The Constable on August 28th, 2008
Doesn’t the FBI have more important things to do than go after someone for leaking Guns n’ Roses songs? Sure, it’s illegal… but aren’t there much bigger fish to fry than someone posting 9 songs? Much less, 9 songs from an album that, if history is any indication, will never see the light of day anyway (and when if it does, will anyone really even care?)
The Constable on August 27th, 2008
Yeah… I’m lazy on this one and am just copying the press release about the news.
A Bristol man has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after pleading guilty to a total of 23 offences relating to the possessing for sale of illegally copied games, films, music and pornography on recordable discs. He also requested that a further 144 offences be taken into consideration and was ordered to pay £12,000 towards prosecution costs. Gary Boulter, 51, of 15 Knapp Road, Thornbury, Bristol, appeared before Bristol Crown Court on August 26 to be sentenced for offences under the Trade Marks Act (1994) and the Video Recordings Act (1985) as a result of a prosecution brought by South Gloucestershire Trading Standards. In addition to this, a confiscation order for £10,500 was made under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002), requiring that the outstanding money be paid within six months or he would be face a further nine months in prison.
Boulter was origionally investigated by South Gloucestershire Trading Standards following a tip-off alleging that he was involved in running a copying factory from his premises. A warrant was subsequently executed in December 2005 involving Avon and Somerset Police, Trading Standards, ELSPA (the Entertainment & Leisure Publishers Association) undercover investigators and representatives of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which revealed that Boulter had a room dedicated to copying games, film, music and pornography.
Several computers and copying equipment was seized, as well as over 2300 copied discs including PlayStation®2 and Xbox® games, feature films, music and pornographic films. In addition, nearly 500 blank DVD-R discs and 173 copied inlays were removed.
The legitimate market value of the detained games, films and music is estimated to be in excess of £50,000.
Forensic examination of his computer established that Boulter was copying in response to orders that were being regularly placed with him by friends and contacts. During interview Boulter claimed that he did the copying as a hobby and gave the discs to friends and family at no cost despite the fact that it was costing him to do so. However, evidence retrieved from his computer clearly demonstrated that he was receiving payment for his efforts.
The maximum penalty upon conviction for offences under the Trade Marks Act is an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.
In passing sentence, Judge Darwall-Smith commented that Boulter’s operation was a large commercial venture and that his illegal use of trademarks debases the industries affected.
Michael Rawlinson, managing director of ELSPA, said: “ I congratulate South Gloucestershire Trading Standards and local Police for successfully shutting down Gary Boulter’s criminal operation. ELSPA would like to thank the efforts of everyone concerned in their attempts to protect legitimate local traders and remove illegal products from the marketplace.”
Neil Derrick, Senior Enforcement Officer for South Gloucestershire Trading Standards, said: “ Mr Boulter has been dealt with severely by the court and this should stand as a stern warning to others who are tempted to engage in this type of activity. He has not only lost his liberty, but now also has to pay significant sums of money in costs and under the confiscation order, as well as having all of his discs and associated equipment forfeited. He obviously had no regard for the local retailers whose businesses are badly affected by counterfeiting and he was supplying pornographic films, which are age restricted and the content of which means they should only be sold by a licensed sex shop.”
The Constable on August 26th, 2008
Is Mickey Mouse really in the public domain? Interesting article over at the LA Times explores the possibility, based on some new finds in the fine print.
The Constable on August 26th, 2008
When it comes to intellectual property theft (or sharing, or whatever you want to call it) online, one area that is quite often overlooked is the small niche of sheet music. When it comes to music, the majority of the attention is and has been focused on audio downloads (as a quick glance at the most popular tags on this site will also attest to).
Yes, there was the crackdown a few years ago on guitar tab sites, but a quick google search will show you how effective that was. But beyond guitar tab and even audio downloads lies the foundation on which most of the music “business” is based - namely, sheet music.
Of course, there are legal outlets for downloading sheet music online, such as Musicnotes.com and Sheet Music Direct, but one issue that has plagued the sheet music industry for decades has been the photocopier. This has since been moving to the Internet through PDF downloads, etc. - and as people have become more accustomed to downloading online (both sheet music and audio), the Internet has become the new photocopier.
The current leader in online sheet music file sharing and trading is by far the web site Pianofiles.com. Boasting a catalog of over 1.5 million sheets, and well over a half of a million users, the site is quickly becoming one of the most popular destinations for online sheet music.
The site appears to be trying to skirt copyright law by not offering any actual downloads on the site itself, but instead works as a trading community, where users can trade their sheet music with each other. As for the files that are traded, it is unclear as to if they are ever hosted on the Pianofiles site. Of course, their terms require that people don’t share copyright-protected material and they have the standard “file a legal claim and we’ll take it down” system that has become the de-facto standard online.
The thing I find strange, however, is that if they really aren’t encouraging people to share copyright-protected files, why do they tell their users to buy sheet music online from Musicnotes.com or Sheet Music Plus, scan it, and upload it?
This one will be interesting to watch, since even though sheet music is a niche, it is a firmly established niche with some very well established companies (and associations) backing it. As to if Pianofiles is doing anything “illegal” by acting as an enabler, that is something I cannot answer.
The Constable on August 25th, 2008
Dear Grooveshark:
Are you serious? You’re actually selling songs that you know you don’t have rights to, and just putting the money into a slush fund so you can pay the record labels, etc. when you get the deal done? Seriously?!
recent twitter conversation:
 |
Grooveshark @ipthieves and @ielliott exactly! except for streaming royalties (already work with ASCAP etc. for those) |
  |
 |
ipthieves @Grooveshark re:iElliott… so basically you don’t have a license yet, but are putting the money in a fund to pay royalties once you do? |
|
|
Grooveshark @iElliott not to be cryptic, but 58 seconds in: http://tinyurl.com/6p9vr4 |
|
 |
iElliott @grooveshark - how did you get rights to sell Beatles MP3s? You’d be the only one as far as I know… |
In my experience, if there is one way to kill any chances of going legit, it is to do exactly what you are doing. Your system of posting songs and paying ASCAP / streaming rights is more than likely fine, but to sell content that you know you don’t have rights to is extraordinarily risky.
From the deals I’ve worked on, one thing has stood out - and that is that there are many publishers and labels out there who simply will not work with a business if they have openly violated copyright law.
The simple fact that you have songs from The Beatles available for sale on your service, when not even iTunes has gotten this, is an extraordinarily bad move on your part, if your goal is to be a legal service with actual licenses. It’s one thing to hold royalties if you don’t know if you have rights. That’s debatable, but to hold royalties when you KNOW you don’t have rights….
All I can say is good luck, and I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer.
The Constable on August 25th, 2008
I have to admit, I haven’t had much time to research this site since I just came across it this morning… so consider this more of a note to myself than anything.
A kind of P2P music file sharer / iTunes / social network, Grooveshark.com “is an online music community that rewards you for sharing, reviewing, and discovering new music.” The more music you share, the more credits you get to download music from other people. Beyond this, the built-in social aspect of the site allows people to organize, filter and recommend music for each other - and the most respected users are automatically highlighted so as to give the best experience for casual users.
As for the legal portion… frankly I don’t know how this is set up. At first glance it appears that users can upload anything they want, and then the music is available for sharing or download.
Here’s the info from their one-sheet for the labels:
User Music Experience
Label Licensing Benefits
Label Content Management
Terms
I haven’t been able to find an option yet for labels to opt out of the system, but I’m not going to say it doesn’t exist. However, I find it hard to believe they are doing this without first gaining approval. If they are simply posting songs, then selling them, and then trying to get contracts, that’s going to be a major problem.
I’ll try to spend some more time on the site later and give a better overview at that time. In the meantime, if anyone has any experience with Grooveshark, please give your opinions in the comments below.
All said, it does look pretty slick. I’m excited to do some research.
The Constable on August 25th, 2008
Came across this article while doing my morning news reading. Now that Obama has selected his running mate, it’s important to know where Joe Biden stands on a topic that is important to many people, but unlikely to be discussed during any of the debates, etc.
As I come across other candidates’ stance on these issues, I’ll be sure to post the news.
The Constable on August 24th, 2008
With all the illegal file trading sites on the Internet, one major thing keeps popping up among them.  This is the fact that more and more of these sites are hosting in other countries, most notably Russia. The reason for this is that in countries like Russia and some others, copyright law is quite different than it is here in the United States, and the sites are free to do whatever it is they like.
Of course, just hosting in Russia isn’t enough to avoid the issue. Ideally the sites are also registered to companies or individuals in these other countries so they can avoid all legal issues. That said, with a lot of the action that is going on currently, most of the crackdown (other than the RIAA) has been to send sites “take-down” notices. This generally also includes sending a notice to the site’s web hosting comany as well, implying that the host itself may also be culpable for any potential broken laws, lawsuits, or even (usually threatened) jail time.
Generally when it comes to sites that actively participate in what is considered (in the U.S. at least) to be copyright infringement, it is one of two cases: 1.) the site owner doesn’t realize he or she is breaking any laws, or 2.) the site owner knows, or expects a high possibility, that what he or she is doing may be breaking laws, but does it anyway.
In the instances of example one, a take-down notice will probably work by scaring the individual into taking the site down. For this reason, some of what the RIAA has been doing has been effective, in that there are people out there who are scared from what they’ve heard on the news (whether suing your potential customers is a good business tactic is another question altogether).
It’s in the instances of example two, however, that take-down notices risk even furthering the problem by simply moving the site somewhere else. Look at textbooktorrents.com. They were down, and are now back up on another server, and based on the current message on their site they are likely to move servers again the next time they are taken down at their host. The same thing has happened several times with The Pirate Bay.
One can assume the inevitable result of all of this is that sites like these will all be hosted in other countries where copyright law currently allows it. So what then? If intellectual property really is one of the most valuable products of the United States, will the government eventually step in and force Internet Service Providers to block access to specific sites? This currently seems unlikely, especially given the recent judgment by the FCC against Comcast for their throttling of bandwidth to torrent sites.
But if not this, then what? Eventual legal persecution of people downloading the files? Again, this seems to make as much sense as the drug war focusing on arresting everyone who does drugs but doing nothing about the dealers. Will it lead to political sanctions, such as the threats between the WTO and Russia for allofmp3.com? If the countries are defiant, again this will not work.
So is the real potential in all of this to actually go to war over intellectual property theft? Or will the laws simply change?
Perhaps the copyright holders will save the day by changing their approach to licensing.
Perhaps… but I recommend you stock up on canned goods. You know, just in case.
The Constable on August 22nd, 2008
Just came across this Youtube video via Stumbleupon and thought it was worth sharing.
Enjoy:
The Constable on August 22nd, 2008
This is probably a bit old, since The Chronicle of Higher Education already reported on this way back in the beginning of July, but it seems like it would be a disservice not to mention it here as well.
As is to be expected with any kind of product that is easily digitized and pricier than most people would like, one of the biggest new things being traded online is textbooks. As such, sites like Textbook Torrents are starting to pop up focused on the area, hoping this focus will help spur more availability of the books (they claim to currently have over 5,000 fully scanned textbooks).
Of course, the copyright holders and publishers of these products are less than happy with this and have begun a concerted legal effort to thwart the sharing of such files. Their response: the Association of American Publishers has hired an outside legal firm to send takedown notices to sites hosting the illegal content (although I’m not quite sure how this is going to do them any good in the p2p realm).
One thing to note, however, is that unlike the RIAA’s approach, the publishers have yet to focus on the actual individuals downloading the books. Rather, they appear to be placing their focus (for now at least) entirely on the ones actively hosting the files.
As for Textbook Torrents, it appears they have already been forced to move servers once - and they seem to be prepared to do it again. This is the one real problem with take-down notices: all it will do is keep moving the sites from server to server until they decide to move their hosting to somewhere outside the United States or any other territory that will actually take them down.
