It’s difficult to say whether or not Niklas Zennström, founder of Skype who also created Kazaa, had envisioned that his software would one day be drug through the courts over GPL violations, but that is what has happened recently. Skype has recently lost an appeals court decision in a German court over GPL violations with its SMC network.

Heise online is reporting that Skype Limited lost in the Munich appeals court. Skype argued that the GPL license violated German anti-trust laws. In response, the judge said that even if the GPL license was not valid in Germany, Skype had no right to use and sell the GPL software.

The suite was filed by Linux copyright holder Harald Welte. “In the end, the court hinted twice that if it was to judge about the case, Skype would not have very high chances. After a short break,” Welte commented on his blog, “Skype decided to revoke their appeals case and accept the previous judgement of the lower court (Landgericht Muenchen I, the decision was in my favor) as the final judgement. This means that the previous court decision is legally binding to Skype, and we have successfully won what has probably been the most lengthy and time consuming case so far.”

Heise further reported the following:

Harald Welte’s lawyer, Till Jaeger, explained to heise open that an out-of-court settlement had been reached with telephone manufacturer SMC Networks. There are two important aspects to the standing ruling: on the one hand, this is the first time a foreign company has been found guilty of a GPL violation in Germany. On the other hand, the court has set a very high standard by interpreting the GPL to the letter of the license text. The court ruled that providing the source code on the internet was not adequate in the case of a VoIP telephone and that a general note regarding the GPL and LGPL software was not specific enough.

Skype withdrew it’s appeals and accepted the lower court ruling from last Summer.

In 2005, eBay acquired Skype for $2.6 billion. CNet noted two years later that eBay was unhappy with what they got out of the deal two year later.

US Internet users viewed more than 11 billion online videos during March of this year, up 13% from February, and a 64% gain from the same time last year.

ComScore, an internet marketing research company, released new data from its Video Metrix service indicating that during March of this year US Internet users viewed 11.5 billion online videos. This represents 13% gain from the month before and a 64% gain from the same time last year.

Among the notable findings:

• 73.7 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
• 84.8 million viewers watched 4.3 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer)
• 47.7 million viewers watched 400 million videos on MySpace.com (8.4 videos per viewer)
• The average online video duration was 2.8 minutes
• The average online video viewer watched 235 minutes of video.

The study also indicated that Google Sites once again ranked as the top US online video destination with more than 4.3 billion videos viewed (38% of all videos), its share up 2.6% from February. YouTube.com accounted for 98% of all videos viewed at Google Sites.

Fox Interactive Media ranked second with 477 million videos (4.2%), followed by Yahoo! Sites with 328 million (2.9%) and Viacom Digital with 249 million (2.2%).

*Rankings based on video content sites; excludes video server networks. Online video includes both streaming and progressive download video.

Nearly 139 million U.S. Internet users watched an average of 83 videos per viewer in March. Google Sites also attracted the most viewers (85.7 million), where they watched an average of 51 videos per person. Fox Interactive attracted the second most viewers (54.3 million), followed by Yahoo! Sites (37.5 million) and Viacom Digital (26.6 million).

*Rankings based on video content sites; excludes video server networks. Online video includes both streaming and progressive download video.

For those like myself who long ago shifted from the TV to the PC as a primary means of watching ones favorite TV shows and movies the data is not surprising. What is surprising is that the data doesn’t show how many people illegally stream copyrighted material on sites like SurftheChannel, TVLInks.cc, TV Life, etc.. The figures are surely higher if sites like these were to be taken into account. If you have any other sites you think merit being included in this list please list them at the bottom in the comments section or e-mail me at the address below.

---

**NOTE:: For those looking for a good source of video streaming sites, we have a TVLinks directory here at ZeroPaid that is repeatedly updated with the latest and greatest to choose from.**

Their reply? "They have a good sense of imagination."

Late last week it was reported that the The Pirate Bay, no stranger to copyright infringement lawsuits, again faces cliams by the MPAA to the tune of $15.4 million USD for the illegal distribution of four films (Harry Potter, The Pink Panther, Syriana, and Walk the Line, and the first season of the Prison Break TV series.

According to MAQS, the law firm representing MPAA, of the copyrighted material referenced in the lawsuit "The Pink Panther" has been illegally downloaded 49,593 and "Syriana" some 3,679 times.

The damages are based on between 222 Swedish kronors($38 USD) and 261 Swedish kronors($44 USD) per each time the movies were illegally downloaded downloaded , and 415 Swedish kronor($69 USD) for every time someone had downloaded an episode of of "Prison Break."

In response, Gottfrid Svartholm Varg, one of The Pirate Bay’s co-founders, said the MPAA’s claims have no basis in reality.

"These are very well-developed fantasies. They have a good sense of imagination," he told The Local.

Guide to opening up your router to allow P2P and file-sharing programs like BitTorrent to function properly.

For those just getting started with downloading and uploading files via a router, there’s nothing more annoying that staring at poor speeds on your BitTorrent client. To many, it’s a trial in humility to both ask for and understand the help necessary to make your downloads actually work.

---

Introduction

LINKSYS Router Port Forwarding Guide

• Accessing the Router
• Port Forwarding Configuration Page
• Adding Ports

Netgear Router Port Forwarding Guide

• Accessing the Router
• Port Forwarding Configuration Page
• Adding Ports

---

INTRODUCTION

For those of you looking to at last find out how to make that darn router work and finally “forward” those darn “ports,” I’ill walk you through the process step by step using language and pictures that will make even the most basic of users able to understand the process.

Now there are a variety of different routers out there, each of course having a different user interface that one must access to make changes to the router. The two most common routers used by individuals are the Linksys and Netgear models. As such, these are the two models I intend to cover, but with a basic detail of how to access and port forward them all.

---

LINKSYS

The first step in port forwarding is accessing the router. The IP address varies from router to router, so check the manufacturers website or the handbook that was included when purchased. Next open your internet browser and type in the proper IP address according to the directions below.

For LINKSYS the IP address is 192.168.1.1 and the default logins are as follows:

username = admin
password = admin

Also, remember to change the passwords for your router after logging on if you haven’t done so already. Since the user defaults are widely known, and are exactly that–defaults, anyone can log on to your router and leech off your bandwith, or even worse, monitor your web traffic and perhaps even block you from logging on period. So it cannot be stressed enough to change your passwords after logging on.

Okay now for the fun part, forwarding those pesky ports.

---

After logging on, you will see the main setup page. Click on the Applications & Gaming tab at the top of the page.

This will bring you to the Port Range Forward page. Here is where we will actually forward the ports as the page name implies.

---

In the first box you will enter the name of the application this will apply to, be it BitTorrent, eMule , eDonkey, or whatever. For arguments sake we will apply it here as BitTorrent, with the specific BitTorrent client to be Azureus. So for Application type “Azureus.“

For the Start and End Port, we’ll be select a port from the recommended 49152 - 65535 range (For BitTorrent only, and be sure to apply this port number to the Azureus client as well.). Keep in mind that ports used are program specific so check which ones the program requires to be forwarded. Type the port number or range in both boxes.

In the IP Address box type the name of the computer’s IP address to which this is to apply. If your not sure what the IP address is, follow these easy steps:

• Open the Run dialogue box

• Now type “cmd”

• Lastly, type “ipconfig”

At the risk of stating the obvious, if you’ll notice your IP address will be listed there at the top where it says “IP Address.” This is the address for the computer whose ports you are forwarding.

To finish last thing you want to above in the Port Range Forward page is to check the “enable” box. You’d be surprised at how a lot of people forget to do this simple task. Now click Save Settings at the bottom of the page and were all done. Presto, your ports are now forwarded.

---

NETGEAR

For NETGEAR the IP adress is 192.168.0.1 and the default logins are as follows:

username = admin
password = password

Also, remember to change the passwords for your router after logging on if you haven’t done so already. Since the user defaults are widely known, and are exactly that–defaults, anyone can log on to your router and leech off your bandwith, or even worse, monitor your web traffic and perhaps even block you from logging on period. So it cannot be stressed enough to change your passwords after logging on.

After logging on, you will arive at the main setup page. Click on the Port Forwarding / Port Triggering tab on the bottom left hand-side of the screen.

---

This will bring you to the Port Forwarding page.

We’re going to “Add Custom Service,” so click this tab at the center of the page.

In the first box, Service Name, you will enter the name of the application this will apply to, be it BitTorrent, eMule , eDonkey, or whatever. For arguments sake we will apply it here as BitTorrent, with the specific BitTorrent client to be Azureus. So for Application type “Azureus.”

For the Start and End Port, we’ll be select a port from the recommended 49152 - 65535 range (For BitTorrent only, and be sure to apply this port number to Azureus.” or other BitTorrent client as well.). Keep in mind that ports used are program specific so check which ones the program requires to be forwarded. Type the port number or range in both boxes.

The Server IP Address is the IP address of the computer this is to apply to.

If your not sure what the IP address is, follow these easy steps:

• open the Run dialogue box

• Now type “cmd”

• Lastly, type “ipconfig”

At the risk of stating the obvious, if you’ll notice your IP address will be listed there at the top where it says “IP Address.” This is the address for the computer whose ports you are forwarding.

To finish, click the Add tab, and then the Apply tab on the port forwarding main page. Presto, your ports are now forwarded.

Matt Mason, author of “The Pirates Dilemma,” asserts “America only industrialized as rapidly as it did by counterfeiting European inventions, ignoring global patents and stealing intellectual property wholesale.”

I watched an interesting lecture yesterday afternoon online given by Matt Mason, author of “The Pirates Dilemma.” It’s worth noting because one of his assertions in it concerns the etymology of the word “Yankee,” which describes the very heart and soul of the United States. From the storied “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” a patriotic song that has long been synonymous with the US, to the famed New York baseball team, it’s a word with much history and usage yet surprisingly misunderstood.

Why? Because as Mason notes, the “…most likely source is the Dutch name Janke, which means “little Jan” or “little John,” a nickname that can be traced back to the 1680s, when it was used as a slang term for pirates.”

Yes pirates. For he argues that the reason why the United States was able to industrialize as quickly as it did during the 18th and 19th centuries is because we basically ignored European copyright laws and patents.

He furthers:

English sailors were the first to apply the term to Dutch pirates in the Caribbean. Yankee Dutch (1683) was a noted Dutch pirate of the Spanish Main, as was Captain Yankey (1684), and Captain John Williams (nickname: Yankee) (1687). General James Wolfe, the British general who secured North America by defeating the French at Quebec in the 1750s, was the first to use it as a derogatory term for the New Englanders in his army.

Back when New York was known as New Amsterdam, the English began using the word as a derogatory term for all the Dutch settlers there. These same Dutch settlers later began using Yankee to refer to English settlers of Connecticut, because they saw their unfair trading practices as ‘piratical’ and unethical. The term was later used to refer to all New Englanders, and the first recorded use of the term by the British to refer to Americans in general appears in the 1780s, in a letter by Lord Horatio Nelson.

But the term really gained steam during the Industrial Revolution. Europeans began using the term to refer to all North Americans as a result of America’s national policies towards European intellectual property. America only industrialized as rapidly as it did by counterfeiting European inventions, ignoring global patents and stealing intellectual property wholesale. “Lax enforcement of the intellectual property laws was the primary engine of the American economic miracle” writes Doron S. Ben-Atar in Trade Secrets. “The United States employed pirated know-how to industrialize.” Europeans saw America as a nation of bootleggers, which was a little unfair, as every major European country was also heavily engaged in piracy and industrial espionage at some point in the 18th century. Piracy was, in fairness, the only way the U.S. could keep up.

The reason why all of this is worth discussing is because it’s an important piece of history that must be taken into account when discussing current copyright and patent laws as other countries are also seeking to industrialize.

The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that American corporations are fairly compensated for all their efforts, but it oftentimes fails to realize that most are not as well off as we are. Most can’t afford $179 USD for Windows Vista (Home Basic), $15 USD for a new DVD release, or even $20 USD for the latest Madonna album.

For in his book Mason also reiterates the findings of John Tehranian, a law professor at the University of Utah, who has calculated that each of us would be liable for $12.45 million USD if we were sued every time we accidentally violated copyright law in a single day.

“Copyright law is playing a profound role in shaping our very identities,” Tehranian writes. “Copyright’s regulation, propertization, and monopolization of cultural content determine who can draw upon such content in the discursive process of identity formation.”

“In short, copyright laws lie at the heart of ’struggles over discursive power—the right to create, and control, cultural meanings.’

Morever, absent from the debate over copyright laws and protections in the discussion is how America has grown so transfixed by the economic concerns of multi-national corporations and conglomerates, that it’s lost sight of the fact that we too went to great lengths to advance, to industrialize, and to enjoy the creature comforts of our European counterparts.

Absent too is public input over how long it should be before creative works enter the public domain. In 1998, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which lengthened the copyright term of all creative works by an additional twenty years. By altering the terms of the state-granted copyright monopoly for millions of creative works, the Act represented a multi-billion dollar allocation decision made by Congress and ensured that virtually no creative works would enter the public domain over the following two decades.

So with actions like these does it really come as a surprise that people are ignoring our copyright laws?

Perhaps our own history as a nation of Yankees is worth revisiting.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic recently announced that they are making a request to the privacy commissioner to investigate Canadian major Internet Service Provider Bell Canada. The complaint is directed at Deep Packet Inspection technology.

Internet Service Providers (ISP) have a legal sore spot these days - that sore spot is internet intervention on the ISP level. In Canada, a form of that sore spot may be in the form of Deep Packet Intervention and its impact on privacy. Considering the kind of privacy laws Canada has, it may prove very interesting to see where this goes. A hint on the kind of privacy laws that are in place is the fact that Canada has commissioners dedicated to privacy which is often said is a rarity in the world today.

The complaint (PDF) made by CIPPIC says, among other things:

1. This is a complaint under s.11 of Part I of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), regarding the unnecessary and non-consensual collection and use of personal information by Bell Canada and Bell Sympatico (collectively, “Bell”) through the use of “Deep Packet Inspection” (“DPI”) technology.
Our attention has been drawn to this matter by individual internet users, media reports, and most recently, an application filed with the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on 3 April 2008 by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP).

2. In brief, we understand that Bell is engaging in internet “traffic management” practices that involve the inspection of internet traffic headers and content, both of which contain information that can be linked to internet subscribers, purportedly to classify traffic for purposes of network optimization. Such practices – i.e., those involving the collection and use of personal information - are not necessary to ensure network integrity and quality of service. Moreover, subscribers whose traffic is being inspected have not consented to the inspection and use of their data for this purpose. Finally, Bell does not make readily available to individuals specific information about these practices.

3. We submit that Bell is violating Principles 4.3, 4.4, and 4.8 of PIPEDA, Schedule 1 by failing to:
a. Obtain informed consent from affected individuals to the collection and use of their personal information for the purpose of traffic management (Principle 4.3);
b. Limit the collection of personal information to that which is necessary for its stated purposes (Principle 4.4); and
c. Make readily available to the public specific information about its traffic management policies and practices insofar as they involve the collection and analysis of personal information (Principle 4.8).

Internet traffic shaping practices have typically focused on identifying and slowing down Peer-to-Peer (“P2P”) traffic during peak hours of usage, for the alleged purpose of ensuring adequate bandwidth availability for other users. In order to distinguish P2P traffic from other types of traffic, ISPs typically use Deep Packet Inspection technologies. DPI examines the contents (commonly called the “payload”) rather than just the header of the data packet.

A press release (PDF) has the following:

Large ISPs including Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Inc. may be monitoring internet subscribers’ online activities contrary to Canada’s privacy legislation, and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic has asked Canada’s Privacy Commissioner to investigate.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) today filed a complaint with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner about Bell Canada’s alleged practice of monitoring internet subscribers’ internet activities without their knowledge or consent. Bell began to apply “deep packet inspection” to its own Sympatico retail customers late in October 2007, but only admitted this practice late in March 2008, after it began applying the same practice to subscribers of other, independent internet service providers.

There is evidence that other large ISPs such as Rogers, Shaw, and Cogeco may be engaging in similar practices, said Lawson. “Our complaint focuses on Bell, but we are asking the Commissioner to investigate all ISPs who engage in traffic-shaping practices.”

“Canada has privacy legislation that Bell and other ISPs must follow,” Ms. Lawson pointed out. “We’re asking the Privacy Commissioner to investigate just what Bell’s use of deep packet inspection involves. Canadians have a right to know who is looking over their shoulders, and why.”

So, first of all, what are principles 4.3, 4.4, and 4.8 of PIPEDA? Here’s what we find in these sections:

4.3 Principle 3 — Consent

The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

Note: In certain circumstances personal information can be collected, used, or disclosed without the knowledge and consent of the individual. For example, legal, medical, or security reasons may make it impossible or impractical to seek consent. When information is being collected for the detection and prevention of fraud or for law enforcement, seeking the consent of the individual might defeat the purpose of collecting the information. Seeking consent may be impossible or inappropriate when the individual is a minor, seriously ill, or mentally incapacitated. In addition, organizations that do not have a direct relationship with the individual may not always be able to seek consent. For example, seeking consent may be impractical for a charity or a direct-marketing firm that wishes to acquire a mailing list from another organization. In such cases, the organization providing the list would be expected to obtain consent before disclosing personal information.

4.4 Principle 4 — Limiting Collection

The collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means.

4.4.1

Organizations shall not collect personal information indiscriminately. Both the amount and the type of information collected shall be limited to that which is necessary to fulfil the purposes identified. Organizations shall specify the type of information collected as part of their information-handling policies and practices, in accordance with the Openness principle (Clause 4.8).

4.8 Principle 8 — Openness

An organization shall make readily available to individuals specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information.

4.8.1

Organizations shall be open about their policies and practices with respect to the management of personal information. Individuals shall be able to acquire information about an organization’s policies and practices without unreasonable effort. This information shall be made available in a form that is generally understandable.

Considering Bell Canada was very secretive in their business with filtering technology, among other things, it definitely sounds like Bell Canada is about to get nailed for their use of Deep Packet Inspection. It also sounds like that ‘33% overloaded’ complaint from Bell, as we reported last month, is going to be a part of the trouble Bell put themselves in to.

Second of all, there was mention over the CAIP submission at the CRTC. Michael Geist posted about this, highlighting the privacy concerns Deep Packet Inspection, the technique used to filter P2P traffic:

CAIP is also raising privacy concerns with the throttling, seeking an order that “Bell has acted unlawfully and contrary to the prohibition on carrier interference with the content of messages carried over its telecommunications network contrary to section 36 of the Act and contrary to the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(a) and (i) which, inter alia, seek to protect the privacy of persons.” The privacy argument is based on Bell’s deep-packet inspection of Internet traffic. In particular:

“In order to throttle the Internet traffic originating from/or destined for end-user customers of independent ISPs, Bell is using measures to first, open each data packet, examine the packet data and header information, and then apply certain rules to the content in question. This aspect of Bell’s wholesale throttling activities give rise to concerns that Bell’s actions violate the privacy of the communications of its wholesale customers (as well as
that of their own end-user customers). It also gives rise to concerns that Bell has violated its duty under section 36 of the Act not to control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.”

Michael Geist is noting this connection as well:

With CAIP raising the privacy issue in its submission to the CRTC, it was only a matter of time before the Privacy Commissioner was asked to intervene.

Finally, it seems that the complaint stems specifically from a few things, some of which include the fact that Bell did not obtain permission from its customers to use the technology, it didn’t disclose it’s practices in, not only a clear manner, but a timely manner, limit the amount of information they obtain, and the fact that filtering the internet is clearly not an essential practice on the network in the first place.

The case has a number of similarities to the Phorm controversy in Britain where two analysis, one from Richard Clayton and the other from FIPR (which complimented Claytons analysis)

Phorm, of course, has a few key differences in the fact that it’s based on analysis of web surfing behavior while the DPI technology analyzes specific packets from a few protocols. At the same time, the similarities are very real in the fact that both deal with intervention from an Internet Service Provider and capturing and using private information indiscriminately. One thing to consider is the simple fact that the privacy laws in Britain are different from that of Canada. Either way, when an ISP starts collecting personal information in some form or another, there’s bound to be high level controversy at some point.

Whether or not the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will respond is, of course, another matter. There was a case in the past where CIPPIC filed a privacy complaint (namely against Abika.com) back in June of 2004 (second from bottom). The privacy commissioner initially refused to intervene due to a jurisdiction issue, but after going through court for a judicial review, the courts ruled in favor of CIPPIC and the case resumed in 2007.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Privacy Commissioner has to say about this case and if the commissioner will intervene. Looking through the laws CIPPIC sites, it seems reasonable to assume that there’ll be fewer issues in this case.

The Open Source Cinema is currently looking for mugshots of you for an upcoming movie that opposes restrictive copyright changes. Users are asked to use the Copyright Criminals photo plate to show that under certain copyright reform laws, you would become a criminal.

Yesterday, we reported on the growing movement against copyright reform every time there is even mention of changing copyright laws in Canada. Now we have learned that there is a call for people to submit mugshots of themselves.

It is not necessarily a contest, but if you care about the copyright laws in Canada and have a camera, this may be for you. How do people qualify? If you copy anything in any way, if you remix something, if you share something, if you back up DVDs, if you ever partaken in iPod parties, if you watch DVDs through a Linux machine, if you time shift, if you mix music, if you DJ your own web radio show, if you remix and photoshop pictures, if you make fun of something, etc. You too may become a “Copyright Criminal” in Canada under new laws.

More from the site:

So - are you a copyright criminal? We’ll edit together these photo mug shots into the movie.

Download and print the photo plate below, take a picture with it, then upload it back here using the image submit form.

While new copyright laws haven’t been tabled yet in Canada, as we already noted, this won’t be stopping this from being put together now.

Just register on the site and submit your photo when you have your photo ready.

About Open Source Cinema:

Welcome to OpenSourceCinema.org, a collaborative documentary project to create a feature film about copyright in the digital age.

Several years ago, I began researching the intersection of culture and creativity - exploring how in the digital age, everything we know about copyright has been turned upside down. From mash-ups to filesharing, creation to distribution, everything is in flux.

This all came in to sharp relief when I attended the MGM vs Grokster oral argument in 2005. Outside, the music industry and file-sharing supporters alike protested in large numbers. One music industry veteran declared “music is like a donut. Pay for the donut, you get to eat it”. Meanwhile, a 16 kid told me “I don’t think you can own music - its just feelings. How can you own that?” So who’s right? Is culture a product? Will the next generation ever settle for anything less than free? Thats what I want to explore in this documentary, which is tentatively titled Basement Tapes.

My name is Brett Gaylor, and the feature documentary I’m creating needs your help to be made - thats why Open Source Cinema exists - to faciliate online collaboration - to create a participatory way to discuss these issues.

Via BoingBoing

The EFF points us to new disturbing demands by the French version of the RIAA known as SNEP (Syndicat national de l’édition phonographique). Among the demands are a deadline for laws to be put in place that would disconnecting file-sharers from the internet and the ability to serve as police, judge and jury against French P2P users.

When it comes to making what many see as far fetched claims about copyright, many think of copyright industry bodies inside the United States. Recently though, it seems as though there are dramatic claims and demands coming out of the French copyright industry recently.

The EFF recently pointed to a posting made by La Quadrature Du Net (Squaring the Net) which shows, among other things, a leaked copy of the proposed French law. From the posting:

From the enactment by an administrative authority of a list of mandatory filtering systems - a policy worth of a Soviet economy - to the cutoff of Internet access without trial nor proof, through the extension of anti-terrorist measures against non-profit copying, not to mention the creation of a court of exception for copyright related disputes on the Internet… The Olivennes project demonstrates that France has truly become a laboratory for obscurantist lobbies.

“This text is contrary to European law, whether in the field of human rights or free competition. It denies the social, economical and technical realities and demonstrates a serious lack of reflection concerning digital technology and related issues.” said Christophe Espern, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net (Squaring the Net); adding: “The persons who are driving this text are dangerous and incompetent. The interests they are defending are clearly not those of France nor Europe. There is an urgent need to stop them before the French presidency of the EU…”

It seems that Squaring the Net has been following the developments from France within the European Union for some time. In another posting:

Paris, April 30th, 2008. Hervé Rony, spokesperson for the SNEP (french syndicate of the record industry), declared yesterday that « it would not be acceptable » that the “flexible response” would not be examined before summer by the French Parliament. He added that it would be « a bit late if the Olivennes law was voted before the end of July [1].

La Quadrature du Net (Squaring the net) reminds the french government and SNEP that one does not make laws in a rush about such important subjects as the regulation of civil liberties on the Internet and the development of digital economy… and that « the coffers are empty » as the french president Nicolas Sarkozy said.

[…]And the SNEP pretends that the reading of this text by the French Senate few weeks before the French presidency of the European Union is a matter of emergency?

Apparently, that posting is an understatement. The EFF offered the following examination:

After explaining exactly why drastic measures are necessary (to “prevent the hemorrhaging of cultural works on the Internet”) the document outlines a powerful new government body, the High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet (La Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des Å“uvres et la protection des droits sur Internet, or HADOPI).

The footnote is particularly damning:

And, incidentally, misleads the Counseil d’Etat as to how widely the Olivennes proposal is being imitated elsewhere. The document claims that Canada is considering “three strikes”, and that the United States has already implemented a similar solution as “a result of agreements between ISPs and rightsholders”. Neither is true.

The idea that Canada is considering a three strike policy is an outright lie. In all the years Canada has had copyright debates, a “three strike” policy was never even brought up as a serious law change consideration (the closest thing was ‘notice-and-notice’/'notice-and-takedown’ regimes which is a far cry from a three strike policy). To our knowledge, it has yet to even be brought up in any of the debates overall. At worst, there was anti-circumvention, anti-camcording, and making file-sharing an illegal act as of Bill C-60, but considering outright banishment from the internet is simply untrue at this point in time. In the United States on the other hand, there were talks of P2P filtering, there were incidences of arresting alleged copyright infringers where a rare punishment in a court judgment was being barred from using computers, but there has yet to be laws put in place that simply bans file-sharers from the internet altogether. It seems as though the courts were the last thing on these people’s minds though.

The EFF continues with the following:

As judge, jury, and executioner of “three strikes”, HADOPI is born with wide-ranging powers over all French Internet users. The High Authority acts on reports of suspected infringement from rightsholder groups. Based on those accusations alone it can contact, warn, suspend and finally deny Net service to any French citizen. The High Authority has the right to obtain and peruse a year’s worth of personal records from ISPs in the pursuit of their targets. They can order ISPs to include new filtering systems into their infrastructure, and can fine them up to 5,000 euros if they provide Net service to anyone on placed on the Authority’s national Internet blacklist.

It seems as though a number in the European Union are overwhelmingly rejecting this. Squaring the Net reports that 8 out of 10 countries are rejecting the report that all of this is originating from (known as the Olivennes bill)

The leaked bill can be found here (French PDF)

It seems as though the French music industry wants to have laws as suggested implemented by the end of the Summer and anything less would be “unacceptable”. We here at ZeroPaid have one suggestion for the French music industry - stop watching JG Wentworth commercials:

Was it something Michael Geist or a Canadian MP said or have the concerns over Copyright started spilling into more action within Canada? Whatever started this, though likely for many reasons instead of one, it seems that discussion over copyright and how to change laws for the better has seen substantial growth in the last few weeks - a growth not seen since Michael Geist’s Facebook group.

Many may point to Michael Geist’s well-known Copyright Myths presentation that made its debut in the Public Policy Forum symposium on copyright. One of the points Geist made during his panel speech was that there has been limited consultation and substantial action. He notes the last consultation that occurred in 2001 and, in contrast, notes the actions of the government through ‘phase one’ with respect to new rights in 1987, rental rights in 1992, private copying and statutory damages in 2002, and last year’s anti-camcording law. The talk was posted shortly afterwards for all to watch and listen.

While likely highly motivating and inspiring for many, it could easily be said that the movement towards more debates like this was sparked by James Rajotte, a Conservative Member of the Alberta Parliament and Chair of the Standing Committee of Industry suggesting that the copyright bill may be weeks away. As noted by Russell McOrmond, the copyright reform bill has been on the order paper for some time now - meaning it could be tabled at any time. It may lead some to wonder if there ever will be copyright reform since it’s been promised numerous times in the Conservative government, but never tabled thus far.

Though likely to be tabled or not, that won’t (and shouldn’t) slow the debates any whenever the government makes documented moves outside of the order-paper to say that Copyright Reform is to be tabled soon. This has been a consistent thing in the copyright reform process - when the Liberal government tabled Bill C-60 which ultimately died in November of 2005, the move was quickly followed up by Russell McOrmond’s Bill C-60 petition, then there was the formation of Online Rights Canada the following month in December (it was started as a joint project between CIPPIC and the EFF), then there was the formation of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition part way through into 2006. This, of course, is by far not a complete list (in fact, it is a very small sample), but it is a few of the notable movements that seems to have appeared following the copyright reform bill back in 2005.

Fast-forward to 2007, when the current Conservative governing party nearly tabled copyright reform, Michael Geists Facebook group quickly grew and sparked online and offline protests. The governing party panicked and pulled the legislation before it was tabled. During all of this was formation of the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright. Again, a small, but significant, sample of movements.

Now more recently, a chair-person comments that copyright reform is going to be tabled before the break during the Public Policy Forum Copyright symposium. This happend during a time when the Canadian Federation of Students renewed calls for fair copyright. Two very different consultation processes spring up. The first is offline and has numerous corporate people along with Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) to name a few in a subsequent consultation some are saying is going to be unbalanced debate. The second occurrence, again, being followed by Michael Geist, is calm copyright which is online and can very easily feature consumers and people who feel that copyright reform should respect all stakeholders involved.

The interesting thing about Calm Copyright (asside from the debates themselves) is their about page which states the following:

Copyright is an important subject in Canada right now. Despite appearances, there are dozens of stakeholders trying to be heard in the heated debate happening across the country. In the melee, subtleties are lost, and many groups that might otherwise be in agreement are pitted against each other over issues that they consider peripheral to their core values.

On this site, we are going to try to decipher everyone’s true positions on copyright, and see how close we are to a consensus. There may be some issues that we’ll never conquer, but with any luck, we’ll know exactly WHY they’re insurmountable.

The key to this process is civility. Take a deep breath, organize your thoughts, and engage in a conversation, not a shouting match. If we get all worked up, we see nothing but catastrophe. We need to stay calm and figure it out.

It may be a concept that should be employed more often in these crucial debates, inviting everyone to the table. It certainly is a welcoming change considering there has been a number of instances in the past during copyright debates of private meetings, backroom deals, closed door talks as seen in the SPP in Canada, street rallies, fund-raisers (AKA copyright “celebrations”), on-the-spot intense questionings, and name-calling to name a few things that have happened in the last three years of the copyright reform process.

Certainly an important aspect in all of this is the fact that whenever copyright reform is suggested to be tabled, Canadians on both sides of the table are, at least, ready. One can hope the pressure keeps up even if copyright reform isn’t tabled because how can everyone win when only one side is present and represented at the table?

Pressure from the Malaysian government causes the site’s host to ask them to temporarily shutdown their main server.

QuickSilverScreen, one of t ne of the webs more popular video streaming sites has been accused by the Malaysian government of illegally hosting copyrighted material. Thanks in part to pressure from Malaysian authorities, the site’s host asked them to shutdown the main server this morning while the matter is sorted out.

“We still have full control over all our servers and are working with our host & the malaysian government to find a solution for this stupid mistake,” reads the site.

But fans of the site have no fear for it also says that they “…expect to be up and running in a few days.”

The site has been in a sort of a transitional period as of late after Stage66, the third party site where all content was actually hosted in crisp DIVX quality format, was shutdown more than a month ago.

It’s important to note this because the site is correct in arguing that it doesn’t actually host any copyrighted material. With the help of users it merely embeds video content, usually copyrighted of course, from third party sites. So if anything it’s the third party sites, now usually China-based, that should face charges of illegally hosting copyrighted content and not QuickSilverScreen.

In any event, for those looking for temporary alternatives, check HERE, HERE, and HERE.