Control Freaks

Google has won the latest round in a legal battle against Louis Vuitton and other brand owners.

An adviser to Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), said that Google's practice of selling keyword phrases, such as Louis Vuitton shoes , to other businesses, including rivals, was not illegal under European law. He said: Google has not committed a trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to select keywords corresponding to trademarks. The adviser's opinion is not binding but is followed by the ECJ in 80% of cases.

Keyword advertising, known within Google as AdWords, allows businesses to buy slots alongside Google's main search results in the sponsored links section. Sponsored links, which appear to the right of a Google results page, account for most of the search engine's revenues, which reached $21 billion in 2008. The practice annoys brand name owners, who claim that it allows competitors to piggyback on their trademarks.

The issue came to prominence in Britain when Marks & Spencer bought the Google keyword Interflora. The florist complained that this meant anyone typing Interflora into Google would also see a prominent mention of M&S's flower delivery service. This issue is the subject of separate litigation. Louis Vuitton, which also claimed that keywords were being used by people selling fake versions of their goods, advanced similar arguments. Related Links

The case will return to the ECJ this year, when a full panel of judges will decide the outcome.

Update: Confirmed

26th March 2010. From business.timesonline.co.uk

Google today won the latest stage in a legal battle with luxury goods manufacturers after Europe's highest court ruled that the search engine does not breach companies' rights by allowing online advertisers to buy key search words.

The European Court of Justice ruled that allowing third parties to buy brand names as key advertising words, which link to their online stores, did not violate luxury goods trademarks, owned by the likes of LVMH, owner of the Louis Vuitton brand.

New Pirate Parties are popping up all around the world, putting copyright, censorship and privacy issues on the political agenda. The Canadian Pirate Party is eager to join in. They are currently seeking federal approval and need just a few more members to become registered as an official political party.

In Canada the Pirate Party is currently trying to get federal approval, in order to become recognized as an official party and get involved in Canadian politics. The goal is to gain at least one seat in Parliament, Pirate Party spokesman Jake Daynes told TorrentFreak.

As soon as the party is officially registered with Elections Canada, we hope to gain a bit more of the mainstream media's attention; let Canadians know we are out there and build a community, Jake added.

Among other things the Canadian Pirates will push for copyright and patent reform, Net Neutrality and freedom of culture, Jake said.

Canadians interested in helping the party to get federal approval should fill out the membership form listed on the site and send it in. The Pirates need another 140 paper forms (how old-fashioned) to be sent in to get approval from the authorities.

Organisers of the popular US Burning Man festival have been criticised over their strict photography rules, implemented in a bid to stop images of nude participants ending up on porn websites.

Under the rules many deem heavy-handed, organisers of the famous festival claim to hold the copyright for images and videos taken at the event and may request the removal of any images they don't approve of on any website.

The organisers claim the rules are designed to protect the rights of those who attend the event, which is currently in full swing at the Black Rock Desert in Nevada, US.

Many participants like to shed their clothes at the liberating event, which attracts around 50,000 revellers each year in a celebration of community, participation, self-expression and self-reliance , and involves burning down a tall man-like structure.

However, Burning Man spokeswoman Andie Grace said the organisers are concerned that photographs of naked female festival-goers have appeared on porn websites in the last few years. There are a lot of nude people out here, and this protects the school teacher from Iowa who doesn't wasn't want to appear on a porn site, Grace said.

The US Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has criticised Burning Man over the photo restrictions: We do empathize with Burning Man Organization (BMO)'s desire to preserve the festival's noncommercial character and to protect the privacy interests of ticket-holders. But by granting itself ownership of your creative works and forbidding fair uses of its trademarks, BMO is using the 'fine print' to give itself the power of fast and easy online censorship. Those Terms and Conditions include a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand: as soon as 'any third party displays or disseminates' your photos or videos in a manner that the BMO doesn't like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO.

The rules have provoked widespread debate on various websites, with many participants outraged at what they see as a restriction to their rights, while others want to protect their privacy. Where does BMORG get off claiming copyright of other people's work? photographer Pereubu said on blogging website BoingBoing.

Others are supportive of the rights of those wanting to let their hair down at the event. You could argue that if you don't want to be photographed in public doing something 'wrong' you shouldn't do it in public. That kind of defeats the entire purpose of this private event we call Burning Man. This is one of the few places where you can feel liberated wearing your crotch flame thrower, a blogger called Rindan said.

After suffering multiple black eyes in the blogosphere and plenty of ire from Kindle users, Amazon has finally decided to make good on its ill-advised decision to delete illegally distributed copies of George Orwell's 1984 from users' Kindle e-reader devices.

Those who purchased the book only to find it remotely deleted from their devices without warning will receive a digital copy of the book–with all their annotations still intact--or a $30 credit for Amazon products. Or they can just opt for a $30 check. Considering they paid just 99 cents for the book, it's not such a bad deal for customers. It has, however, been quite the ordeal for Amazon.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos offered the following apology to customers in an email sent to those affected by the mass deletion: This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

Twentieth Century Fox has sent a cease and desist letter to Digital Sin/New Sensations, which is currently in post production on a parody of its television series X-Files .

The adult studio's X-rated drama, set to release in late September, was given the title The X-Files: A Dark XXX Parody.

In the letter, a representative from Fox demands that Digital Sin/New Sensations change the title of the film and cease use of the X-Files mark.

Digital Sin/New Sensations does not believe that its intended product infringes the rights of Fox. However, in the spirit of cooperation, the company has decided to respond to Fox's concerns by adapting the title to The Sex Files: A Dark XXX Parody , removing the website associated with the film and changing the names of the main characters.

The adult studio has successfully parodied a growing list of the primetime lineups from current and past, with spoofs of The Office , Scrubs , Seinfeld , Friends and 30 Rock resulting in sales that have given a heartbeat to an otherwise slumping industry.

Sony wants Blu-ray production business down under, but no porn, please.

Opened in June in the Huntington area of Sydney, Sony's hi-def disc factory is said to be the only Blu-ray duplicator in the Southern hemisphere. But porn producers will have to find another outlet for Blu-ray production.

Sony DADC will be doing production for local companies and there will be capacity, said a Sony spokesperson, telling APC the plant: is open to other contracts but would not take on any adult titles or content.

Porn duplication also has been banned in other Blu-ray factories around the globe. APC calls it the Disney effect, because Disney's upgraded versions of its classic films and animated works are among the top sellers in the Blu-ray market, especially when a DVD copy and/or a digital copy in included in the package. Disney has mandated that no plant duplicating its products may also handle adult content of any kind. Understandably, most factories would rather have the Disney business than service adult producers.

The UK Pirate Party has been officially registered at the Electoral Commission and is hoping to follow in the footsteps of its successful counterpart in Sweden. With all the recent controversy surrounding anti-piracy legislation and lawyers going after alleged file-sharers, the party has become necessity.

In June the Swedish Pirate Party shocked its critics and secured a seat in the European Parliament, with no less than 7.1% of the vote. The Pirates received more votes from those under 30 than any other party in Sweden, which went beyond all expectations.

This achievement motivated supporters of the Party's ideals in other countries to become active as well. Last month the Swiss Pirate Party was founded and the Canadians are mobilizing too.

Now the party can really start. It's time for us to tell the world that we exist, to recruit members, raise funds and gear up to fight the General Election, Pirate Party Chairman, Andrew Robinson told TorrentFreak: The officers and web team have built the framework that the party needs to get going, now it's time for the public to make things happen.

Join the party, tell the media about the party, tell your friends about the party, take part in policy and news debates on the forum, join our Facebook group, donate or set up a regular payment to provide financial support, set up a branch in your constituency, school or workplace, Robinson suggests, emphasizing that the success of Britain's newest party depends on its members.

Hoisted by their own Petard

Based on article from gamepolitics.com

Andrew Robinson, who heads the UK Pirate Party, spoke to PC Pro about his organization, its vision, and why the party's name is a problem:

There's approximately 7 million file sharers in this country - you're branding a huge percentage of this population criminals for doing something that doesn't have any proven implications. It's a ridiculous state of affairs... People who copy a movie are lumped in with people who steal cars.

Our copyright law is horribly outdated and its skewed one way because all the lobbying is on the side of big businesses...

We've had the [Pirate Party] name foisted on us by the Swedish party, but it's difficult. We need to point out that we're saying very sensible things, while the industry lobby is labelling us as pirates... We're trying to have a proper debate and when people actually listen to what we've got to say they'll realise we're being serious...

Update: Finland Join the Pirate Party

23rd August 2009. See article from torrentfreak.com

Finland's brand new Pirate Party was officially registered this week.

One of, if not the oldest BitTorrent communities still around today has been targeted by British police and anti-piracy officers.

The owner of FileSoup, one the most enduring sites since the introduction of the BitTorrent protocol, was arrested by police and denied his phone call and legal representation for more than seven hours.

After gaining a warrant eleven days earlier, on 27th July police backed up by the MPAA-funded UK anti-piracy group FACT conducted a raid on the home address of the owner.

Founded way back in 2003 UK based FileSoup is one of the original torrent sites and has built a solid reputation while keeping a surprisingly low profile, particularly considering its status.

The search warrant for the owner of FileSoup was issued under Section 109 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and authorized the gathering of any evidence related to the illegal distribution or file-sharing of copyright films. Notably, since 2005 FileSoup hasn't operated a tracker but links to metadata which links to material hosted elsewhere. It has never hosted any copyrighted content.

The owner was eventually released on police bail a little with his offence listed as Distribute Article Infringing Copyright. He must return to the police station in October.

The FileSoup site remains open.

Hackers have taken revenge on the music industry after Romania's first convicted file-sharer was given a heavy fine.

The industry claimed they had selected the individual at random, but hackers responded rather less randomly by causing the music industry website to blocked as malicious by both Google and Firefox.

The Romanian music industry represented by Uniunea Productorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR) has claimed its first legal victory against one of the country's file-sharers. They allegedly used basic techniques to select an individual at random - who just happened to be sharing 66GB of music files.

The individual was ordered to pay the equivalent of a $4,100 fine this week. At the end of 2008, the average monthly income in Romania was just $450.

Those annoyed at the handing down of a heavy fine took rather less time to issue their punishment. In common with similar traditions all over the world, the UPFR music industry website was targeted by hackers in a revenge attack. It's not clear exactly what they did to it, but their actions caused the domain to become blocked as a malicious site by both Google and Firefox.

Joel Tenenbaum has lost his trial against the RIAA and was ordered to pay $22,500 for each of the 30 songs he shared via Kazaa. Tenenbaum, who pleaded guilty to downloading and sharing files earlier this week, will be left paying off the $675,000 to the music labels for the rest of his life.

Tenenbaum, a graduate student from Boston admitted to downloading and sharing 30 songs in 2004, faced a fine up to $4.5 million - $150,000 per infringement. After a week long trial the jury eventually decided to award the RIAA $22,500 per song based on “willful infringement” mounting up to a total fine of $675,000 for Tenenbaum.

From the start it was clear that the only thing that the jury had to decide on would be the the size of the fine. The fair use defense was thrown out a few hours before the trial started, which shut down the only escape route left.

A school student is suing Amazon.com for deleting an e-book he purchased for his e-reader device without any prior warning.

Justin Gawronski, 17, was left confused after a his copy of George Orwell's 1984 , which he was reading for a school assignment, disappeared from his Kindle reader.

Both 1984 and Animal Farm were removed from customers' devices without warning or permission after Amazon realised the electronic copies were pirated.

Lawyers on behalf of Michigan student Gawronski and Antoine Bruguier, an adult reader in Milpitas, California, have now filed a class action lawsuit against the online company. The case seeks unspecified damages for all buyers of e-books that Amazon deleted from the Kindle as well as a ban on future deletions.

They argue that Amazon never disclosed to customers that it possessed the technological ability or right to remotely delete digital content purchased through the Kindle Store.

Bruguier complained to Amazon repeatedly after losing his copy of 1984, appealing in vain for that or an authorized edition to be restored to his Kindle, according to the lawsuit. I thought that once purchased, the books were mine, he wrote.

Jay Edelson, a Chicago lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said that Amazon's actions could have far-reaching consequences if allowed to stand: Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment.

Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 per cent contrary to the laws of this country.

Amidst whingeing by the Associated Press over bloggers using its stories, Europe's highest court has whittled the line of potential copyright infringement down to just 11 words.

The bar was set by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in a legal dispute between the Danish media monitoring firm Infopaq and the country's newspaper industry body, Danske Dagblades Forening (DDF).

Infopaq would scan various newspapers using image-to-text software then process the files to identify certain keywords its clients wanted tracked. If such a keyword was found in the story, that word along with five words on either side were captured.

The company would then send its clients a report containing the captured snippets and information on where they were obtained.

Infopaq disputed a claim that the process requires consent from rightholders, but to no avail in the European Court.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press has been pushing the boundaries of fair use to go after websites that lift as few as 33 words. It would appear the AP now has some precedent to attack so long as it can convince national courts its stories qualify for protection.

AP Propose DRM system for its syndicated news articles

Based on article from rightpundits.com

The AP has come up with a new copyright protection system that will try to limit the evil bloggers and pirates from 'stealing' their content. It appears that the AP wants to become the RIAA of Internet news by policing who is using their materials and stealing their precious content.

The AP wants to use a DRM (Digital Right Management) tool to stop bloggers and Google News from copy and pasting and linking to their articles, ensuring that no one will ever read them. The system works by trying to put all their content into a digital container to stop Google and others from accessing their precious content.

The bigger point here seems to be, like the rest of the legacy media, the AP is attempting to perpetuate a system that is dying. They are desperately clinging to a business model that simply makes little sense any longer. If the AP were really smart they would implement a completely different kind of monetizing system. Instead of charging bloggers $3.50 per word, charge fees related to the readership of the blog. Think of the thousands of blogs that would also fork over such minimal amounts and how much the AP could make off micro-payments. This is a business model that would actually succeed. Instead, the AP will continue to cling to their old system of protecting their content.

Film Studios led by Disney, Universal and Columbia have decided that the best way to deal with the filesharing site Pirate Bay is to kill it off for good.

Under the auspices of the MPAA, they have launched a new legal action in the Swedish courts aimed at closing down the site permanently. They say that despite the three founders - Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg - having been sentenced to a year in the clink, they are nonetheless continuing their nefarious operations.

The suit also alleges that Reservella, the Seychelles-based company that The Pirate Bay founders insist owns the website, is in fact merely a front company owned by Neij. Naturally, the three former Pirate Bay principals deny this.

When Pirate Bay lost the earlier lawsuit brought by International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the entertainment companies it represents in the Swedish courts last April, the founders were also fined $3.6 million. However, Internet cafe company Global Gaming Foundry said in June it would buy Pirate Bay for $7.8 million and turn it into a legitimate operation. GGF has since had second thoughts and the MPAA has vowed to seize any money from the sale that might end up in the hands of the Pirate Bay founders.

Based on article from torrentfreak.com

The Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has won its court case against The Pirate Bay. The Amsterdam court ruled that the site must cease all operations in The Netherlands within 10 days, or else pay penalties of 30,000 euros ($42,300) a person, per day.

BREIN's lawyer argued that The Pirate Bay is responsible for millions of copyright infringements every day, and that the site should therefore be blocked to visitors from The Netherlands.

Amazon the online book seller has forcibly deleted copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from customers' Kindles.

The ebooks were pirated copies sold for 99 cents by a company that had no rights to the material.

Amazon was able to remove the titles because the Kindle is configured to automatically sync up with the user's Bookshelf via the electronic book reader's WhisperNet wireless service.

When the company removed the unauthorized books from customers' accounts, they also disappeared from the Kindle.

Amazon then delivered a cryptic e-mail about what happened:

We recently discovered a problem with a Kindle book that you have purchased. We have processed a refund to the payment method used to acquire this book. The next time the wireless is activated on your device, the problematic item will be removed. If you are not in a wireless coverage area, please connect your device to a computer using your USB cable and delete the file from the documents folder.

Contrary to what the New York Times reported, the publisher did not change its mind, nor did Amazon cave to pressure. Rather, Amazon was notified that copyrighted material was being sold on the Amazon store without permission and it removed said material.

Instead of being honest about what happened -- that it sold unauthorized ebooks and has done so in the past -- Amazon only told customers that there was a problem. While removing such titles from a customer's Bookshelf and in turn deleting them from the Kindle may be standard policy, a lack of communication about what actually happened has led to a media firestorm that will surely last through the weekend. Amazon also could have offered customers a legitimate replacement copy of 1984 or Animal Farm and footed the difference, because in the end, this was Amazon's mistake.

Um sounds a nasty facility for censorship and control freakery has been built into Kindles. Surely it is only a matter of time before claims of libel or 'offence' will easily get Amazon reaching for their book burning button.

Update: Stupid Amazon

Amazon surely were stupid, they have lowered the perceived worth of their products now customers know that books aren't really theirs at all and can be taken away without notice.

25th July 2009. Based on article from shelf-life.ew.com

In an apology posted on Amazon.com, company founder and CEO Jeff Bezos fell on his sword over his company's deletion of unauthorized e-books from the Kindles of consumers who had already purchased them. Borrowing a rather loaded word from President Barack Obama, Bezos termed his company's preemptive actions stupid ”— as well as thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles. Amazon's actions last week kicked up a firestorm in the media about the nature of e-book ownership and the specter of censorship by Amazon.

Bezos' announcement reads in full: This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our 'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

The UK ISP trade association ISPA famously make awards to the internet Hero and internet Villain of the past twelve months.

These went respectively to the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), for their work in recognising publicly that the focus of music companies should be the development of new business models for distributing content online, and to Stephen Conroy and the Australian Government for continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition.

Unsurprisingly, no-one turned up to collect the internet Villain award. But collecting the Internet Hero award on behalf of Featured Artists Coalition, Billy Bragg urged greater co-operation between the music and internet industries.

FAC Chairman and Blur drummer Dave Rowntree added: I hope this shows that artists are willing to talk with ISPs about the challenges of adapting music industry business models to the digital age. We have to work together – the status quo is not good enough.

So is ISPA going soft on file-sharing? Of the 9 nominations in the Hero/Villain categories, one nomination for villainy went to France's President Nikolas Sarkozy, for his role in promoting draconian sanctions in respect of internet piracy (the "loi Hadopi").

A spokesman for ISPA confirmed that they do not condone unlawful file sharing. However, he said: We feel that disconnection and technical sanctions are disproportionate. We are very much in favour of working toward a better position than the present through the more pragmatic approaches that the FAC have come out with. We want to change the focus away from music companies calling for people to be cut from the internet.

France's highest constitutional authority ruled in June that Internet access is a fundamental human right, killing the three-strikes provision in the so-called Hadopi anti-piracy legislation. Today the infamous anti-piracy bill is back and in its revamped form has just been adopted by the Senate. 3 Strikes is back on the table. Again.

The Constitutional Council had taken a similar stance to that of the European Parliament, deeming the proposed “3 strikes” regime for dealing with illicit file-sharers unconstitutional. They said that individuals must have a fair trial and striking an individual from the Internet is something only a judge can do after a hearing.

So now in modified form the bill is back. Moving the decision to disconnect file-sharers away from the Hadopi agency to the courts, the new version of the law addresses the objections of the Constitutional Council by presenting 3 strikes cases to a judge, who will fast-track decisions in around 5 minutes per case.

The new structure is as follows. When an individual is warned about an infringement for a third time, the Hadopi agency will report the offender to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, issue a fine of up to 300,000 euros, or even hand out a 2 year jail sentence.

ISP account holders who find themselves accused over the infringements of a 3rd party could be found guilty of negligence , risking a maximum 1,500 euro fine and a 4 week disconnection.

The revamped bill was adopted today by the French Senate and in the next few weeks will head to the National Assembly for its adoption.

Shares in Phorm, the controversial online advertising group that tracks consumer behaviour, plunged more than 40% after BT said it has no immediate plans to use the company's technology.

We continue to believe the interest-based advertising category offers major benefits for consumers and publishers alike, said BT: However, given our public commitment to developing next-generation broadband and television services in the UK, we have decided to weigh up the balance of resources devoted to other opportunities.

Phorm's software has been dogged by controversy following news that BT ran two trials using it without seeking its customers' permission in 2006 and 2007. Tim Berners-Lee, the British founder of the internet, has also spoken out against Phorm.

Phorm said that it is now focused on its overseas business and has made strong progress in South Korea: We are engaged in more than 15 markets worldwide, including advanced negotiations with several major internet service providers (ISPs) .

The likes of Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse are believed to be considering working with the group. However, Virgin Media released a statement suggesting that no deal was imminent. The company believes that interest-based advertising has some important benefits for consumers as well as website owners and ISPs but said it was a fast-changing market and had extended its review of potential opportunities.

A man who downloaded 12,591 music tracks, 426 movies and 16 complete TV-series has been sentenced in France.

The police searched the 55 year-old's house in connection with an unrelated matter and stumbled across his collection. The man was sentenced to 33,000 euros ($46,200) in damages and a 2 month suspended jail sentence.

During the April hearing the retired IT expert said in his defense that it took him a whole year to accumulate the collection by using eMule on the eD2k network, but it was intended for private, not commercial use. He also told the court that he believed he had been acting within the law.

Lawyers for 19 plaintiffs including the National Federation of Film Distributors, Sony, Paramount, Sacem and SCPP demanded between 1 and 2 euros compensation for each illicit MP3 and between 7 and 12.50 euros for each movie. It is believed that SCPP will collect the largest share of around 17,000 euros.

In a statement the man's lawyer said: There is stuff like this on all kids' computers right now, while pointing out that many of the files had been downloaded by the defendant's children.

Those who wish to keep the internet free and open had best dust off their legal arguments. One of America's most influential conservative judges, Richard Posner, has proposed a ban on linking to online content without permission . The idea, he said in a blog post last week, is to prevent aggregators and bloggers from linking to newspaper websites without paying:

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

After the announcement of torrent site The Pirate Bay being sold to Sweden's Global Gaming Factory, which are to be list on the Swedish stock market, it has been learnt that one of the mega-popular site's co-founders, Peter Sunde, has confirmed comprehensive changes, which might result in the iconic web service switching to a new business model.

The Pirate Bay is also thinking of stopping directly hosting torrents, which are used to connect file sharers with each other.

It should be noted that these announcements have come at a time when the possibility of stiff fines and jail terms to be imposed on the Pirate Bay founders looms large.

It is being predicted by many that it is a good thing for Pirate Bay to decentralize its torrent tracking service and hosting torrents across a range of third party services, since it could discourage any future attempts by the recording industry and Hollywood, to attack the BitTorrent file sharing service via legal means.

It is also being forecast that soon the Pirate Bay could become a legitimate pay-to-download service, going by an announcement from Global Gaming Factory CEO Hans Pandeya, which confirm that they would work with copyright owners to see that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site.