RIAA dumps dodgy detectivesTactical retreatBy Egan OrionMonday, 5 January 2009, 15:24NOT HAVING actually understood that harassing and suing its customers isn't really a good idea, the Big Music MAFIAA has nonetheless dumped one crew of clowns that was doing the harassing. However, it's not an admission of defeat but just a change of tactics.The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the RIAA stopped employing Mediasentry, the company that had provided 'evidence' that the RIAA had used to file lawsuits against people it alleged had unlawfully distributed copyrighted music files.Based upon information gathered by Mediasentry, the RIAA filed lawsuits against about 35,000 people on behalf of its recording company members.By abusing some amendments to US federal copyright law intended to punish mass-scale copyright infringement - which had been drafted for it by the (legally) bribed US Congress - the RIAA sued people for sharing relatively few music files over the Internet.At least some, and perhaps many, of the individuals accused by Mediasentry and the RIAA were and are innocent of illegal file-sharing, however.Furthermore, Mediasentry operated as an unlicenced private investigative agency, which is patently illegal in many if not all states. Mediasentry and its officers and employees may therefore be exposed to civil liability if not potential criminal sanctions.Mediasentry's activities have been criticised as invasive and ineffective. Ray Beckerman, the New York lawyer who runs the Recording Industry vs The People consumer rights blog, claims Mediasentry agents "have been invading the privacy of people. They've been doing very sloppy work."According to Beckerman and court records, Mediasentry would scan the music files in a person's file-sharing directories and download them as evidence of copyright violations.But using that method, Mediasentry couldn't prove that the person shared those files with anyone besides Mediasentry. And of course Mediasentry had the permission of the RIAA and its member companies to access those music files, so sharing those files with it wasn't unlawful distribution amounting to copyright infringement.The RIAA had argued that merely 'making available' the music files constituted copyright infringement. Yet, last April, a court struck down the RIAA's argument, ruling that the US Copyright Act requires that the RIAA has to prove actual unlawful distribution in order to establish copyright infringement.The RIAA's victory in its only copyright infringement case ever to go to trial was thrown out for that reason, and a new trial in that case is pending... a trial that it is now almost certain to lose, again for that reason.However, intimidated by the potentially ruinous expenses of defending themselves against such litigation, many of the Music MAFIAA's victims paid - even if innocent - what in effect amounted to extortionate 'settlements'.In some cases, young people lost their college savings, and no doubt other individuals and families were forced to pay amounts that created financial hardships for them. Such cases are continuing, because the RIAA hasn't said it will drop any lawsuits it has already filed.Last month the RIAA announced that it would cease filing new lawsuits against people it suspects of copyright infringement. Instead, the RIAA said it will pressure ISPs to enforce its recorded music oligopoly. That's not likely to work out well for it either, one suspects.And the RIAA has said it's going to replace Mediasentry with the Danish company Dtecnet.So the RIAA hasn't actually 'seen the light' in any sense. Rather, it's simply been forced to fall back. More legal work is still needed to defeat the MAFIAA, but at least it is losing. µ
Obama to nominate tech-savvy progressive at the FCCAdvocate for public interestsBy Egan OrionWednesday, 14 January 2009, 12:51PRESIDENT-ELECT Barack Obama plans to nominate his campaign's technology advisor, Julius Genachowski, as the chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).During the campaign, Genachowski promoted a progressive platform for communications technology and innovation supporting protection of net neutrality, the rollout of affordable broadband nationwide, strengthening citizen and consumer privacy rights, and breaking up the current concentration of US media ownership. Big US corporations won't be pleased.Internet users, privacy advocates and the press will likely approve of the nomination. Josh Silver, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Free Press, said in a statement, "Under Julius Genachowski's leadership, the FCC's compass would point toward the public interest."Other progressives also voiced approval of such a shift in the direction of FCC policies.The US telecommunications and big media oligopolies look to be in for some rough years. µ
RIAA lies exposedLittle relation to the factsBy Emma HughesFriday, 6 February 2009, 12:34THE RIAA HAS BEEN OUTED as a lying toad as it claimed in a letter sent out on December 23rd last year that it was discontinuing lawsuits when in fact, this was simply not the case.Mitch Bainwol’s letter to the Congressional Committees claimed that the Recording Industry Association of America "discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August."Of course this information was taken as red, yet after a bit of digging around, this was found to be utter tosh.After locating the text of the letter and reading its lies some cases were found to prove the exact opposite, here are just a handful.Arista Records v. Estrada 08-8135 C.D. California 12/10/08UMG Recordings v. Haralambos 08-8129 C.D. California 12/10/08SONY BMG Music v. Estrada 08-2682 D. Colorado 12/10/08Interscope Records v. Doe 6 08-1882 D. Connecticut 12/10/08Arista Records v. Doe 4 08-1877 D. Connecticut 12/10/08Interscope Records v. Doe 5 08-1284 D. Connecticut 12/10/08Interscope Records v. Doe 2 08-1878 D. Connecticut 12/10/08As any five year old could work out, these were filed in December 2008, four whole months after the RIAA "discontinued initiating new lawsuits.”The letter contains further tripe, such as, “When we originally initiated the litigation program some five years ago, we made clear that law suits were not our preffered response” – hundreds of lawsuits beg to differ.The letter also claims that kids are now up-to-date with how digital file sharing works, and understand that it is illegal – it doesn’t mention however that they don’t give two hoots.You can read the rubbish for yourself, or if you fancy something with a bit more honesty you can always pick up a copy of The Sun. μ
RIAA lied to the US CongressStill chasing file sharersBy Nick FarrellThursday, 7 May 2009, 11:15THE RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA lied to Congress when it said that it would stop pursuing individual file-sharers.In April the RIAA told US lawmakers that it was not going to chase individual file-sharers any more and was going to stop dragging grannies, homeless people and kids into court using dodgy evidence obtained by methods that seemed to break some state laws.According to Ray Beckerman, the lawyer who runs the Recording Industry vs. The People blog, the music labels had filed new cases in April.Now it seems that the RIAA's pledge did not cover cases that were already in process as "John Doe" cases or where settlement letters had already gone out.An RIAA spokesperson told Ars Technica that it was just being fair to all those people it sued before.It said that it would be unfair to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their cases if others who stood up to the RIAA threats were let off the hook. µClick here to find out more!
France forgets freedomMusic and film industries get police powersBy Nick FarrellWednesday, 13 May 2009, 11:26THE NATION that once chopped the head off a feckless king, and whose people gallantly resisted a fascist occupation, has just seen the liberté of its people betrayed by their own corrupt, corporate-owned politicians.The French Assembly has voted to give the music and film industries the power to switch off the Internet access of anyone who they accuse of pirating copyrighted files. No evidence will be required nor will any court of law. ISPs will be notified directly by the music and film industries. Upon the third notice Internet users will be disconnected for a year but will still have to pay their ISP charges.It is the first time that a Western government has applied the same authoritarian powers to copyright enforcement that it had for terrorism, those of punishment without rights to trial.What is even more scary is that France has delegated that power to a private cartel rather than the civil authorities. A person does not have to be a found guilty of anything under French law to be disconnected from the Internet, Big Entertainment has merely to make an accusation.The move, which tosses hundreds of years of constitutional freedom away, was made at the order of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.The National Assembly, which is dominated by Sarkozy's right-wing party, passed the bill by a vote of 296 to 233, and the measure was set to go before the Senate for an anticipated rubber stamp of final approval today.Philippe Gosselin, a deputy from the governing UMP party said that "even if" Internet access were a basic right, it must be reconciled with other fundamental rights including respect for intellectual property.The law requires a state agency known by the acronym Hadopi to be established to track and punish those accused of illegally trafficking in music and movies on the Internet. However these copyright cops will operate at the beck and call of the content providers, not civil authorities. They will have power over Internet service providers to order warning letters and shut downs.Socialist deputy Patrick Bloche, who voted against the bill, called it a "law of intimidation" that amounted to "a lose-lose situation for artists and for Internet users." He intends to ask the Constitutional Council, France's highest legal authority, to rule on the constitutionality of the law.The law is also likely to conflict with superceding European Union law which requires that the basic rights of Internet users cannot be restricted without a court order.Similar plans in New Zealand were derailed by public protests earlier this year. Britain, Germany and Sweden have decided against such so-called 'three-strikes' Internet cut-off measures.The French are thought to be about ready to take up pitchforks and torches, as well they should.
Tame RIAA politicians denounce other countriesCanada could be invadedBy Nick FarrellThursday, 21 May 2009, 12:02THE RIAA has got its tame politicians in the US congress to rail at other nations that don't hold such a jack-booted attitude toward copyright infringement as the Land of the Free.Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain were damned by the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus for tolerating "alarming levels" of infringement of copyrighted movies, music, video games and other entertainment.Quoting RIAA figures claiming that lack of copyright enforcement in these countries costs its corporate members billions of dollars and the US "millions of jobs", the caucus slammed China in particular.According to the AP, the caucus said the Chinese government pretends to honour copyrights but still allows "piracy" to flourish in the online marketplace via an array of nefarious illegal websites, file storage sites and user generated content sites.It singled out Baidu, China's largest Internet search engine, as being "responsible for the vast majority of illegal music downloading in China." That's interesting, because Baidu does the same thing as Google which, as a powerful US company, the music industry has not dared to denounce.The report said that while Russia has made "some progress" in respecting intellectual property rights over the past few years, "much work remains before we can support Russia's accession to the rules-based World Trade Organisation [WTO]."In other words it is calling on the US government to oppose Russia's entry into the WTO until it toes the line on enforcing entertainment industry copyrights, if not a return to Cold War rhetoric.Never mind any more important issues like regional political tensions, human rights or European access to Russian energy supplies, for no more important issues than copyright enforcement exist, in the eyes of the Big Music cartel and its tame US politicians.It seems almost as though the entertainment mafiaa would like the US to mount a cross-border raid into Canada over its perceived lack of draconian copyright enforcement and wants the US to treat its NATO ally Spain as a pariah for having the temerity to say that peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet isn't a crime.While there is no indication that US President Obama will make the grave mistake of listening to the music and film industries and allowing them to influence his administration's foreign policy, the lawmakers' statement does show how much power the RIAA thinks it has in Washington, DC.Unless the power of this US-based entertainment lobby is reined in, all sense of perspective might be lost. If the Big Music Mafiaa would have its way, World War Three might then be started over a file-shared Britney Spears tune or copy of Rocky 9, with NATO allies the first to be nuked. µClick here to find out more!
US relaxes grip on the internetBy Jonathan FildesTechnology reporter, BBC News The US government has relaxed its control over how the internet is run.It has signed a four-page "affirmation of commitments" with the net regulator Icann, giving the body autonomy for the first time.Previous agreements gave the US close oversight of Icann - drawing criticism from other countries and groups.The new agreement comes into effect on 1 October, exactly 40 years since the first two computers were connected on the prototype of the net."It's a beautifully historic day," Rod Beckstrom, Icann's head, told BBC News.The European Commission, which has long been critical of Icann's alliance with the US government, welcomed the new deal."Internet users worldwide can now anticipate that Icann's decisions...will be more independent and more accountable, taking into account everyone's interests," said Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for information society and media.'Global system'The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) is a not-for-profit private sector corporation - set up by the US government - to oversee critical parts of the internet, such as the top-level domain (TLD) name system. Top level domains include .com and .uk.Since its inception in 1998, it has periodically signed accords - known collectively as the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) - with the US Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration. These papers meant that the US government was responsible for reviewing the work of the body.These have now been abandoned in favour of the new "affirmation of commitments", a brief document which turns the review process over to the global "internet community"."Under the JPA, Icann staff would conduct reviews and hand them over to the US government," explained Mr Beckstrom."Now we submit those reviews to the world and post them publically for all to comment."In addition, independent review panels - including representatives of foreign governments - would specifically oversee Icann's work in three specific areas: security, competition and accountability.The US will retain a permanent seat on the accountability panel.Mr Beckstrom said the decision to break away from the US government in all other areas had been made "over the last year and a half"."Stakeholders told us that the JPA should not be renewed and that it wasn't appropriate for it to be renewed," he told BBC News."It is also recognition by the US government that the internet is a global system."The internet began as a research project by the US military, known as Arpanet.On 1 October 1969, the second computer was connected to the network, said Mr Beckstrom. Ever since, the US has paid close attention to the workings and growth of the net."Today's announcement bolsters the long-term viability of the internet as a force for innovation, economic growth, and freedom of expression," said US Assistant Secretary for communications and information Lawrence Strickling."This framework puts the public interest front and centre."Businesses have also welcomed the change of direction by the US."Google and its users depend every day on a vibrant and expanding internet; we endorse this affirmation and applaud the maturing of Icann's role in the provision of internet stability," said Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.However, the new agreement does not totally sever the links between the US government and Icann entirely.In addition, Icann also has a separate agreement with the US - to run the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) - that expires in 2011.The IANA oversees the net's addressing system.
US Congress wants warnings on P2P softwareNanny state for the great unwashedBy Ian WilliamsFriday, 2 October 2009, 16:10WARNING MESSAGES about piracy could soon start appearing in peer-to-peer (P2P) applications if the US Congress passes proposed legislation.The bill would be a substitute to the HR 1319 Act and has been proposed by Representitive Henry Waxman, who said that he hopes to "prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information on a computer through certain P2P file sharing programs without first providing notice and obtaining consent from an owner or authorised user of the computer".The Informed P2P User Act (PDF), put forward by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sets out rules aimed at curbing the inadvertent sharing of illegal and sensitive information by providing a "clear and conspicuous notice", and requiring the "informed consent" of the user before files are shared.The legislation also lays out rules to prevent any surreptitious installations of P2P software, insisting that users must be warned before the software is installed and must be able to uninstall it easily if they want to.The bill describes P2P software as all applications that make files on a user's computer "available for searching and copying to one or more other computers", or allows "the searching of files on the computer on which such program is installed and the copying of any such file to another computer".If the motion is passed in the US, a similar proposition could then be made for the European Union and other jurisdictions.Despite the vast number of legitimate uses for P2P applications, the software is often regarded solely as a channel for the dissemination of pirated content, and application developers and torrent sites have both come under heavy fire over the years.Similarly, the debates by the EU and the US Federal Communications Commission about net neutrality could have a fundamental impact on the future of technologies like P2P, which is viewed by many ISPs as a major drain on resources and something over which they have little or no control.Another US representative, Democrat Edolphus Towns, is also pushing for P2P and similar file-sharing applications to be banned from government computers and those of government contractors to help avoid sensitive information being accidentally, or intentionally, leaked.
US to regulate bloggersLand of the Free regulates pressBy Some BlaggerTuesday, 6 October 2009, 09:49THE US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided that it will have a go at regulating bloggers.In an attempt to ensure honesty in the trade, the FTC wants to require writers on the web to disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.Under the move if a blogger says a product is great, and fails to mention they were allowed to keep it, they could be fined $11,000.Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.The FTC wants to end the practice of manufacturers paying reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland.However it is based on the somewhat strange belief that "traditional journalism" is above reproach and return products borrowed for reviews. Apparently they are not bribed to attend events by companies either.In fact what is dubbed "low level corruption" is fairly endemic amongst technology magazines where free stuff appears at a hack's request or blagging as it is known in the trade.This method of bribing the writer will not be covered by the rules. A writer who gets a free bit of software as part of a promotion wouldn't violate FTC guidelines if he writes about the product on his blog.However if they were given the same software to review and were paid or rewarded with something else then they could be facing a fine. µ
Government backs down on cutting off filesharersCourt orders now neededBy Alexandra PullinWednesday, 21 October 2009, 16:24CULTURE SECRETARY Ben Bradshaw has revealed that, due to strong opposition, measures to tackle illegal filesharing will be watered down.Under the new scheme copyright holders will need a court order before they can punish persistent illegal filesharers.This differs from the action that had been suggested by business secretary Lord Mandelson earlier this year, coincidentally just after having spent time as a guest of music publisher David Geffen in Greece.Princess Mandy had said that Internet service providers would be forced to hand over to music companies and film studios information on customers who used illegal filesharing sites so that they could take action.This original tactic was seen by many as being too heavy-handed. Now those targeted would also have the right to appeal.Bradshaw told the House of Common's culture, media and sport committee that this measure is to protect innocent people who could be cut off from the Internet 'willy nilly', merely if they were accused.Bradshaw said, "The suspension... would be as a very last resort for serial and serious infringement, [and] would be subject to a strict two-stage process."A court order would come at the end of the process and would not be needed in the vast majority of cases. He said that secondly there would be a right of appeal. This lighter solution is likely to be contained in a Digital Britain bill this year.Deloitte Media Partner James Alexander said, "It is excellent that the Digital Britain bill will try to tackle illegal file sharing, it simply cannot be ignored. Unfortunately there is no silver bullet for finding the filesharers that are really costing businesses."This scheme will certainly deter the naive who do not realise that they are acting illegally. However the more technically savvy will have sophisticated protective measure to stop them being found. It is this element that is costing music and film industries a lot of money. Going in with a blunt instrument results in greater effort and greater costs to the taxpayer."Downloading content illegally will earn you a strongly worded warning letter at present. Internet service providers and content owners have long been in dispute about whether ISPs should hand over confidential information about their customers, and who should meet the cost of disconnecting them. µ
Government to crack down on filesharersMandy has a planBy Alexandra Pullin and Egan OrionWednesday, 28 October 2009, 14:38BUSINESS SECRETARY Lord Mandelson has said that he is 'confident' that parliament will approve his plan to stop illegal filesharing.Speaking today at the Cabinet creative industries conference, Mandleson said he wants to crack down on peer-to-peer filesharing with a three-pronged approach.His clever scheme will start with warning notifications for those suspected of filesharing. If such letters are ignored, or not delivered or lost, this will be followed up with targeted legal action by the rights holders.Mandy reckons that the Government allowing rights holders to drag punters into civil courts, merely based on their unsubstantiated allegations of illegal filesharing, should be the only enforcement required to put people off.He apparently didn't address the obvious concern that permitting the copyright cartels to sue people for damages without even the legal protections afforded common criminal defendants would likely present thousands of Brits with the choice of either paying rights holders whatever amounts they demand - possibly hundreds or thousands of pounds - or alternatively, having to pay ruinous legal fees to defend themselves.That's how such practices have worked out so far in the US, with the RIAA having sued people seemingly at random based upon scant evidence, all of which has been collected by unlicenced private investigators. Some of those people sued, it has turned out, did not even own a computer.Most people sued by these hyenas have simply paid them to avoid the legal expense of defending against the copyright MAFIAA's allegations.But just in case threating people with the choice between given in to what would amount to legal muggers' demands or paying staggering legal fees doesn't work, the Government will have reserve powers to issue an order requiring ISPs to invoke 'technical measures'. These we assume would include actions such as blocking offending subscribers' IP ports and degrading their Internet bandwidth, again without evidence that wrong-doing had occurred or that the subscriber was responsible for it being required. Lastly, as if all these foregoing abuses wouldn't be outrageous enough, Internet suspension will be used as a final resort."Only persistent rule breakers would be affected," said Lord Mandy. "There would be an independent, clear and easy appeals process to ensure that the correct infringer is penalised." Somehow we're not reassured.He also appealed to ISPs and the creative industries to work with Government to ensure there is a balance of education, enforcement and new business models to discourage illegal downloaders, and other such blather.He confirmed that proposals set out in the recent consultation on unlawful file-sharing would form the basis of measures in the Digital Economy Bill.We'd like to tell him where to stick it, and rather hope that more than a few MPs will. µ
House, Senate get separate bills to kill net neutralityWith the FCC launching a rule-making proceeding on net neutrality, a pair of bills have been introduced to Congress that would bar the FCC from issuing "any regulations regarding the Internet."By Nate Anderson | Last updated October 30, 2009 12:50 PM CTReal argument about "network neutrality" is fascinating stuff, provocative and well worth anyone's time if they care about the Internet. Unfortunately, Congress isn't great at having intelligent arguments, and net neutrality is rapidly on its way to becoming the latest victim of the Sound Bite Wars.Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each introduced an anti-net neutrality bill into their respective chambers. McCain's is known as the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009," but Blackburn's is billed as (seriously) the "Real Stimulus Act of 2009" (PDF).This "real stimulus" consists of a single line, which is identical in both bills: "The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." While the bills target network neutrality, they appear to go much further by banning any sort of new rules on all IP services.It's clear why that is: McCain and Blackburn both see broad and nefarious implications to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski's attempt to codify network neutrality into rule. Blackburn, for instance, says that net neutrality "ironically would make the Internet less neutral by allowing the FCC to regulate it in the same way it regulates radio and television broadcasts." She also says that the rules are akin to "the imposition of a fairness doctrine on the Internet." And there's more irony: "ironically, government intervention would hamper industry’s ability to protect intellectual property online and crack down on piracy."McCain went even further in a recent op-ed, calling net neutrality "a government takeover of the Internet." It's not clear what this means, since the government isn't taking a new stake in any part of "the Internet" and is proposing to regulate Internet access, not content.McCain also charges that "the administration can't resist imposing regulations on the Internet—particularly since Google Inc. and other Internet content providers were promised the imposition of such regulations as these companies seek to control what consumers see and don't see on the Internet."And he praises "the light-touch regulatory approach toward the Internet that was put forth by previous administrations," which "has brought Americans social networking, low-cost long-distance calling, texting, telemedicine and over 85,000 almighty 'apps' for the iPhone." This light-touch regulatory approach would include the Republican-adopted Internet policy statement (the "four freedoms" that Genachowski wants to codify into rules), the Republican-led effort to censure Comcast for interfering with P2P transmission, and the Republican preference for case-by-case decision-making rather than detailed rules (an approach kept in the current draft of the neutrality rules).The last part of the op-ed calls "an open and unfettered Internet" the "real stimulus during these difficult economic times," which probably explains where Blackburn picked up her bill's tagline this week."Regulation kills innovation," McCain ends. "Let's not kill the Internet."We certainly agree; let's not kill the Internet. But let's have a better public debate about it, one that (for instance) honestly wrestles with the chart below. Produced by Harvard researchers for the FCC (but funded independently), it graphs the costs and speeds of the fastest broadband offerings of providers from all over the world. The high-priced, low-speed options are in the lower-left, while the low-priced, high-speed options are in the upper right. We have highlighted the US ISPs on the chart with red boxes just to drive the point home.
Congress locks radio stations, record labels into boardroomRadio doesn't want to pay more to play music; music labels don't want radio to keep free-riding. How to settle this blood feud? Congress has ordered both sides into a Capitol Hill conference room for two weeks, and it will vote on whatever emerges.By Nate Anderson | Last updated November 2, 2009 7:33 PM CTRadio broadcasters and music labels are at each other's throats over the question of whether radio ought to pay "performance rights" to rightsholders when it plays their music on the air (currently, only songwriters get paid, not artists or labels). And Congress has a plan to settle the issue: lock both sides into a Capitol Hill conference room for a couple of weeks until a negotiated compromise is reached, then vote on whatever the two sides decide.The Performance Rights Act would clear up a discrepancy in performance rights; satellite radio and webcasters currently pay performance fees to artists, but radio does not, thanks to a longstanding exemption in copyright law. The bill has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, so all that remains is to hold a vote in each chamber, and the PRA could become law.Before that happens, the two main antagonists are being called in to negotiate the final text of the bill. A letter from the leaders of both committees today asked the broadcasters and the music people to send representatives with "decision-making authority" over to Capitol Room HC-7 on November 17. The idea is to negotiate something that each side can live with, rather than just impose something on an outraged party, and the negotiations will last until December 1.Congressional members and staffers from the two committees will lead the talks, and Congress' letter shows an endearing faith in the power of the spoken word and of cramped conference rooms to produce results. "With your good faith participation," it reads, "we are confident that an acceptable and mutually beneficial resolution to this longstanding disagreement can be found."Only two groups are invited: the National Association of Broadcasters and the musicFIRST coalition, made up of SoundExchange, the RIAA, and A2IM, which represents many indie labels. And one of those groups is happy to be going."musicFIRST will participate in the discussions hosted by members and staff of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees," said Jennifer Bendall, musicFIRST's executive director. "We have always said we are ready to sit down with NAB and others in the music radio business to create a performance right that is fair to artists, musicians and rights holders and fair to radio."Note that Bendall is ready to sit down and "create a performance right," not negotiate about whether such a right is warranted. The fact that two Congressional committees have already approved the PRA means that Bendall is probably right; the negotiations will focus on the "how" question rather than "should we?"Broadcasters continue to resent the entire idea of paying a performance fee to artists, pointing out that it's the rightsholders who have routinely paid radio (i.e., "payola") to promote various new artists. Surely this proves radio's unique hitmaking and promotional power, and provides the reason it should remain exempt for such payments.But with label revenues in decline over the decade, a radio performance right is a pretty tempting couch cushion under which rightsholders can look for spare change.Update: The NAB weighed in this afternoon, saying that it "is of course willing to talk with members of Congress on this issue and any issue that could negatively impact the ability of free and local hometown radio stations to serve our listeners. We would hope that any discussions would also include the nearly 300 members of Congress who oppose the RIAA-backed bill."The group continues to push the Local Radio Freedom Act, which opposes new performance fees on (terrestrial) radio, and pointedly included in its statement a complete list of all 252 House reps and 27 Senators who it says are on its side in the dispute.
The end of US Internet freedom loomsAll in the fine printBy Nick FarrellWednesday, 4 November 2009, 16:00WHILE MANY HAVE WELCOMED the unfettered reign of the Internet service providers (ISPs) coming to an end in the US in favour of network neutrality, a team of learned legal minds has warned that all might not be as it seems.The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided that it will police the Internet to make sure that the large ISPs - telecom and cable companies, mostly - do not force a two-tiered Internet on the American public.However a group of prominent law professors has warned the FCC that buried in the fine print of its proposed Net Neutrality rules are potential loopholes that if left open could be exploited by the ISPs in connivance with the entertainment cartels to undermine the future of Internet freedom.Columbia University Law School professor and Free Press board chair Tim Wu told the Washington Post about the letter (PDF) after submitting it to the FCC.Wu's co-authors included Stanford Law professor Barbara van Shewick, Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, Yale Law School's Jack Balkin, South Texas College of Law professor John Blevins and University of Louisville School of Law's Jim Chen.They said that the FCC's proposed rules don't sufficiently define what the commission means by its use of the terms "non-discrimination" and "reasonable network management".The law professors agree that the FCC should police the ISPs, but it wants them to have a set of rules that the telecoms and cable firms can't slip out of like the slippery eels that they are.Using these loopholes the ISPs could block subscribers in the same way that occurred in 2007 when Comcast secretly blocked and stifled its customers' Internet access, effectively preventing or hindering subscribers' use of filesharing applications such as Bit Torrent, the letter warns.If ISPs have too much leeway that will effectively eliminate Net Neutrality, so it is important that the FCC should be clear as to what it believes the standards should be, they wrote.Indeed, the devil is in the details, we reckon, so it will be crucial that the FCC get this right. µ
