Hey! That's MY Excuse, RIAA

[AUChizad]

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-through-out-ip-addresses-111221/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29

RIAA: Someone Else Is Pirating Through Our IP-Addresses

A few days ago we reported that no less than 6 IP-addresses registered to the RIAA had been busted for downloading copyrighted material. Quite a shocker to everyone – including the music industry group apparently – as they are now using a defense previously attempted by many alleged file-sharers. It wasn’t members of RIAA staff who downloaded these files, the RIAA insists, it was a mysterious third party vendor who unknowingly smeared the group’s good name.

Over the past week we’ve had fun looking up what governments, Fortune 500 companies, and even the most dedicated anti-piracy groups download on BitTorrent. All we had to do is put their IP-addresses into the search form on YouHaveDownloaded and hit after hit appeared.

To our surprise, we found out that even IP-addresses registered to the RIAA were showing unauthorized downloads of movies, TV-shows and software.

This curiosity was quickly picked up by other news outlets to whom the RIAA gave a rather interesting explanation. Apparently these file-sharing transactions weren’t carried out by RIAA staffers, but by a third party who’s using the RIAA IP-addresses to share and distribute files online.

“Those partial IP addresses are similar to block addresses assigned to RIAA. However, those addresses are used by a third party vendor to serve up our public Web site,” a spokesperson told CNET, adding, “As I said earlier, they are not used by RIAA staff to access the Internet.”

This is all a bit confusing. First of all, the addresses are not similar, they are simply assigned to the RIAA. Everyone can look that up here, or here.

Secondly, while we are prepared to believe that RIAA staff didn’t download these files, we are left wondering what mysterious third party did. Also, is it even allowed by the official registry to register a range of IP-addresses to your private organization, and then allow others to use these IPs?

Also, just as a bit of friendly advice, it’s generally not a good idea to let others use your organization’s addresses to browse the internet. This time it’s “just” copyrighted material up for debate, but who knows what else they may be sharing online.

Considering the RIAA’s past of suing tens of thousands of file-sharers for copyright infringement, the excuse is perhaps even more embarrassing than taking full responsibility. When some of the 20,000 plus people who were sued by the RIAA over the years used the “someone else did it” excuse this was shrugged off by the music group’s lawyers. Can these people have their money back now? We doubt it.


Whois pirating?


Elsewhere, Henrik Chulu from the Free Culture blog discovered that someone at the infamous Johan Schlüter law firm downloaded the Danish movie ‘Dirch’. But Maria Fredenslund from anti-piracy group RettighedsAliancen had their excuse ready.

“We’re working for right holders, who obviously have given us permission to collect their material online as part of an investigative work,” she told Comon.dk in response.

Notably, Sarkozy is staying quiet and not attempting to justify any infringements carried out in his name. Perhaps a case of least said, soonest mended…

[AUChizad]

Anti SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) rap song.

 

[AUChizad]

Frankly, I'm shocked at the low level of rage this bill has provoked.

I guess most people don't understand what's going on?

Basically, if this passes, it's the end of the Internet as we know it. Welcome to communist China.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/00315917151/mythbusters-adam-savage-why-protect-ip-sopa-could-destroy-internet-as-we-know-it.shtml

MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
from the speak-up dept

One of the more interesting things that I've seen over the last few months as the SOPA/PIPA fight has become more involved, is that people I respect in the entertainment industry itself have been speaking out against the bill, and talking about how horrible it would be -- even though they work "in the industry." The latest is famed MythBuster's host Adam Savage, who recently admitted that he's a "serious copyright law geek" (in linking to Bill Patry's excellent new book, which I'll have a writeup on relatively soon). Savage is using his column space at Popular Mechanics to rip apart PIPA and SOPA, urging people to call their elected officials in protest of the bills, and noting that they "would be laughable if they weren't in fact real."

    Think of all the stories you've read over the past 14 years of people slapping DMCA takedowns of content that they didn't own, just because they didn't like what it had to say. One that comes to mind is Uri Gellar, the popular psychic who performed spoon bending and other tricks on TV in the 1970s. Using a DMCA claim, he had YouTube pull videos of him being humiliated during a 1973 appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, when he had no copyright claim to them at all.

    This is exactly what will happen with Protect IP and SOPA. We've seen it again and again. Give people a club like this and you can kiss the Internet as you know it goodbye. It's really that bad. And it's a clear violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.

    The Internet is probably the most important technological advancement of my lifetime. Its strength lies in its open architecture and its ability to allow a framework where all voices can be heard. Like the printing press before it (which states also tried to regulate, for centuries), it democratizes information, and thus it democratizes power. If we allow Congress to pass these draconian laws, we'll be joining nations like China and Iran in filtering what we allow people to see, do, and say on the Web.

Again, Savage is the kind of person that the industry is claiming needs this law -- and yet he's clearly vehemently against it. When you see the US Chamber of Commerce dump out their bogus line about "19 million jobs in IP-intensive industries," that includes Savage and all of his colleagues at MythBusters. How much longer will we let Tepp, the US Chamber of Commerce and the MPAA pretend that they represent the will of people who are actually very much against these bills and everything they represent?

Conservative Blog RedState.com

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/

Stopping SOPA

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Thursday, December 22nd at 8:50PM EST

I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress.

And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid.

I wonder if the left feels that way about Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Both Marsha Blackburn and Debbie Wasserman Schults, the head of the Democratic National Committee and a Congresswoman from Florida, are cosponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like. It is a totalitarian response from a bipartisan coalition of Congresscritters most of whom admit they have no freaking idea how the internet even works. Don’t believe me?

In a committee hearing on SOPA, co-sponsor Mel Watts (D-NC) was really open about it saying, “I’m not a nerd” before proceeding to admit he understood nothing about the law, how the internet worked, or pretty much anything else related to it.

The legislation originated with Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX). As Neil Stevens explained in detail here the legislation will wreck terrible havoc on the internet. There is an alternative called the OPEN Act, which stands for Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act. The OPEN Act accomplishes what SOPA intends to accomplish without handing Eric Holder the power to shut down websites that make him unhappy. Another big difference is that SOPA is backed by rich men in Hollywood and the OPEN Act is backed by people who actually use the internet and know how it works.

This battle is so important — and is one of those rare fights where the left and right are united against Congress — that I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

It’s actually a simple idea.

Everyone on the left and right who is interested should pledge $10.00 per candidate, or $321.00. If that’s too much, just pledge $10.00.

A fund should be created and the left should go out and find candidates to take on the Democrat sponsors. The right should go out and find candidates to take on the Republican sponsors. Heck, maybe Act Blue would let us on the right come by and we can all use their pre-existing platform (a platform no one on the right has even been able to really compete with. Seriously, I’m a big admirer).

The money should then be used to fund the primary challenges against the incumbent sponsors of SOPA. Let the right vet and direct the funding on the right so no one thinks the left is trying to pick the challenger and vice-versa on the left.

This might mean some allies are taken out. It might mean we take out Marsha Blackburn on the right and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left.

But sometimes a fight is that important. Killing SOPA is that important. Letting the Attorney General of the United States shut down the internet as he wants, whether it be Eric Holder or a future John Ashcroft, should scare the mess out of every American.

Congress has proven it does not understand the internet. Perhaps they will understand brute strength against them at the ballot box.

If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them.

Co-founder of Reddit Alexis Ohanian

[AUChizad]

Also, GoDaddy supports SOPA and are basically mocking people that say they're boycotting them.

The boycott started here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/

GoDaddy doesn't give a fuck.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars

GoDaddy seems unimpressed by the boycott so far. They made the following statement to Ars Technica: "Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations."

Easy step-by-step guide to transferring all of your domains from GoDaddy:
http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-guide-to-transfer-domains-out-of-godaddy

[AUChizad]

Ben Huh, "Teh CEO of Cheezburger (I Can Has Cheezburger?, FAIL Blog, The Daily What, Memebase, Know Your Meme, etc.) "
https://twitter.com/#!/benhuh/status/149965881479397376

We will move our 1,000 domains off @godaddy unless you drop support of SOPA. We love you guys, but #SOPA-is-cancer to the Free Web.

[AUChizad]

Automattic founder and Wordpress creator (a technology we use here at the X) Matt Mullenweg tweeted a link this morning to GoDaddyBoycott.org, a site that encourages users to sign an online petition against GoDaddy and pledge to transfer their domains away from the service. The site looks to be an extension of Fight For the Future, an anti-SOPA advocacy site.

http://godaddyboycott.org/

[AUChizad]

[AUChizad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111029/07003216560/go-daddy-supports-e-parasite-legislation-even-though-its-own-site-is-dedicated-to-theft-property-under-terms-bill.shtml

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm going to need a tl;dr version of this story. 

So SOPA prevents people from illegally downloading content that is copyrighted?  Or it stops TigersX from existing? 

Just wondering how this actually affects me.

[AUChizad]

If SOPA passes, it is the end of TigersX, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google, megaupload...virtually anything and everything you use on the Internet.

Basically it is enabling the entertainment industry to send people to federal prison for LINKING to material that THEY say is copyrighted material, even if it's not.

[AUChizad]

[Townhallsavoy]

A couple of issues with the video you posted:

It said it aims to stop unauthorized material from being posted on the internet such as movies, music, and products. 

Then it goes into a long list of scare tactics that were preceded by "in all likely hood." 

Further, it makes the jump that the government will sue and shut down everything that is good on the internet just because corporations are evil and want to suppress the public and torment babies. 

I understand the implications of giving the government the power to meddle with the internet.  But here's a question I have:

How else could companies protect their product that's being freely distributed on the internet without their consent? 

[AUChizad]

A couple of issues with the video you posted:

It said it aims to stop unauthorized material from being posted on the internet such as movies, music, and products. 

Then it goes into a long list of scare tactics that were preceded by "in all likely hood." 

Further, it makes the jump that the government will sue and shut down everything that is good on the internet just because corporations are evil and want to suppress the public and torment babies. 

I understand the implications of giving the government the power to meddle with the internet.  But here's a question I have:

How else could companies protect their product that's being freely distributed on the internet without their consent?

First of all, the whole piracy thing is way overblown. Plenty of artists support distribution of their songs/movies/whatever through the internet, via YouTube, torrents, etc.

Louis C.K. just offered his latest standup feature exclusively online for $5.00, DRM free.

It netted over $1 million and counting.
http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/

iTunes offered a better, easy, reasonably priced alternative to piracy. iTunes is insanely popular.

Pandora, Grooveshark, Spotify, etc. are other services offering good alternatives.

Netflix online streaming service is another good example in the movie industry.

Offer a service that is easier/better than scouring the internet for pirated copies, and maintain a reasonable price, and you're golden.

Basically what this amounts to is price gouging. But far worse. It's bullying the US government to meddle with the Internet like fucking communist China. Except it affects the entire world.

It's not using logical leaps and slippery slopes. There is precedent that this shit actually happens. Big companies remove content because it doesn't like the message. It sues/fines people for fucking LINKING to copyrighted material, not hosting it online. And they don't have enough control. They want more.

TigersX cannot exist because anyone can post anything linked to another site. Posting farks from another board? Godfather goes to jail. EVEN IF YOU LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.

This is straight up 1984 shit, and no one seems to care.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and research it yourself. Or at least watch all of the videos, read all of the articles that I posted here.

[Vandy Vol]

Basically it is enabling the entertainment industry to send people to federal prison for LINKING to material that THEY say is copyrighted material, even if it's not.

Umm...the Attorney General can't do anything to the website until a court order is entered.  Typically, a court is going to investigate the matter before taking action; you know, due process and all.

Adam Savage sounds like an idiot for claiming that websites can be taken down "based on nothing more than the 'good faith' assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant."


http://www.webcitation.org/643NehNoc

Stop Online Piracy Act - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

. . .

Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.

Adam Savage makes a further fool of himself by claiming that "the accused doesn't even have to be aware that the complaint has been made."  The act actually states that the copyright holder should contact the payment network provider and/or advertising service notifying them of the copyright infringement.  They then forward the notice to the site owner.

If the site owner responds stating why their use is not an infringement, nothing happens.  Note that the site owner doesn't even have to prove that it's not an infringement; he simply needs to respond and say as much.  If the copyright holder wants anything else to happen, then they have to seek a court order.  A court will have to decide whether it's an infringement or not.

If they don't respond, then the payment network provider and/or advertising service are to assume that it is copyright infringement, and they are to cease servicing that site.  It's very simple:  Respond to the damn notice if you're not infringing.

Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations. Authorizes the right holder to then commence an action for limited injunctive relief against the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or against the site or domain name itself.

[Vandy Vol]

Now, with all of that being said, there are legitimate concerns with the act.  Its vague language allows for very broad reach, which may include preventing the blocking of IP addresses and the allowance of deep packet inspection.

Nonetheless, some of the more prominent claims that have been made are not accurate at all.

[Townhallsavoy]

First of all, the whole piracy thing is way overblown. Plenty of artists support distribution of their songs/movies/whatever through the internet, via YouTube, torrents, etc.

What if an artist doesn't?  Where is he or she protected especially if the distribution is free and not providing compensation?

Louis C.K. just offered his latest standup feature exclusively online for $5.00, DRM free.

It netted over $1 million and counting.
http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/

iTunes offered a better, easy, reasonably priced alternative to piracy. iTunes is insanely popular.

Pandora, Grooveshark, Spotify, etc. are other services offering good alternatives.

Netflix online streaming service is another good example in the movie industry.

Offer a service that is easier/better than scouring the internet for pirated copies, and maintain a reasonable price, and you're golden.

Agreed.  But I don't see how this bill will affect those services as long as they are following copyright laws already written.

And "maintain a reasonable price" is a flimsy argument.  What if I don't want to?  What if I think is a reasonable price is different than what you think is a reasonable price?  Does that mean it gets to be pirated on the internet? 

If I write a song that I think will give you a spiritual experience so I charge $2000 to listen to it once.  Who's to say I can't do that? 

Basically what this amounts to is price gouging. But far worse. It's bullying the US government to meddle with the Internet like fucking communist China. Except it affects the entire world.

It's not using logical leaps and slippery slopes. There is precedent that this shit actually happens. Big companies remove content because it doesn't like the message. It sues/fines people for fucking LINKING to copyrighted material, not hosting it online. And they don't have enough control. They want more.

TigersX cannot exist because anyone can post anything linked to another site. Posting farks from another board? Godfather goes to jail. EVEN IF YOU LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.

This is straight up 1984 shit, and no one seems to care.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and research it yourself. Or at least watch all of the videos, read all of the articles that I posted here.

I have read some of the articles.  It's hard to filter through the hyperbole and get to the meat of the bill.  That's where I'm confused. 

We've gone from "protect copyrighted material on the internet" to "the Feds and the corporations are trying to create a dystopia in an effort to make more money." 

Where in the actual bill does it state that companies can remove websites based on a subjective criticism of the message presented?  Where does the bill state that they will sue you for linking copyrighted material? 

And since we're discussing a judicial issue, where's the justification for linking copyrighted material if it doesn't give compensation (at least based on whatever contract has been written) to the person or company that actually owns the material? 

I understand how spoiled we are with the internet.  It's wonderful.  Sharing and learning is at an all time high, but this is a capitalistic economy.  It is a free market.  And if I own something, what right does anyone have to use it without my permission or without paying for it?  Especially for any sites or users that are making a profit with the use of copyrighted material. 

Outside of the internet, you purchase a song at the CD store.  You read an article from a magazine you buy at a grocery store.  You watch a movie after buying a movie ticket at the movie theater.

You listen to the radio thinking it's free music, but the radio paid for it.  You turn on the TV to watch a movie, but the cable company paid for it. 

But inside of the internet, many of these products are available for free and the people doing the work have no control. 

We like to link articles here at the X.  That way we can click the link to read the article at its original source.  That gives the source more hits thus providing the opportunity for more compensation for the work they've done. 

But what if no one clicks the link?  Who is to protect the author that writes the article on their website?

Again, most of this is petty and many of the complaints are from people who are already making gobs of money.  But this is a legal issue, and there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  What's fair has to be established and it should be enforced equally in internet and non-internet areas. 

[djsimp]

You fuckers obviously didn't drink enough lick-er last night.

[AUChizad]

Agreed.  But I don't see how this bill will affect those services as long as they are following copyright laws already written.

The copyright laws already written are fine. It's this vague legislation that broadens the terms of copyright infringement that's the problem.

And "maintain a reasonable price" is a flimsy argument.  What if I don't want to?  What if I think is a reasonable price is different than what you think is a reasonable price?  Does that mean it gets to be pirated on the internet? 

If I write a song that I think will give you a spiritual experience so I charge $2000 to listen to it once.  Who's to say I can't do that?

Of course you can. And some people will pay for your ridiculously priced song. You'll make a profit, just fine. Of course, someone else will pirate it and post it online, and under the current copyright laws, you have every right to send a cease and desist to me for distributing it. I'm not saying the "reasonable price" should be part of some law. I'm saying, that's how to avoid being pirated. See the Louis C.K. example.

This law will do nothing to really curb illegal downloads. They have been trying to play whack-a-mole with piracy for over a decade since the invention of Napster. The technology will just migrate somewhere else. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Trying to cure cancer by chopping an arm off.

Stifling the greatest technological advancement in the last two centuries is not the answer.

As one of those videos mentioned, see the backlash the media industries had over the VHS tape. It was supposed to kill the film industry, according to them.

See the . As long as you're not bootlegging digital copies and trying to sell them on street corners, then no harm no foul. It's how you were able to make that mix tape, and how you had that collection of VHS tapes with movies you taped off of HBO or Pay Per View. Fair Use. Personal Use. Suddenly, it's not enough for these production companies and record labels. Now they want to throw you in jail for personal use. Now they want to throw you in jail for posting your first dance from your wedding video on facebook because the muffled song in the background is owned by Warner Music.

What if an artist doesn't?  Where is he or she protected especially if the distribution is free and not providing compensation?

Small, relatively unknown artists will suffer the most by stifling technology. They're the ones that are most adamantly against this. So who exactly is this trying to protect?

Justin Bieber?

http://www.bieberisright.org/ (Click for audioclip from Bieber himself)

Bieber v. Klobuchar - What Happened
 
On October 27th, Justin Bieber came out to oppose S. 978. The next day, US Senator Klobuchar accused Justin Bieber of being "misled" in his opposition to her copyright bill. But it turns out Bieber is actually right.

Justin opposes Senator Klobuchar for her extreme copyright bill that would let the government jail people for posting songs to YouTube and censor entire websites. The bill puts people who post videos to YouTube and other sites at risk (including Justin Bieber himself). Klobuchar's office struck back at Bieber.

But guess what? Copyright experts and lawyers say Bieber is 100% right.

Listen to what Bieber says about the bill and sign the petition to show him your support!

(Audio of Bieber talking about the bill and Klobuchar.)

TELL CONGRESS TO OPPOSE STREAMING BILL

I urge you to vote against Amy Klobuchar's S.978 and HR.3261. These bills will censor the Internet, discourage innovation, and risk jailing ordinary internet users. That's why some of the Internet's biggest companies, dozens of prominent lawyers and engineers, and leading civil liberties and human rights groups forcefully oppose it.
We will notify Senator Klobuchar of your opposition to her criticism. Fight for the Future and Demand Progress won't share your email with anyone, but we will contact you about relevant campaigns.

What Bieber Said

Bieber made several comments during the radio appearance regarding the proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Klobuchar, "Whoever she is, she needs to know that I'm saying she needs to be locked up - put away in cuffs." He added, "People need to have the freedom... people need to be able to sing songs. I just think that's ridiculous."

And finally, when asked if he is comfortable with people posting videos singing his songs, he replied, "Are you kidding me? I check YouTube all the time and watch people singing my songs. I think it's awesome."

Why Bieber is Right
Hint: Because Klobuchar Doesn't Understand The Details of Her Own Bill
Klobuchar's office and other "IP" attorneys have failed to point out that what is considered "performance" and "commercial infringement" is open-ended, so courts can argue that Bieber performed the cover songs, and that it was commercial infringement. They should know better: this bill adds extreme penalties to a very grey area in copyright law, and that's dangerous to all of us who express ourselves online.

Here's what experts are saying:

Lateef Mtima and Steven D. Jamar
Howard University School of Law, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
"Proposed Bill S 978 is rife with critical deficiencies particularly with respect to its impact on the public's interest in using and building upon copyrighted material. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Bill is that the conduct it would criminalize is so poorly defined."

S.978 co-sponsor Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)
Senator Coons said it perfectly himself, saying that the legislation would criminalize both "individuals and sites providing the streamed content."

Jonathan Band, PLLC
www.policybandwidth.org
"Streaming section is much, much broader than the Klobuchar bill. In essence, the Klobuchar bill allowed felony (as opposed to just misdemeanor) penalties for a public performance for commercial advantage or private financial gain. However, the Klobuchar bill left the status quo of no criminal penalties for public performances without purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. SOPA makes the same amendment as Klobuchar for commercial performances. But, it also imposes criminal penalties for public performances by means of digital networks with a retail value of more than $1,000. Felony penalties will be available if the retail value is more than $2,500. So, it sweeps in non-commercial streaming. Additionally, as I mentioned on the phone, the bill by implication lowers the standard of willfulness. Thus, unless an individual has a good faith reasonable belief that his streaming is lawful, he arguably is willfully infringing, and is subject to felony penalties, even if he had no commercial purpose."

A Line of Cases

There is a line of cases that says a transmission that ultimately results in a performance to the public is, itself, a public performance. See the following:

    See NFL v. Primetime 24, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir 2000)
    Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings

Ashton Kutcher?
http://aplusk.posterous.com/87693122 (Ashton's blog)

SOPA Is The Problem And Not The Solution.

SOPA Bill is trying to prevent intellectual property piracy which is a legitimate goal, but the way it is going about it will break the Internet and may cause economic calamity.

At its core SOPA unwillingly recruits Internet industry companies like social networks, ISP's and search engines to become policing agents and legally liable for it's users content. Forcing social media sites and ISP's responsible for users content is amazingly burdensome and costly. SOPA will create economic problems for Internet start-ups which will be an additional negative side effect. This may cause a slow down in the Internet economic sector, which is providing real jobs and innovation for the US economy.

DMCA may not be perfect but it does allow for copyrite owners to police it's intellectual property to be removed from web sites by bad actors or zealous fans. Thus removing the legal liability from the search engine or ISP that points to or hosts this content. Yes I understand that this is difficult to manage with overseas web sites, but SOPA as it is written causes more problems then solves.

Moreover, what is most shocking, is SOPA's idea of giving judges determination of Internet DNS. The bill suggests DNS administrators remove bad actor domains on judges orders; thus breaking the fundamentals of the Internet. It is a disastrous precedent to have Congress legislate Internet DNS control.

Placing search engines and ISP's in the middle of policing for piracy is plain and simply a bad and confused attempt by well meaning people that fundamentally don't understand how the the Internet works.

The SOPA bills secondary title is "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.", which is interesting because it almost reverses everything it attempts to do by it's methods of enforcement. I don't support SOPA and I believe we all need to call and write our Congress to help them know we want a No vote on SOPA.

Kanye West, Will.i.am, Diddy, Alicia Keys, Chris Brown ,Snopp Dogg, Lil’ Jon, Jamie Foxx, Kim Kardashian, Macy Gray, Brett Ratner, Mary J Blige, Serena Williams, Floyd Mayweather, The Game, Printz Board, Ciara, Kim Schmitz?
http://www.techspot.com/news/46641-megaupload-sues-universal-and-joins-fight-against-sopa.html

Megaupload sues Universal and joins fight against SOPA

By Lee Kaelin

The file-hosting service Megaupload and Universal Music Group (UMG) have locked horns, after a video released by the former was removed on Friday from the popular video sharing site YouTube over Universal's claim that it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The surprise video featured leading recording artists including P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Macy Gray, Chris Brown, The Game and Mary J Blige, singing the praises of the popular service. As news of the video began to spread Google pulled the video in response to UMG and IFPI copyright takedown demands.



On late Friday, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom demanded that YouTube re-instate the video, to which UMG then responded to with another takedown request.  Speaking with TorrentFreak yesterday, the file-sharing service's CEO David Robb said, "let us be clear: Nothing in our song or the video belongs to Universal Music Group. We have signed agreements with all artists endorsing Megaupload."

The illegitimate removal of the Mega Song was in promotion of its soon to be launched, iTunes style service Megabox, which will see artists earn 90% of each song sold. In Robb's opinion, it was a deliberate step in order to prevent a real competitor from going viral as news spread. The irony is it might actually benefit the firm by providing the type of media coverage that money cannot buy.

He further commented that all attempts to contact the music giant to start a dialogue have resulted in questionable legal threats, including demands for a public apology. "Regrettably, we are being attacked and labelled as a ‘rogue operator’ by organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA," Robb said, while pointing out that his firm take piracy very seriously by closing accounts of repeat offenders and removing illegal files.

After getting nowhere with the music group, the file-sharing site has filed a lawsuit with the San Jose District Court, and intends to sue the group for misrepresenting DMCA rights as a basis for validating the removal of the video from YouTube.

The whole situation has led them to start endorsing those opposing the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as SOPA. “UMG is currently lobbying lawmakers in Washington for legislation that would allow them to not only delete specific content from a website, but to delete entire websites from the Internet. After this demonstration of the abuse of power by UMG, we are certain that such an instrument of Internet censorship should not be put into the hands of corporations,” Robb said.

He also took the opportunity to thank everyone for their massive support, and asked everyone who agreed to join forces and fight for an Internet without censorship.

The video is back up...for now...

[AUChizad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/16384317175/gibson-guitar-others-sopa-supporters-list-say-they-never-supported-bill.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill
from the well,-look-at-that dept

I mentioned that we'd been hearing reports that some of the companies named on "the list" companies that are in favor of SOPA were surprised about this and wanted off the list. Gibson Guitar -- which has been dealing with its own ridiculous situation concerning the feds seizing property without a clear legal basis -- is now saying that it does not support SOPA, and has been asked to be removed from the list of supporters. It sounds as if the company doesn't know how it got on the list:

    Hey guys - Gibson does NOT support this legislation. Gibson's CEO has demanded that Gibson be removed from the list of company's supporting SOPA. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!

For what it's worth, it looks like Gibson's "support" came from a letter sent by the US Chamber of Commerce in support of the general concept of PROTECT IP and SOPA, not directly about SOPA itself. It seems like this is a risk of just agreeing to sign on to something that the US Chamber of Commerce passes around without fully understanding the details or how it is to be used.

Gibson is not alone. Jim D'Addario from D’Addario & Company responded to a tweet by also saying that the company has not supported SOPA (though, he claims it might support a similar bill if it didn't have free speech implications).

So how did this happen? Well, Petzl provides some of the details. It's another company found on the US CoC's letter in support of SOPA/PIPA, but it has put out a detailed blog post of how the US Chamber of Commerce is being misleading here. The company says that it did agree to sign a US CoC letter in support of "government action against intellectual property theft via rogue websites," but that the letter they saw did not bring up any specific legislation. Thus, it says it's supportive of legislation to deal with counterfeiting, but not the approach taken in SOPA/PIPA:

    To reiterate, Petzl America has not and does not support SOPA or the Protect IP Act. Nor do we support any legislation that would harm the freedom of the Internet. We are strongly against counterfeiting, especially, as in the case of counterfeited Petzl products, where the safety of the end user is concerned. By extension, we are for legislation that would help reduce the theft of intellectual property, production of counterfeit goods, and knowing sale of counterfeit goods. However, we believe that SOPA and Protect IP do not address these concerns in a constructive manner.

The issue here, yet again, appears to be one where the US Chamber of Commerce plays fast and loose with the truth, in order to exaggerate the real situation. These companies expressed interest in the general concept of dealing with counterfeit goods sold online. The US CoC then used that support to pretend that all of these companies supported a sweepingly broad set of bills that went way, way, way beyond just dealing with the narrow issue of counterfeit physical goods.

We've talked repeatedly about how ridiculous it is that supporters of SOPA/PIPA conflate physical counterfeiting with digital copyright infringement. The two are quite different in many, many ways. And here's a case where it's coming back to bite the supporters, as plenty of companies who would support a narrow action against a specific problem, are being used by the US CoC, who pretends they support broad, overreaching laws that touch on issues totally unrelated to the specific issue these companies wanted to discuss.

[AUChizad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
from the well-look-at-that dept

So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.

A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.

From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...

So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...