April 21, 2011
"Internet service providers’ claim that new law infringes web users’ ‘basic rights and freedoms’ rejected by high court."

—

From Filesharing: BT and TalkTalk fail in challenge to Digital Economy Act.

According to this article, thousands of warning letters accusing Internet users of downloading copyright protected content will be sent in the first half of next year.

I was wondering where it were the Ofcom codes for copyright infringement. Seems that the process was on hold because of this legal action, but now the copyright police of Internet in UK will start working.

It’s easy: copyright holders are supposed to gather data about the people believed to be illegally downloading copyright protected content, and then the ISP will match that data against their customers database to send the warning letters to those accused.

You must be guilty if they say so…

by jjm on 5:15pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy4Ucq5w
(View comments) 
(Notes: 1)
  
Filed under: UK Ofcom privacy Digital Economy Act 2010 copyright piracy Internet 1984 
March 27, 2011
Digital Canon Ruled Illegal in Spain

The National Court in Spain has ruled that the so called “Digital Canon” is illegal. Oh, surprise.

For those unfamiliar with Spanish regulations, this canon is not exactly a tax, because it’s not collected by the government but by different right management associations. So the consequences of not paying it (ie. you can buy media in a different country, and that media would be canon free) are unclear. It’s not a tax, hence it’s not a legal offence not to pay it (although it’s really difficult to find a reseller in Spain that distributes ‘canon free’ media).

The canon it’s supposed to compensate the authors for revenue lost because of private copy (which is legal in Spain, and means that you have the right to make a copy for your own exclusive use of any copyrighted material you acquire legally). Since 2003 this canon increased the price of CD and DVD first, and later MP3 players, hard disks, CD/DVD writers, etc.

This has been very unfair to free software users, because it doesn’t matter if you’re using your media to make a private copy of copyrighted material or not. Or just think about the pictures of your last holiday trip. Yes, you’re going to pay the authors for it!

What National Court said is basically that the process for collecting and distributing the funds from the canon it’s not right, and thus the digital canon is illegal and must stop.

Now there’s the obvious question: if the canon was illegal, what happens with the collected money? The right management associations say no to refund back the money (which is around 100 Million € only for last year). Oh, oh! Double surprise!

by jjm on 10:17am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy3sBcIY
(View comments) 
Filed under: SGAE copyright canon Spain National Court the canon is not a tax 
February 19, 2011
"The new process […] begins with rightsholders gathering lists of Internet Protocol addresses which they believe have infringed their copyrights. (This data could be gathered most easily by a rightsholder connecting to a Peer-to-Peer download of a work they own, and noting the other IP addresses to which their computer connects.) They would then send each IP number to the appropriate Internet Service Provider […] along with a “copyright infringement report”."

—

From Wikipedia about Digital Economy Act 2010.

The interesting thing is that the threshold is set by the Ofcom (Office of Communications), and the details of the copyright infringement provisions are specified in a series of codes to be produced by this organisation (the Act only sets limits).

There’s a draf (published 28/05/10), and the final document was supposed to be released no later than the end of September 2010. I can’t find that document, but keep an eye on it if you’re an Internet user in the UK. It may affect you.

by jjm on 9:08pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy39yhaw
(View comments) 
Filed under: UK Ofcom copyright Digital Economy Act 2010 privacy Internet 
July 28, 2010
Copyright Nonsense

You may know I play different instruments, including the Ukelele.

I’m actually a casual player, and I’m user of different websites that provide lyrics and chords of the songs I like to play. One of these sites is Ukelele Tabs.

When I moved to UK I sadly noticed that they were having legal problems because of copyright infringement, and songs weren’t available (remember: lyrics and chords, for Ukelele!). It’s not a big deal, because I can play almost any guitar tablature (although I obviously prefer those adapted to the Ukelele).

Today I realized that they solved their legal problems. If you check a song (at least from an UK connection), you’ll see something like:

Intro :
[C][G][Am][F][C][G][F-Em-Dm][C]

1st verse :
       C              G                 Am          F
xxxx I xxxx xxxxxx in xxxxx xx xxxxxxx, Mother xxxx comes xx xx
C                 G              F  Em Dm C
Speaking xxxxx of xxxxxx, xxx it xx
    C             G                    Am            F
And xx my xxxx of darkness, xxx xx standing xxxxx in xxxxx xx xx
C                 G              F  Em Dm C
Speaking xxxxx of xxxxxx, xxx it xx

That’s part of the tablature of Let It Be (Beatles).

I don’t know if you’re as surprised as me, but I don’t think copyright laws are meant to be used like this. I’ll keep playing and singing copyrighted songs at home, so go and sue me (sic).

by jjm on 8:25am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZyprzpI
(View comments) 
Filed under: copyright tablatures lyrics UK abuse nonsense