From the category archives:

Network Politics

Call your Senator: Stop the RI/MPAA

by Scott on July 23, 2007

The MP/RIAA and their puppets in the Senate are proposing blackmailing Colleges into doing their Due Diligence/dirty work. This proposal (Senate Amendment 2314) would withhold federal funding for student aid unless schools adopt surveillance and filtering technologies on their campus networks.

Get to contact information for your senator(s) at the EFF Action Center.

Action Alert: Keep Copyright Holders’ Hands Off of Campus Networks!

Major copyright holders are backing a legislative proposal [PDF] to make colleges do their dirty work. The Higher Education Act is supposed to make going to college more affordable, but, under a last-minute amendment, certain schools would risk losing federal funding for student aid if they don’t divert funds away from education and toward policing corporate copyrighted content on their campus network. Twenty-five schools will annually be singled out, required to police their students with “technology-based deterrents” (read: network surveillance technologies), and forced to provide evidence to the Secretary of Education about their efforts to stop file sharing.

Senate Amendment 2314 may come up for a vote very soon, so it’s critical that you call your Senators now and tell them to reject this proposal. Use the form below to find your Senators’ phone number.

Schools are already being forced to expend significant resources in the face of the RIAA’s lawsuit campaign against students and thousands of copyright nastygrams. More enforcement won’t stop file sharing, as students will simply migrate towards other readily-accessible sharing tools that can’t be easily monitored. But it will chill academic freedom, as legitimate uses of the network will inevitably be stifled.

The federal government shouldn’t be in charge of schools’ network management decisions. Congress ought to reject this misguided proposal and take up real solutions that get artists paid and let students keep sharing. Please take action and call your Senators now.

{ 0 comments }

YouTube to Test Video Fingerprinting with Time Warner, Disney

by Scott on June 12, 2007

via Reuters:

The technology, developed by engineers at YouTube-owner Google Inc., will help content owners such as movie and TV studios identify videos uploaded to the site without the copyright owner’s permission, legal, marketing and strategy executives at YouTube told Reuters in an interview on Monday.

The so-called video fingerprinting tools, which identify unique attributes in the video clips, will be available for testing in about a month, a YouTube executive said.

Many lessons have yet to be learned.

{ 0 comments }

Presidential Debate Media Shenanigans(?)

by Scott on June 3, 2007

Is CNN’s promise of “unrestricted” usage rights to it’s Presidential Debate coverage not really “unrestricted”?

{ 0 comments }

Testimony at Congressional “Future of Video” Hearing

by Scott on May 16, 2007

Mark Cuban testifies at the House Telecom and Internet Subcommittee “Future of Video” Hearing last week, touching on lagging US broadband and network neutrality.

[youtube AxjKeP0xK7M nolink]

Blake Krikorian, CEO of Sling Media[youtube l6U-frMZAxo nolink]

{ 0 comments }

MSNBC Loosens Restrictions on Debate Video

by Scott on May 12, 2007

MSNBC has apparently loosened it’s restictions on using/redistributing debate video, starting with the Republican Debate. More at Prezvid.

{ 0 comments }

Ohio University P2P Ban

by Scott on May 10, 2007

Ohio University bans P2P Networks. But they can’t kill the Darknet.

Only in Ohio.

{ 0 comments }

English Premier League Sues Google, Too.

by Scott on May 9, 2007

It’s class-action lawsuit time. Story, as well with Google’s response, at PaidContent:

Two law firms are trying to set up a class action suit representing copyright owners, large and small, who contend their rights are infringed by YouTube and Google. The lead plaintiffs in the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: the Football Association Premier League Limited, better known as the English Premier League, and music publisher Bourne Co. Law firm Proskauer Rose LLP is known for representing media companies and sports teams, while Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is a class-action firm, according to Reuters

{ 0 comments }

CNN to Make Presidential Debate Footage Available without Restrictions

by Scott on May 8, 2007

Unlike MSNBC, CNN has announced that they will be making their debate footage freely available.

{ 0 comments }

NBC-Universal Jumps Into the Googlesuit™

by Scott on May 8, 2007

From Reuters:

The case involves a separate party, Los Angeles News Service operator Robert Tur, who sued YouTube in July for allowing its users to appropriate his famous footage of trucker Reginald Denny being beaten during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

In a filing submitted late on Friday to the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, NBC Universal and Viacom submitted a friend of the court brief opposing YouTube’s bid to dismiss the copyright infringement suit brought by Tur.

{ 0 comments }

An extra special post.

by Scott on May 2, 2007

#09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0

{ 0 comments }

The Precarious State of Internet Radio

by Scott on May 1, 2007

Some updates on the Internet Radio situation:

Pandora Founder Appeals in Last-ditch Effort to Save “Internet Radio”

From Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora:

Hi, it’s Tim from Pandora,
I’m writing today to ask for your help. The survival of Pandora and all of Internet radio is in jeopardy because of a recent decision by the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, DC to almost triple the licensing fees for Internet radio sites like Pandora. The new royalty rates are irrationally high, more than four times what satellite radio pays, and broadcast radio doesn’t pay these at all. Left unchanged, these new royalties will kill every Internet radio site, including Pandora.

The proposed exorbitant licensing fees specifically targeting Internet streaming/radio will severely hamper many innovative, up-and-coming startups and services. Webcasters large (AOL, Yahoo, NPR) and small (such as Pandora), who had been hoping to appeal the original rulings had their hopes dashed when the Copyright Royalty Board denied their appeals. (Copy of the ruling. [PDF] )

More on the proposed rates here.

At this point, only Congressional action will save most of these services from a quick financial death—petition your Representatives here.

Legislation to correct the situation was intoduced last week, and somebody doesn’t like it.

A congressional push to overturn controversial increases in fees for Internet radio operators came under attack on Friday by SoundExchange, the organization that collects royalty payments on behalf of musicians.

Some additional articles:

Copyright Royalty Board Denies Rehearing Motions—Next Stop, Court of Appeals
Net Radio Operators Lose Appeal Over Fees.
The Death of Web Radio?

Via Copyfight:

for quite a while, digital (Web) radio has had to pay significantly higher performance royalty rates than analog broadcast services. In effect, analog radio gets for free what Web radio pays through the nose to stream. That has hampered the growth of the industry and stifled any number of free, independent and likely new creative Web radio initiatives.

{ 0 comments }

The Economist slams DRM

by Scott on May 1, 2007

Copy protection is a flaw…and The Economist isn’t fond of it either.

{ 0 comments }

Google gets all up in Viacom’s face, says “go for it”

by Scott on May 1, 2007

A story, in links:

Viacom sues Google for $1Billion.

Google says, “No you di’nt“. (Official response [PDF])

More at the LA Times.

{ 0 comments }

NBC bans Presidential debate videos from the Internet

by Scott on April 29, 2007

NBC “prohibits” posting of Presidential debate videos. Joe Biden does it anyway.

Lawrence Lessig calls for all debate media to be released with a Creative Commons license:

the uncertainty about the scope of copyright regulation is increasingly one such burden on Internet political speech. This next political cycle will see an explosion of citizen generated political content. Some of that speech will be crafted from clips taken from the Presidential debates. Some of that will be fantastically valuable and important. Yet as the law is right now, it is extremely difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand the boundaries of “fair use,” or the limits to copyright law. It is likewise difficult for companies such as YouTube, or Blip.tv. Indeed, it is even difficult for a skilled practitioner. That uncertainty, if not checked, could produce a cloud over much of this political speech, as sites and universities don’t know how much is too much. It will certainly create a temptation by some politicians to invoke copyright law to block particularly effective speech critical of them.

{ 0 comments }