pm Swedish Time (GMT+1 / CET).
The BBC have an article from Richard Stallman, (he of the Free Software Foundation), regarding Bill Gates recent departure from Microsoft. As with all of Stallmans articles, it’s a pitch for freedom of software. The article is released under a Creative Commons NoDerivs license, read it in full below the fold.
There’s a fantastic new game available at the moment, but it may not be around for long. In the last day or two, it’s popularity has gone threw the roof.
It’s called “Limbo of the Lost” and it’s yours, if you can find it, for the tidy sum of GBP£24.99. The best thing is that you don’t get just one game. No, you get 15 games and 4 movies! To keep. Yours forever.
How fantastic is that? Sounds too good to be true? Well, unfortunately, it is. You see you don’t get 15 full games and 4 full movies. You get bits and pieces of 15 games and a couple of scenes from each movie.
Despite being in development for 17 years, the writers obviously thought that they needed to flesh out the game a bit. So they borrowed bits and pieces from other games. It may have been an homage to some of the best games on the market, but who’s to know?
The distributors, Tri Synergy, don’t know as they’ve been unable to contact the developers. (Funny that.) In the meantime if you see these guys, shake their hands and say “thank you”, because how else would you get the opportunity to play so many of the top titles in one go?
The EU have announced plans to extend copyright periods from 50 years to 95 years. Arguing that the move would benefit session musicians and lesser known artists, Charlie McCreevy, the EU Internal Markets Commisioner, said that “copyright protection for Europe’s performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances”.
The copyright extension will only apply to the performance rights as the copyright for the publishing rights currently stands at the lifetime of the writer plus 70 years.
The extension has been backed by Robert Daltry of The Who and Cliff Richard.
I see that The Pirate Bay have been served with legal papers by a Swedish Prosecutor in relation to the Swedish Governments on-going investigation of copyright infringement. In fact they’ve been served with 4,000 pages of legal papers by the prosecutor. The Pirate Bay has obviously pissed off some very important people by keeping their servers up and running, even after they were seized by the Swedish Police last year.
In defence of The Pirate Bay, they don’t actually store any copyrighted material. The site may provide torrents that facilitate downloading of copyrighted material, but that’s different from actually providing the material itself.
The one thing that strikes me about cases of this nature is that in nearly all cases the initial complaint is raised by lobby groups on behalf of the recording and movie industries. After doing a quick and dirty check on The Pirate Bay, out of 908,903 torrents stored on their tracker, 255,787 are audio and video related, leaving 653,116 torrents that are classed as Applications, Games or Others. So where is the outcry from the software groups?
I’ll leave it up to you to decide why the recording industry is the most vocal critic of the bittorrent protocol, but lets just say that at least software developers have embraced the Internet and have devised other means of ensuring that users pay for their software. The recording industry is still stuck in the 1950’s, and unless they change their mindset quickly, they could find themselves dying a death.
Dozier Internet Law are an American company specialising in Internet and (US) copyright law. Their tag line is “We Protect the Reputations and the Intellectual Property of Businesses on the Web.”
For a company specialising in Internet law, they have some strange ideas. According to their User Agreement, it’s illegal to link to their site without written permission. Even more strangely, you’re not allowed look at the HTML source code for their website. Doing so infringes their intellectual property and violates their copyright – despite the fact that copyright law does not prevent you from viewing a work. It only prevents you from making an unauthorised copy. Unfortunately for Dozier Internet Law, every browser on the market will read the source code and make a copy when the site is viewed. Worse still, that copy is stored on the users hard-drive. So according to Dozier Internet Law, every single person who views their site is committing a breach of copyright law.
It gets better! Oh does it get better. The site was built using a program called Zope. Whoever built the Dozier Internet Law website left a whole lot of stuff turned on that they should not have – including the ability for anyone to upload files to the site. Of course, the Internet being the Internet, a whole lot of stuff has ended up on the Dozier Internet Law website that shouldn’t be there, including copyrighted works. So now Dozier Internet Law are breaking copyright law by making these copyright works available for download.
The games have begun, and guess who’s losing? That’s right Dozier Internet Law!
PS. For anyone from Dozier Internet Law, I’ve linked to your website a total of 13 times, and I’ve mentioned your company name 10 times.
By the way, here’s a screen shot of the source code for your website. It could do with a bit of cleaning up, there’s 4 errors and 52 warnings on the main page alone.
Welcome to the Streisand Effect. I haven’t linked to your “File Library” because there’s stuff on there that is illegal in quite a few countries, including Ireland. I may even have to report it to the relevant authorities. Tsk, tsk.
Over the past few years the issue of copyright on the Internet has become a decisive one. Which side of the fence do you stand on? Do you believe that information yearns to be free and that there should be no restrictions applied to creative works, or do you believe that hard work and talent should be compensated?
Which side you believe generally depends on whether you are a creator or consumer of artistic works. If you are a creator, then you’ll have a better understanding of the time and effort that goes into producing something original, and therefore will feel that paying to own something original is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if you are on the consumer side of the divide, then you won’t have that same understanding, and therefore will put a lesser value – or no value at all – on the works that you enjoy.
But who’s to say that we’re even observing the correct fence? Looking at the Open Source and Free Software movements will demonstrate that there are people who will dedicate their time to create something that will make them no money, but they do so for any number of other reasons: love of the work, pride in accomplishing something that no-one else has done, fame, the joy of solving a problem or just being able to help others. At the other side of this fence are consumers, who even though they are not required to pay for the end product, will still make a donation to help the cause. They perceive that the end product has a value, and are willing to prove it through their donations.
Even though Open Source or Free Software may not cost you anything to use, they are still covered by copyright, or “copyleft” as some advocates like to refer to it. Whether it be the GNU General Public License (GPL), the BSD License, a Creative Commons License (CC), or any of the myriad of other available Open Source licenses, each work is still protected to some extent. Which one that is used can depend as much on the beliefs of the author(s), as much as what they want to achieve by opening their work to the public.
The reason that I’m posting on this topic is that I came across a story recently that highlights some of the problems with copyleft licenses, or more precisely what can happen when their meaning is misunderstood. The story goes like this: a major international company used the picture of a young girl in a national advertising campaign. The photograph they used had been taken from Flickr. The photograph in question, along with several others used in the same campaign, had been posted by the user under a Creative Commons license. This license allowed for commercial use of the image so long as the owner was accredited. The company involved did credit the owner by including their Flickr URL on the advertisement.
So far the terms of the license were adhered to. What makes this into a major story is the fact that the person in the photograph is easily identifiable, is under the age of 18, and was not asked for her permission to have her image used in this way. Given these circumstances, there is an argument to be made that the company should have obtained written permission from the young person and her parents to use her image, regardless of how the actual image was licensed. The owner of image was also unaware that licensing their work under this specific Creative Commons license would allow it to be used in commercially.
In this case there are possible misunderstandings on both sides of the fence – because the work was released under a Creative Commons license the company involved did not believe that they needed a release form, and the owner who released it under that license did not understand the implications of doing so.
This brings me back to my original argument, whether you agree with copyright or not depends on whether you are a consumer or a creator. This time round the creator is the small guy, and the consumer is the multinational corporation.