‘copyright infringement’

The Piracy Bay Highlights the File Sharing Copyright Infringement Controversy

Peer to peer (P2P), file sharing networks and file share hosts, so-called torrent hosts or  torrent search engines such as The Pirate Bay, Napster, Supernova.org, TorrentSpy and isoHunt have all come under fire for so-called copyright infringement or the facilitation of copyright infringement.

Most recent, is the controversial ordering of two Dutch cable companies to block access to The Pirate Bay website. Although the owners of the website have already been found guilty of copyright infringement facilitation, the website is still fully functional. Users can still download and share music, videos, games and other content.

Although file sharing may be illegal in some countries, not all countries are equally strict on such. The Pirate Bay is a Swedish based website, and with millions of users around the world, it certainly has a lot of support. Indeed, the governments will have a hard time in tracking down every single user of such sites.

Indeed, one doesn’t necessarily need a website or search engine to download torrents. With numerous P2P networks facilitating file sharing, it can become a full time job for police around the world to track and shut down every single network.

There is also the question of whether file sharing is illegal. Not all files shared are copyright protected. Public domain works can be freely downloaded and distributed. Many authors or creators of works share such works under shareware and freeware licenses. Most of them welcome file sharing as such ensures that their works can be distributed to more people.

Anti-piracy group BREIN and other firms in the entertainment industry, including EMI and Sony Universal Music, originally brought the case against the owners of The Piracy Bay. A Swedish court ruled for jail sentences and a hefty fine trailing in the millions.

The issue has highlighted the plight of musicians, film companies, record houses and television producers regarding piracy. Whether it does constitute copyright infringement or piracy to share a file with another person for personal usage remains a hotly debated issue.

Torrents

With torrents, a user downloads not from one person alone, but can download from several persons. Rather than downloading one large file from a single supplier, such is thus downloaded in many bits from several sites or computers acting as sources on a network. This is done simultaneously and there is normally no fee involved. With a person downloading only one bit from one seeder for instance, and the rest from several peers in the network, one is thus not technically involved in infringement if the file is downloaded for personal use or so everyone thought, until recently.

Torrents differ from the normal P2P networks in the sense that one doesn’t have to subscribe, but where the users actively share files. Users are encouraged to share their files which are known as seeding. Users, who only download and don’t seed, are penalized. Such users are known as leeching agents. Torrents download at amazing speeds and with an open source code; file sharing communities are becoming exceedingly popular.

Torrent Engine

The Pirate Bay has adverts, which makes it different. However, since it doesn’t actively host the files, but is rather a search engine to find torrents, some controversy still surrounds the banning of the site. Some arguments have been made that the site owners were enriched because of their advert income, but the counter arguments state that the costs for running such a search engine are extremely high and that the advert income thus just covers the costs.

Napster at the other end indexed and made the files available. As such the site was involved in copyright infringement and not just facilitating such or finding torrents for the purpose. A recent jury verdict in the USA highlighted the danger for personal computer users when it comes to file sharing. A verdict was awarded against a woman for wilfully sharing music files. Although the verdict was reduced based on her downloading and sharing files for personal usage, it shows that consumers should expect to be act against for large quantity file sharing.  Although most of the attention is focused on file sharing websites and Internet service providers allowing for such consumers may in future be cut off from services if they are found guilty of such actions.

What are the Consequences of File Sharing?

The heated debate continues with some arguing that file sharing causes lower ranking music albums to struggle whilst the high ranking albums get a boost. The smaller artists thus feel the brunt of file sharing effects.  In the same group the feeling is that author’s creativity is negatively affected. Some sources, however, suggest that it doesn’t affect the sales of albums and that the sales of books, films and music albums have increased rather than decreased because of file sharing.

Whether or not torrents or P2P file sharing communities should be allowed to exist is another hotly debated issue.  Understandably, musicians, actors, artists and writers want to benefit commercially from their work. With that in mind, it has been suggested that sites such as The Pirate Bay be allowed to exist, but that a membership fee should be charged. Proceeds can then be shared amongst the contributors to the site.

It seems a plausible solution, but not one that will be accepted by large entertainment companies needing a lot of profit. The sheer volume of administration can be another problem when it comes to royalty payments.

SOPA

The Stop Online Privacy Act, a bill being discussed in the US Senate and House may significantly change the online environment for millions of users who will no longer be able to download and share files. Google and Facebook are some of the larger players opposing the Bill while supporters include the large entertainment companies. If the bill passes through, it could mean that the US government would be able to block out certain sites deemed to be involved or facilitating illegal downloading and file sharing.

Google, Facebook and YouTube may lose thousands to millions of visits and ad revenue. Content creators may also feel the pinch. As such the opposition to be bill is extremely strong. What do you think? Should Internet file sharing sites be blocked out and should consumers be prosecuted for downloading and sharing files in P2P networks?

The Internet has become the focus of tremendous clamp down actions from governments worldwide. It is almost as if the inability to control the information highway has caused panic amongst policy makers. The newest clamp down action is in the form of a bill proposed in the USA where The Stop Online Piracy Act is under discussion.

Purpose of the Act

The Act has as purpose to stop the widespread copyright infringement that takes place on the Internet. Although certainly a plus for authors struggling to keep others from copying their work and for musicians attempting to make a living without seeing all their music copied and distributed for free, it is seen by many as too much control.

Balance the Measures

The ideal will be to get a middle ground rather than putting into place an act that will give authors far too much power without any control mechanisms. If an author finds infringing content at another website the author will have the right to have the site banned from the search results and even online payment houses such as PayPal must comply in cutting off the site.

The problem is not in taking action against copyright infringing sites, but the lack of control over the process. Someone can simply decide to get rid of a competitor and then allege copyright infringement. Without so much as a warning the site can under the proposed Piracy Act be banned and totally blacklisted. It will surely be an easy means to get rid of a competitor. Google and other ad providers will not be allowed to send visitors to the site and the alleged copyright infringing site will basically have pariah status until proven not-guilty.

Guilty Until Proven Not-Guilty

The onus will be on the alleged copyright infringing site owner to proof the plaintiff wrong and in the mean time the site’s reputation will be destroyed. In addition the owner will have no income from the site. For many website owners it could mean bankruptcy.

Current Situation
Up to now, site owners would get a letter about copyright infringement and the opportunity to remove such before the service provider was informed. If the site owner did not respond further action could be taken, but with the new proposed stop online piracy legislation, the above steps are removed leading to an immediate ban on the site.

Internet service providers will, if the act on online piracy is accepted be forced to act as policing agents regarding copyright infringement. If they don’t act against the so-called perpetrator then they face penalties. It does seem like big brother techniques and almost reminds of dictatorship where the service providers are burdened with additional tasks and blackmailed to report and ban sites.

Alternative Methods for Dealing with Culprits

If a site is indeed guilty of ongoing online piracy or copyright infringement, such should be removed from the Internet with no further avail, but allowing anyone to simply point a finger with the service provider in the middle to take action against a site, is unfair.

There should at least be standards and guidelines as to how much information must have been copied without proper citation or music made available when making a judgement regarding whether online piracy has taken place or not. Innocent sites can easily fall prey to the system.

For a country where freedom of speech is promoted and open source programming is promoted such an act seems grossly out of place. There are those who feel that it would severely hinder the growth of the Internet. With the Internet not belonging to anyone, governments should not be allowed to exert so much control over websites.

The mere fear of possible online piracy or copyright infringement can leave websites empty. Not only has Google recently made it more difficult for websites to perform well, but now with the proposed online piracy act there is the risk that large companies can misuse the rights to get rid of competitors. The Internet consists not only of large websites, but also smaller ones, blogs, forums and more where one can expect some extent of infringement.

Give Users The Right To Choose

The three strikes law should be more appropriate and will be less draconic than the proposed online piracy act. The short name for the act will be E-PARASITE. Although piracy is a huge problem world-wide the control of information platforms should be limited. Users must have the rights to propose measures to counter piracy and should not be forced to accept draconic laws that will lead to the slowing down of information growth.

Internet Service Providers will have to use additional resources to monitor the websites hosted on their servers. It almost becomes a new state of control where there is one party watching another who in turn must watch that another party complies.

Proper Referencing

A solution may be to force website owners to reference the sites from where they obtained information. If such references are lacking, a warning can be given and then can one request removal of the specific site until the site commits to non-infringement.

It does seem as if the openness of the Internet will be something of the past. You will not know that there was a site since it will be completely removed from ads, search results and the DNS servers.

One can even be so bold as to state that such action will be the same as censorship and thus deciding on behalf of individuals instead of users managing the Internet and information sources. The large players on the Internet will be fine, but users can expect to see a diminished information highway should everyone be allowed to have sites removed. The choice should be with the consumer and not a government body.

The USA proposed act to stop online piracy will place the country in the same category as China that already controls what their citizens can see and do on the Internet.

Internet TV has been around for a while now. You can watch streaming TV programs online at a number of service providers, provided you have a subscription and fast broadband Internet access. The merging of conventional TV with Web TV is, however, something to get excited about and Google has taken the lead once again.

With Google TV a reality, the Internet and television has finally merged, but with HDTV powered by Google TV viewers now have a wider choice of entertainment than could be provided by normal broadcasters. Users can search the Internet, subscribe to several television streaming channels online, watch live television, organise their favourites and even chat online, all on the same HDTV screen. It is a more personalised television experience where the users can download applications such as Facebook, Twitter, Napster, and Pandora allowing for the same functionality of Internet usage all from the comfort of their TV chairs in front of the big screen. With Google TV the users also have access to Android Market with thousands of applications.

You can even add your cellphone to the picture by using your iPhone or Android phone as a remote control or sharing of content between your phone and the Internet TV. Sony and Google have created a wonderful brave new world of Internet TV which revolutionizes the viewer experience. An integrated search function is provides with Sony Internet TV allowing you to search for programs or use the Internet.

If you already have an HDTV you can combine it with your Google TV and HDTV experience through usage of the Sony Internet TV, Blue-Ray experience. What is needed is an HDMI input, television, satellite box with the required HDMI output and you are set for integrated Internet TV watching and usage. To watch Google TV, sign on with your Google account which is free. It is not a pay service, but you may have to pay for the TV channels at the various service providers. You can watch on demand TV or subscription based. This can be done on your normal pc or the HDTV. You can thus enjoy Internet TV from a variety of platforms, whether wireless with your mobile phone, your pc or your TV, entertainment and searching have come together. The merge between Web and TV programming has made it possible to create a large search facility to ensure more entertainment control on the part of the user.

Interactivity is at the basis of this gigantic leap from the web to the television. Users trust Google and brands such as Sony to ensure a better TV rating system, channel searching option, and more relevant ads to the user. The bridge between television and web video has been crossed and some adaption on the part of service providers, broadcasters, and law makers may be needed.

How Will The Merging of Web TV and Conventional TV Influence TV Licenses?

TV licensing is a somewhat controversial subject. In many countries there is no such licensing. If we bring it closer to home, the topic gets more heated. With only a small percentage of South Africans watching the SABC programs with the majority of viewers subscribing to satellite based television services where they receive bundle packages of programs, a large number of viewers have indicated strong feelings about still having to pay TV licenses. The South African Broadcasting Corporation, however, has announced that TV licenses are not dependent on the programs a viewer watches, but the number of televisions in the household.

The argument has been mentioned that if you thus watch web based television from international service providers, and do so using your computer and its monitor then theoretically you don’t need a television license. This is true only if there is no TV card in your computer. With the merging of Internet TV with conventional television, the viewer can watch streaming TV from their computer or television screen and a TV card will be involved in most instances. As such TV licensing is still applicable. The Broadcasting Act, No. 4 of 1999 and its amendments, regulate the issuing of television licenses in South Africa. Accordingly, anyone in possession of a TV must pay a license fee. This also includes viewers that make use of TV card technology to watch programs over their computers. Mobile phone subscribers are not excluded from this act, and may find that when they subscribe to specific programs, that they will also have to pay TV licenses.

Impact of Internet TV on bandwidth usage

Although perhaps still a far-off dream in South Africa where only a small percentage of the population has uncapped broadband Internet access, in Europe, Japan, and the USA, uncapped fast access to the Internet is a given for most people. Broadband services providers most certainly did not have in mind that not to long from now, South Africans may also want to have Google TV and other Internet based television services which merge with more conventional broadcasting. As such the so-called uncapped broadband access is meant for responsible usage. Streaming takes up a lot of bandwidth and if users suddenly all sit in front of their televisions watching live stream TV programs through Google TV, they will pretty soon exceed any bandwidth usage expectations of service providers.

Many international companies and mobile service providers, including ATT, have already reacted to the upcoming Internet TV threat by implementing broadband caps and raising additional fees for data usage exceeding normal usage in an effort to curb possible over usage. Wireless service providers are expected to make some radical changes in their phone and subscription plans to limit intensive data usage. The support of wireless operators will be extremely important for any service provider hoping to substitute TV for Internet TV services.

Telecommunication and cable providers have already taken steps to protect their market, services, and of course, profits in sight of the upcoming Internet TV threat. The growth in the numbers of broadband subscribers around the world indicates that the market is ripe for the roll-out of true Internet TV. The service providers of streaming broadband TV will have to dock up for additional network costs while the conventional broadcasters and telecoms providers are rather reluctant to provide intensive data access through their networks uncapped without also benefitting from income derived through streaming.

At this stage, subscribers will still be within the broadband cap limits if they watch streamed content on their mobile devices for two or three hours or television for 24 hours since the streaming is at 200kbps, but with full scale Internet TV, the streaming can be done of HDTV level which could mean that a viewer could in only a matter of five to eight hours reach a point where the service provider will no longer be happy with the data usage. HDTV viewers are used to superior quality viewing in terms of the technical and entertainment aspects. Substituting their normal watching for Internet TV will only be done if the quality is not affected and with that comes more bandwidth usage because of high quality streaming.

Other Areas of Concern – Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights protection and management are already creating tremendous problems on the Internet. Copyright infringement, piracy, trademark infringement and patent stealing are the new form of the old school pirate ships creating havoc. Laws governing intellectual property will have to be amended in the long term to ensure adequate protection, but in terms of online video content being shared with others through downloading and then filing sharing, one must admit that Google TV or Sony Internet TV doesn’t change it. People have downloaded and shared web video content for a long time now and it will still occur, but rather than throwing out the whole concept of Internet TV merging with conventional TV because of fears, it is time to embrace the brave new world of merged Web and TV.

Governments have no right to limit or hinder Internet access of its citizens as it, according to a report released by the United Nations, is an integral human right to have unrestricted access to the Internet. The report has been released in the wake of the recent Syrian government blockage of Internet connectivity because of political unrest and the usage of Facebook as well as other social media applications, such as YouTube, to organize and communicate about the uprising which began in March this year.

Earlier this year when Egypt struggled with political unrest their government cut off Internet access forcing people to use satellite communication to make their posts. In effect, governments can shutdown Internet in their country should the country be in a state of unrest and the security of the country threatened. The UN report, however, indicates that governments should respect access to the Internet and the freedom of speech which go along with such even during times of political unrest.

UK Proposes Restrictions

The UK is proposing the restriction of Internet access for copyright infringers. France followed the same proposals. The anti-piracy bill proposed in 2009, known as HADOPI called for French Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to give infringing customers two warnings before removing their Internet access rights. As such the ISP Orange has implemented a policy of limiting downloads by customers and has also implemented a system of monitoring downloads. The French ISPs have with that then become enforcers of the anti-piracy legislation and according to reports should receive compensation for their role in policing Internet usage.

The whole system has backfired in several ways including that of hackers sending mails to report so-called infringement and illegal downloading by innocent users. In addition, the problem of hacking the server has received a lot of spotlight. It does seem that such actions by governments to control the Internet access have been met with more than just discontent. Earlier this week, the Constitutional Court of France ruled that Internet access is a fundamental right and thereby has stopped the HADOPI effects.

Should Governments Have The Right To Restrict Internet Access?

Since the Internet doesn’t belong to anyone and spans the globe, one may argue that no government should be allowed to control access to and usage of the Internet since it is an individual right to information and communication. At the other end of the spectrum you have widespread infringement of trademarks and copyright, fraud, and spam which must be controlled. In addition, the power of social networks such as Facebook in a political struggle or even terrorism cannot be ignored. Naturally then, governments, especially the less friendly types, will want to exert as much control over the Internet as possible, but it cannot be done without violating some human rights of which Internet access is now one.

Frank La Rue of the UN emphasised in the report that Internet access should be a right that any citizen of a country should have as it is related to the right to freedom of expression. Governments, according to the report, should ensure more affordable and accessible access to Internet for its citizens. According to La Rue, several bloggers have already been imprisoned for their views and as such freedom of expression is not yet guaranteed on the Internet. The report has indicated concern about the monitoring powers granted to governments in the name of national security. The report is known in full as: “Rapport of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue”.

Information Source For Decision Making

Some countries, such as Estonia and Finland, have already established laws to protect the right to Internet access and usage thereof to freely gain information access for decision making purposes and to express opinions freely. Other countries such as China, Egypt, Syria, France and the UK, however, propose and or have showed restriction on Internet access rights of their citizens.

A recent survey done for the BBC by GlobeScan has shown that many citizens of China and the UK are in favour of some form of Internet usage and or access regulation whereas the majority of respondents in Nigeria have expressed opposition against any form of Internet regulation. The Digital Economy Bill proposed by the UK, also makes provision for limiting or slowing down of file sharer user connections whilst at the same time the EU has expressed that member states have no right to interfere with access to the Internet. The survey for the BBC showed that majority of respondents felt that Internet access should be a human right and the non-users felt that they should have access to it.

In South Korea the overall majority of the population already enjoys broadband Internet connectivity and most of respondents in the BBC survey there indicated that such should be a fundamental right. In Japan and even Mexico respondents indicated that they would not be able to function without Internet access. It may be possible to argue that access to food and water should be the focus of the UN as human rights, and that freedom of expression is already a human right, but that access to high speed Internet cannot be classified as a fundamental human right because it doesn’t affect the basic needs of society. In answer to that then one has to express that the right to education and information is embedded in having access to the Internet.

Usage of the medium may be regulated to protect against hacking, phishing, terrorist attacks and human trafficking, but monitoring usage of it to catch file sharers is simply over regulating the medium. Once governments get involved in regulating Internet usage, the privacy and right to communicate will be affected. Many people in South Africa don’t have Internet access and simply don’t even have access to clean drinking water, but the right to such should never be limited.

How do you feel about the issue of Internet access as a fundamental human right? Should the government have any say in the usage thereof and should the government have the right to restrict access should actions of the users create political instability in the country?