Congratulations Rory! Your post was picked-up by Blawg Review

Congrats, Rory! Your post on dueling music industry IP rights was picked-up this past week by Blawg Review. Well done, You!

Google Books - Satan's Library...

...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet.

The Google Book Project has been controversial since it first began in October, 2004. My intention with this post, my last guest blawging here, is to give a very brief synopsis of the issues that are causing such consternation and to point out some of the more interesting arguments that are being presented. If it seems that I am in anyway biased towards Google that's because I am, I'd love to work in Google's legal department, and I love it when stuff is free (I have a long held belief that if you're paying for anything online then you're being robbed). Also, in 2007, while I was a student in University College Cork, I authored a paper entitled "Don't Be Evil - The Google 'Book Search' Project". The paper dealt with an examination of Google's "Book Search" Project and whether it would pass a "fair use" copyright test. I was pretty proud of my work, and it was even shortlisted for the prestigious Matheson Ormsby Prentice Undergraduate Prize in Information Technology Law. As a result, I have tried to keep an eye on the Project.

Issue

The primary issue that has everyone talking in recent months is Google's controversial deal to scan and digitize in copyright, but out of print works, including "orphan" works, i.e. works where it is almost impossible to identify the copyright holder(1). This has lead to investigations by the US government over their concern about the possibility of a Google monopoly over "orphan" works, and also generated a great deal of consternation amongst Google's rivals: Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Arguments

Those against the deal argue that Google will have an inordinate amount of control over an enormous volume of information and that what is needed is strict regulation of this kind of activity(2). While those in favour of the deal are keen to point out that if Google has the resources and the capability to save "orphan" works then it should, even if the motivation is profit(3).

Conclusion

As I stated in the conclusion to my paper, "After all, as George Orwell wrote: “Who controls the past controls the future”, and Google could be said to be going a long way towards this end... Similarly it could be seen as creating the need for more responsibility from corporations such as Google, who are now effectively acting as the stewards of information for the public. But these worries might well be unfounded seeing as Google believes, at least informally, in the phrase: “Don’t be evil”.

Today, I would argue that more regulation is never a good thing (most governments aren't able to use the regulations already in place, let alone cluttering up the law libraries with even more). However, keeping a watchful eye on Google should be encouraged, and when I look at the debate that the deal has created I admit to smiling a little, because if Google does become evil in the future then thanks to the internet everyone is going to know about it.

You can find a copy of my paper HERE

Footnotes

(1) "Orphan" Works, Wikipedia Entry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
(2) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/28/google_book_research_corpus/
(3) http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=23506

Meanwhile, Somewhere Over the Atlantic Ocean...

“The privacy and dignity of our citizens [are] being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen -- a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a [person's] life.”(1)

If a police officer were to come to your house and ask to come in and conduct a search without a warrant most people, assured of their rights from watching copious amounts of Law and Order, would flatly refuse and then call their attorney.

The same would go for your workplace or the locked trunk of your car. But what then about your cell phone or your laptop?

Imagine the upset and confusion that must have arisen when Bush came up with this doozy(2). Now your laptop, which for many people is not just a piece of hardware, but is instead a portable office, a diary, a shopping mall and a cinema to name but a few, is no longer a place where you could assume that you had an expectation of privacy. Shocking and disappointing as this was for me (an admitted foreigner) and my perception of the USA's proud tradition of civil liberties, more shocking still was the news that Obama was in favour of the new rules with a few minor adjustments.

If you fly as often as I do, my argument is very simple; I spend a lot of time on my laptop, and I do very many private things on my laptop (check e-mail, search for any random thing that pops into my head) then I should surely have a legitimate expectation of privacy which is not outweighed by issues of national security. Unfortunately, airport authorities need not even have any suspicion of wrongdoing to prompt the search. Granted airports have been traditionally exempt from constitutional protections (SCARY), but it's an interesting thought that even though you are carrying around your entire life, from trade secret business documents to medical records, on your computer, the law does not recognise these important possibilities.

I know many people will cry: "Who cares? It's only an issue if you have something to hide. I don't do anything illegal on my laptop." My reply, as always, is this: who draws the line, and who's to say that what is perfectly legal today won't be illegal tomorrow. As this very policy proves.

Footnote

(1) http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_privacy_and_dignity_of_our_citizens-are-being/330279.html

(2) Obama upholds Bush laptop search policy - with new safeguards
(LINK)

Massive Tools become Industry Tools

What is the world coming to? Musicians everywhere are putting down their microphones/lip synching devices and squaring off against one another over the issue of punishing file sharers.

Following talk in Europe of disconnecting persistent file sharers from the internet, several artists, including Annie Lennox and Tom Jones, formed a group known as the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) and began to publicly oppose the major record labels' desire to punish individuals.(1) A rather brave move you would think and one that should have all major stakeholders (big labels, artists, government and consumers) reassessing their positions. In fact, in an ideal world this could have been the spark that ignited a flame of copyright reform.

Then along came James Blunt, whose soppy music and watery vocals would be enough to put out the Sun, and decided to throw in his two cents.(2) So now the debate has been obscured almost completely by the preening of various pro-Industry singers.

Lily Allen, the popular singer of "The Fear" and "Not Fair", showed her true colors when she piped in with a condemnation of file sharers, by plagiarising someone else's opinion!(3)

Essentially, the arguments on either side can be broken down into: Pro-Industry - every illegal download is equal to a lost sale and must be stopped at all costs because if no one ever paid then there's be no music by your favorite artist to listen to. Anti-Industry - the labels are being stubborn, downloads can do wonders for an artist when it comes to word of mouth publicity and severe punishment by the government of individuals just isn't groovy.

While the music world is divided today I'm sure that they'll all be best of friends again when it comes Christmas time and the world is looking for the next Charity Number One single. Until then, the final word has to go to Dan Bull. Watch the video. Amazing, something I would be willing to pay for online!

Footnotes

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/21/musicindustry-internetipos

(2) James Blunt: Disconnecting Music Pirates is “Critical”
(LINK)
(3) File-Sharing Heroine Lilly Allen is a Copyright Hypocrite
(LINK)

"I'm not Blockbuster Boy"*

I'd like to discuss a news story that particularly annoys me. The story proclaims that Blockbuster is to close as many as 960 of its stores in the US as a means of streamlining their operations. That's up to 960 stores worth of employees that are going to be unemployed.

The reason that I am so irate is that the biggest reason for the closures is bad business management. The board of Blockbuster can't just blame their failures on the lousy economy. Sure they've been hit, but what happened to escapist industries supposedly thriving during a recession. Instead Blockbuster is limping along. The real reason for their poor performance is that they have clung to a traditional business model for too long and only attempted to jump on the bandwagon of new ideas when they had already passed them by.

I am of course talking the rise of internet television, and mail-DVD renting services, i.e. Netflix, DVD vending machines, e.g. Redbox and on Demand cable television services. Numerous other companies providing services that Blockbuster should have been in a prime position to come up with years in advance. How did Blockbuster miss all of these opportunities? Why aren't they coming up with something new/better, not just carbon copying the aformentioned other companies' ideas?

This is indicative of a wider failing of traditional industries to refuse to progress with the times, e.g. the copyright industry's unwillingness to welcome advances in technology. And the results speak for themselves.

Source

Blockbuster to close up to 960 stores

(LINK)

(*Quote from Johnny Depp)

Piracy - The Who, The How and the Y

“The average man will bristle if you say his father was dishonest, but he will brag a little if he discovers that his great-grandfather was a pirate.”(1)

For my first post I would like to shed some light on the topic of internet piracy. It is a topic that is surrounded by much controversy and misinformation and so this discussion may prove useful to people who would like to know, just how serious the "problem" of piracy is.

THE WHO

"Pirate" is a very subjective word. For some it conjurs up romantic images of adventure on the open seas, for others it means blood-thirsty criminality. The copyright industry has made very skillful use of the word in applying it to people who download music/film/tv via the internet. However, calling a teenager who sits in front of a computer and clicks on a mouse a pirate is ludicrous when you consider that an accurate definition of a pirate is "A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes the property of another on the high seas; especially, one who makes it his business to cruise for robbery or plunder; a freebooter on the seas; also, one who steals in a harbor"(2). The fact is that the whole copyright regime is predicated on using words in non-traditional ways. The word "theft" is another example, defined as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property"(3), and yet the copyright industry insists that theft of copyright needs neither a taking nor a removing (the original digital copy never leaves its server).

Regardless, subverting words is popular amongst lobbyists whose job it is to see that legislation enacted is favorable to their position. The system of government in the USA is designed for this to be the case. However, I would argue that the copyright industry may be going too far in their attempts to protect their rights, to the extent that blatant lies are being told.

One particular example is the recent news (LINK) from the UK that claimed 7 million British people engage in online piracy. A huge number for a country with a population of approximately 60 mllion. After an investigation by the BBC it was discovered that the 7 million figure was arrived at after relying on a previous study carried out on behalf of the British Music Industry, as well as a habit of drastically rounding up statistics. The most troubling aspect of this story is that the report was commissioned by the UK government.

So in answer to the first question, who are the pirates? They are an indeterminate number of people with internet access instead of parrots, but who do probably have scurvy from a lack of fresh fruit.

THE HOW

Internet piracy covers many acts, including but not limited to; downloading songs, downloading movies, downloading tv shows, circumventing DRM measures, uploading copyright material, etc.
As for the how? All you need is a computer, an internet connection and the ability to use a search engine.

On my own blog I give the following example:

"According to Nielsen ratings...the most popular cable television show in America is "The Closer, starring Kyra Sedgwick, with almost 7 million viewers. When you enter the search term 'watch "the closer" online free" in Google you return 963,000 hits. Clicking on some of these links will bring you to websites where full episodes have been posted by other individuals. You can watch these episodes, hosted on websites such as youtube and dailymotion, for free, without commercial breaks and whenever you choose."(4)

THE Y

I am 25 years old and so I have been lumped in with the geoup of people known as Generation Y, AKA the Millenial Generation, Generation Next and, my particular favorite, the Echo Boomers(5).

We are generally computer savvy but are more vulnerable to the present economic downturn (LINK).

Oh, and we're not actually stupid. Although the copyright industry's new approach (LINK) to the prevention of copyright theft would suggest that we had no idea that when you pay full price for an artist's album you are actually supporting them and the music that you love. Gone is the heavy hand of the copyright industry of old, the one that would have you arrested for "facilitating" the theft of copyright material(6), replaced it seems with a "oh you silly misguided fool, can't you see how your actions are hurting the ones you love?"

Of course the copyright industry has once again misrepresented the situation. Most profit is generated from ticket sales to concerts, not the sale of individual cd's (7). The copyright regime is not encouraging the creative talent of artists, instead it is devoted to ensuring massive payouts to the industry that is charged with distributing the final product (intended to recoup a cost that is now largely irrelevant since the internet makes it so much easier and cheaper to distribute digital material).

CONCLUSION

So there you have it. Internet piracy is whatever you want it to be. Provided you are the copyright industry. A true case of might makes right. It's enough to make you say "Aaargh".


Footnotes

(1) http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_average_man_will_bristle_if_you_say_his/331231.html

(2) http://define.com/pirate

(3) http://define.com/theft

(4) http://internet-televisionlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/conspiracy-theory.html

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

(6) http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9066/tvlinks_shut_down_owner_arrested/

(7) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031107/1134211_F.shtml

NOTE: My thanks go out to Stephanie for her patience while I got my act together, and for the opportunity to contribute to Our Forward Movement.

Introducing Guest Blawger, Rory O'Sullivan

I am pleased to be able to introduce one of our first international attorneys, Mr. Rory O'Sullivan. Rory will be blawgging here for the next month, and is interested in matters of Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, and Media Law.

Rory attended the St. Louis University School of Law, graduating from the National University of Ireland, University of Cork, earning a BCL and LLM. His publishing accolades include Don't Be Evil, which discussed the Google Book Search Project and was short-listed for the prestigious Matheson Ormsby Prentice Prize in Information Technology Law. Rory also blawgs at a separate site he administers, the Internet Television Blog. Rory is licensed to practice in New York State.

Welcome Rory! Am eager to see what posts you develop here.