Category Archives: Copyright

London 2012 O(ffline)lympics

Photo Source: David K.K.

The Olympics are a magical time. Those of us lucky enough to have been in the city during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics know this as fact. There are truly no words to describe this event. But if you’re in London for this year’s Summer Olympics and are hoping to capture a few pictures that say the thousand words you can’t find to account for your experiences, and then share them, say, with your 800 Facebook friends, you may run into some difficulty.

According to this article, the rules for Olympic-goers are pretty clear: There is to be no social sharing of any photos or videos taken at the Games. Yes, that means Facebook/Twitter/Instagram//Flickr/YouTube…even Google+! In other words, what happens in London, stays in London. Or at least, stays off the Internet.

The very bottom of an extensive Ticketholders Terms and Conditions states: “Images, video and sound recordings of the Games taken by a Ticket Holder cannot be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes and a Ticket Holder may not license, broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet more generally, and may not exploit images, video and/or sound recordings for commercial purposes under any circumstances, whether on the internet or otherwise, or make them available to third parties for commercial purposes.”

And according to this report, security guards have already been trained to deter professional photographers. So yes, they are very serious about this. Which brings up the very obvious question of implementation: other than brash security guards, how exactly are they going to be able to monitor this? History tells us that despite prohibition, prohibited activity never truly ceases. What more, over an uncontrolled medium such as the Internet? And in the free-for-all Internet that we have come to know and love today, is this kind of prohibition a violation of our rights to connect as we please and publish what is ours? Has control over what is posted on the Internet grown beyond our reach?

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

One thing’s for sure, if we lived life according to this popular internet meme, then the London 2012 Summer Olympics would be as existent as the Canucks’ Cup run this year (hey, at least I can make jokes about it now.)

 

The Latest Internet Regulation/Legislation News

This week saw government leaders, tech bigwigs, and Internet activists converge in Paris for an e-G8 Forum about the future of the Internet. The forum was billed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy as an opportunity for dialogue about the future of the Internet. At times it resembled more of a showdown.

In opening remarks, Sarkozy defended role of government in shaping the Internet.

“It would be contradictory to exclude governments from this huge forum. Nobody could, nor should, forget that these governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies. To forget this is to run the risk of democratic chaos and hence anarchy.”

He also expressed concern about intellectual property and monopolies.

Much of the discussion centered around copyright laws. France already has tough regulations when it comes to the sharing of intellectual property online. Under the HADOPI copyright law, French households lose their Internet connection if they receive three accusations of copyright infringement committed on their network.

But JP Barlow, former Grateful Dead lyricist, Wyoming cattle rancher, and a founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was skeptical of the need for government to regulate the Internet for intellectual property.

“Many of the things that are being said here, and proposed, and have been done, refuse to recognize that the net is one continuous thing and that if you can control any aspect of it, you can control all of it. You start out with intellectual property and you end up with expression you don’t like. It’s as simple as that.”

A clip of a panel discussion he took part in is here. It’s a fascinating clash of cultures and it raises some interesting questions about the need to protect artistic property on the Internet. It’s also a bit long – the action starts right away and Barlow picks it up again at the 19 minute mark.

Meanwhile, closer to home there is renewed interest in a proposed Canadian law that would allow law enforcement to get more data about individuals from Internet Service Providors. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to enact an extension of Lawful Access legislation during the first hundred days of his new majority government. The Lawful Access extension would allow law enforcement to obtain data from individual’s ISP without warrants.

Jesse Brown, from the Search Engine blog and podcast, has an interesting interview with Michelle Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association about the proposed law and its potential effects. The link to the podcast is here.

Illegal downloading prosecutions over? Think again

If you thought there was nothing to worrying about, you’re wrong.

In a Minnesota courtroom this past month, single mother Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was ordered to pay 62,500 USD per song for 24 songs she illegally downloaded from KaZaA, a popular file sharing site. AFP reported that the total fine given was an astronomical 1.5 million dollars. Read the story here.

Her case is a lay over from 2007, when she appealed an original conviction for the same transgression. The November 2010 verdict is an exception, however, as most recording labels have endorsed a moratorium for the past two years against prosecuting file sharers.

While the labels may have ceased with the legal hammer, file sharers in other mediums are not off the hook. Popular Internet blog cnet has noted that filmmakers are increasingly on the prowl, with nearly 20,000 proceedings launched in November 2010 alone.

“Could you patent the sun?”

Despite all the ink dedicated to open access as a new publishing model it is in fact an old way. Take for example, Dr. Jonas Salk. Unknown thousands, maybe even you, owe their ability to walk to Dr. Salk. How so? He invented the vaccine for Polio in 1952.  The research, creation, and funding of the vaccine would today be called open access.

When asked who owned the patent, Salk replied:

“Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

Wow.

Funding for the creation of the drug was raised through a public canvassing campaign called March of Dimes.

Such a revelation would be unlikely in the copyright/patent climate today. The open access movement, however, is attempting to revive the spirit of Salk.

Check out open access medical research groups like DNDI that work with major pharmaceutical companies to help create cures to disease that are unprofitable to cure.

Copyright Cowboy

If you have an interest in copyright law and have not already watched Rip!: A remix manifesto, you need to check it out. The director’s politics are a bit heavy handed but the point is eye opening: copyright law has not always been what copyright law is today. Using mash-up music artist Girl Talk as a case study, the director takes viewers through 86 entertaining minutes of copyright past, present and hopeful future.

The most eye opening revelations in Rip! is how traditional public domain music has been borrowed, shared, built upon and eventually copyrighted by popular acts like the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin who then turned around and said the borrowing stops with them. The Rolling Stones sued The Verve for 100% royalties on their 1990’s hit “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” even though the Stones themselves did not originate the score.

And as if that is not enough to tweak your interest, you can watch members of Metallica threaten downloading teenagers with the best lawyers their musical empire can buy. You can also watch Public Enemy’s Chuck D, crooner of such anti-establishment anthems as Fight the Power and 911 is a Joke, defend the right of to download music and re-mix tracks. Watch the manifesto here.

Will throttling affect online publishing?

This is something to keep an eye on: throttling. As internet file sharing continues to erode publishing and copyright revenue, will throttling, or pay-for-speed internet presence, be the ‘net tax’ that solves the web publishing quagmire?

[linebreak]

Few people have been talking about throttling in this sense, but I suspect that sooner or later, paying for one’s place in the Internet queue will be one of the answers for recouping revenue lost to ‘illegal’ file sharers. Check out the following story for the most recent developments. What are your thoughts?

How not to impress your boss

Information spreads fast in the social media era. So if you are going to show off your new top-secret prototype gadget like show and tell at elementary school, you might want to think twice about taking it to the local tavern. Apple’s, Gray Powell, found this out the hard way after losing his precious iPhone 4.0 prototype during a momentary lapse of judgment over a few pints of brew. Others at Apple have lost their bread and butter for less significant infractions, but so far the dust has not settled on the fate of Powell as an Apple employee.

[linebreak]

The lesson highlighted here is that intellectual copyright is viral these days making technological secrets harder to keep than ever before. For Apple, what was to be a highly anticipated Fall release has turned into a digital legal row of he said she said that has made the tech savvy blog, Gizmodo, a villain and hero in its wake. At the end of the day, the leak will probably build the hype for the new gadget and make it more coveted than it already is. For Powell however, despite a flood of web sympathy for his simpleton gaff, his desirability as an employee may be far less certain as his tattoo will forever be the ‘guy who lost that iPhone.’

Facebook copyright nearly settled

For all those arguing for an Internet free of copyright and a utopia of knowledge, think how you would feel if one of your bright ideas was turned into billions of dollars and you didn’t receive a penny. That’s how the Winklevoss brothers, Cameron and Tyler, use to feel but not for much longer.

[linebreak]

The Guardian has reported that the case these former Facebook compatriots brought against billionaire Mark Zetterberg is nearly over – with an alleged settlement in the sixty million dollar range. Not bad, but they could have had nothing had they not been able to prove that Zetterberg’s Facebook was partly their creation. Check out the publish section of Digital Tattoo to see how you can share your work and keep it protected online. And if the FB case is not enough to reconsider giving it all away in a copyright free web, consider that the fastest growing class of billionaire’s in the world is the Internet technology club.

Google Tax: France considers promoting culture by taxing search engines outside of France

Video killed the radio star and the Internet killed print news. But not necessarily. The French may have an answer to Canada’s print media’s revenue woes. While CRTC regulations about ownership in Canada continue to be challenged by media conglomerates alleging they cannot compete, the government of France is proposing a new tax, a public sector approach, to regain lost revenue through the internet: taxing add sales on websites based outside of France. While the French model is meant to subsidize the lost revenues of their artists due to Internet piracy and copyright infringement, this approach could surely be applied to Canada’s print media woes by providing a much needed revenue stream.