UK Man Jailed For Refusing To Decrypt His Files

from the right-against-self-incrimination dept

Two years ago, a US judge ruled that a guy with an encrypted hard drive did not have to hand over his encryption key to the police, as it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment (the right not to self-incriminate). The argument there is that the encryption key is a form of "speech." This is quite a reasonable ruling -- but it appears that over in the UK they view encryption keys quite differently. Last year, we wrote about a UK court ruling interpreting the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to mean that people could be required to hand over encryption keys, since encryption keys were not "speech" but an object that could be demanded. Unfortunately, this has now resulted in a schizophrenic man being jailed for refusing to decrypt his files. As many are noting, this seems to be an abuse of law enforcement, as the purpose of the RIPA law was supposed to be about stopping organized crime and terrorism, not dumping the mentally ill in prison.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Virgin Media Using Deep Packet Inspection To Spy On Your Internet Usage For Hollywood

from the how-nice dept

Last year, there were early reports that ISP Virgin Media in the UK would become a copyright cop for the entertainment industry and start kicking file sharers offline if they were accused of infringement. While Virgin later denied this, the company did send letters threatening to kick users offline anyway. And, now, reports are coming out that Virgin Media is starting to use controversial deep packet inspection technology to spy on users to see if they're sharing any copyrighted works. As the article notes: "It's the equivalent of the Royal Mail opening every parcel to see if there's a CD inside, and making a note if there isn't a receipt in there too."

While this is just a test, and the information is being aggregated in a supposedly anonymous way just to judge the extent of the problem, there are a bunch of issues with such claims. First, there is no such thing as an anonomyzed dataset. Second, there are some pretty serious privacy questions raised by this. In the US, the use of Deep Packet Inspection for looking at what users do has been frowned upon, but in the UK it's been deemed not so bad by the legal system (however, the wider EU doesn't agree with the UK on this position). No matter how you look at it, it does seem quite extreme for your ISP to carefully look at everything you do online. In the end, of course, this will only serve to drive up the demand for encryption technology.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Local UK Newspaper Chain Tries A Paywall

from the good-luck dept

Slowly, but surely, we're seeing some regional newspapers try out a paywall. We've already seen Newsday, on Long Island, put up a paywall, but it's more about reducing churn than actually getting people to pay (and early reports are that not many are paying). Now, as a bunch of readers sent in, Johnston Press, in the UK has announced a paywall as well, asking £5 for three months of access (which certainly beats Newsday's ridiculous $5/week plan. I'm glad that some newspapers are actually trying this out, as it was getting a bit tiresome hearing them all threaten to do so without any actual action. Now we can actually see what happens. Of course, my opinion on the matter has been clear. I think it will be a lot more difficult to get people to pay than these publishers believe, and it will be a lot more expensive to manage than they believe. Also, the writers for the papers behind paywalls might not like the fact that no one knows who they are any more. At the same time, it will only serve to open up the competitive market for others to come in at a better price point (i.e., "free") and scoop up a significant percentage of the advertisers who are seeking to reach a larger audience.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If We Don't Kick People Off The Internet For File Sharing, Football Will Die

from the evidence-please? dept

We've discussed in the past how the UK's Premier League's fear of the internet has been a case study in what not to do online. But it seems that the Premier League bosses still want to push forward with plans to make it more difficult and more annoying for fans to actually watch matches. Jeff T alerts us to an opinion piece in The Guardian from the CEO of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, in support of Lord Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill for kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet. It's the usual rant against "piracy" without much basis or knowledge:

Without the safe passage of the bill -- requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity -- the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.

And yet, even as he writes those words, the creative industries that he insists are dying have been growing. How? Because the business models have been adapting just fine -- even without additional artificial barriers to competition or the ability to kick people off the internet. And, in the case of the Premier League, Scudamore seems to be leaving out an awful lot of important facts, such as how incredibly limited an online offering the Premier League has put forth, which is a large part of the reason why lots of people stream it illegally. He also tosses out some totally made up "facts" such as "the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here." Well, perhaps it's not totally made up since he uses the magic words "up to." But if there is a problem with file sharing of TV shows in the UK, it's likely (as Jeff noted in his submission) because the "creative industries" that Scudamore insists are so important still delay the release of popular shows in the UK and demand that online streaming sites like Hulu not work outside the US.

Piracy is not the problem. Piracy is only showing folks like Scudamore that they're doing a terrible job in meeting demand. He doesn't need people kicked off the internet to adjust his business model. Lots of others are already doing so.

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Pub Owner Fined Due To Unauthorized Downloads On Free Pub WiFi?

from the safe-harbors? dept

A bunch of folks have sent in the story of a nameless pub owner in the UK who has supposedly been fined £8,000 in a lawsuit brought by a copyright holder over unauthorized downloads that were done over free WiFi that the pub offered. Of course, there is a lot of missing information here, so I'm not quite sure how much to believe of this story without further evidence. The name of the pub is not given. The information was provided by a WiFi hotspot provider, The Cloud, which claims that the specific pub owner has not given permission to publicize the case. Yet, if it was a lawsuit, you would think that there would be some court records detailing this. It appears that the laws regarding safe harbors for copyright infringement are not nearly as clear as they are in the US. Under the DMCA it seems that any hotspot owner would have safe harbor protections against such a lawsuit, and it seems odd that a court would fine the pub owner when it was clearly a user of the access point that did the file sharing.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Profitable 'Pay Us Or We'll Sue You For File Sharing' Scheme About To Send 30,000 More Letters

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

Remember ACS:Law? The shakedown organization that appears to have taken over where Davenport Lyons left off (including using some of the identical documents), and who has "partnered" with DigiProtect, the company that gleefully admits that it purposely puts files on file sharing networks just to collect the IP addresses of anyone who downloads, is asking for the identifying info on 30,000 UK users. To put that in perspective, in the years long campaign by the RIAA to sue people for file sharing, they apparently requested info on about 35,000 IP addresses. Of course, when spreading such a big net, it's no surprise that tons of innocent people get caught in it. But that's really of little concern, since no real lawsuits have been filed. They're just hoping a bunch of people feel that it's easier to pay up. It's not about stopping piracy or getting people to buy -- it's about shaking people down for as much money as possible.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK

from the feeling-safer-yet? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about plans in the wealthy coastal town of Tiburon here in northern California to photograph and record the license plate info of every car entering or leaving the town. It kicked off quite a debate in the comments, and now comes the news that the town is moving forward with the plan, despite complaints about civil liberties and privacy violations. Of course, it's worth noting that just as this plan is moving forward, reports out of the UK are indicating that law enforcement there has been abusing traffic cameras for purposes well beyond traffic monitoring. They're using traffic camera images of traffic around political protests to note cars that appear at multiple such events, and placing them on some sort of terrorist "watch lists." Police are apparently going through the database of images and "marking" certain cars, which then allow them to be searched in the fight against terrorism. Not that there's a big protest culture in Tiburon, but this certainly shows how a simple traffic camera effort can escalate into something that is much more questionable from a civil rights standpoint.

90 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support

from the nice-try dept

Just as the leaks predicted, the UK government has offered up its Digital Economy Bill, which includes massive changes to copyright law, including the power of the government to effectively change the law at will with little to no oversight. Basically, it would let the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, change copyright law through secondary legislation, which requires no Parliamentary approval. As people are noting, Mandelson has had to resign from elected positions twice in the past in disgrace, and is now in an unelected position. And he's the guy who gets to change copyright law at will? That does not seem right. On top of that, the bill doesn't even specify "three" strikes for users. Instead, it requires ISPs to notify users with warnings -- and to notify copyright holders that they did notify users -- and if file sharing is not reduced by 70% in a year (with no indication of how this is measured), then the government will tell ISPs to start kicking people off the internet.

Furthermore, Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms, who introduced the new bill, claimed that 99% of ISPs are "broadly supportive" of the bill. That's funny because BT and TalkTalk -- two of the largest ISPs in the UK -- have loudly complained about the plans (with TalkTalk threatening to sue, and BT saying that this solution is "not the way forward") and the ISP Association, which represents ISPs in the UK has loudly slammed the bill as unworkable and backwards looking:

"ISPA members are extremely concerned that the bill, far from strengthening the nation's communications infrastructure, will penalise the success of the internet industry and undermine the backbone of the digital economy," the industry group said.

Nicholas Lansman, ISPA's general secretary, said in the statement that the government's proposals were "being fast-tracked... and will do little to address the underlying problem".

"Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding," Lansman said.

So, where exactly are the 99% who are supportive of the bill? Or is that RIAA/IFPI/BPI math?

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders

from the this-is-not-good dept

As pretty much everyone who reads Techdirt has been submitting today, Lord Peter Mandelson over in the UK -- the guy who just discovered copyright law after a resort vacation dinner with entertainment industry mogul David Geffen -- wants to go even further in changing copyright law against consumers' rights. We already know that he was the major force behind getting the UK to move forward with a plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on a "three strikes" plan that involves accusations, not convictions. This was despite a study by the government which had already concluded that three strikes was a bad idea.

However, the latest plan seems even more ridiculous. Not only would it include a new offense for those who download unauthorized material, it would allow the government to give powers to "any person as may be specified" to do whatever is necessary to try to stop online infringement. In other words, it would allow the government to basically deputize anyone they wanted (such as record labels...) with near complete power and little oversight to do whatever they thought necessary to fight online infringement. And this includes changing copyright law at will through "secondary legislation" that involves no Parliamentary oversight or debate. Talk about a broad, sweeping and totally ridiculous change to copyright law.

Part of the reasoning, supposedly, is to be able to force online digital lockers like YouSendIt, which are quite useful for legally sharing all sorts of things, to get rid of privacy, so that any infringing works sent via those tools can be revealed. The whole thing is an incredible overreach of power, well beyond anything that is necessary. Mandelson doesn't even hide the fact that this is done purely in support of copyright holders and against consumers' rights:

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use,"

Because if rights holders don't like it, it must be stopped? He admits in the letter that consumer groups will oppose this proposal, but he doesn't seem concerned. Consumers, after all, don't take him out to dinner at expensive resorts.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Libel Tourism Case Dismissed Because Little Evidence Of UK Visitors Seeing The Article

from the nice-try dept

We've discussed how the UK is used for "libel tourism" quite frequently, since its libel laws are more draconian than elsewhere. Thus, if someone is upset about what someone else has said about them, they'll often file a lawsuit in the UK, arguing that because the content is available online, it's been "published" in the UK. Thankfully, the UK courts have been a bit better about cracking down on these sorts of cases when they're obviously frivolous. In one recent case, the court rejected the claim by noting that there was little evidence many people in the UK saw the article, which was published in a South African publication. Specific evidence over how many UK readers viewed that article were not provided, but log files showed that only a grand total of 65 readers viewed the article at all over the 2 months following publication (so you could even say that if all 65 were in the UK, the "damage" was pretty limited). But, the publication did show that its site normally gets about 6.79% of its visitors from the UK, which would translate to about 4 UK visitors -- not nearly enough to prove "publication" in the UK. It's good to see the UK courts being a bit more careful about these things, though it would still be much better if the UK updated its outdated libel laws to avoid this kind of lawsuit altogether.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

I believe that we were the first publication to report on the study released by PRS in the UK, way back in July, indicating that overall music revenue was up, even as the sale of recorded music was dropping. It showed how live revenue was making up a good part of the difference, and other aspects of the business were making up more than the rest. While we've pointed to that study numerous times in the meantime, we've been quite surprised that no mainstream press picked up on this seemingly remarkable news -- as it went against the prevailing favored narrative (as pushed by the RIAA) that the music industry was in trouble. Especially when combined with the recent Harvard study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, that also showed that revenue in the overall music ecosystem was significantly higher today than in the past, it really was quite amazing that the press (and politicians) continued to spread the lie that the music industry was in some sort of trouble. It's not. It's only the business of selling plastic discs that's in trouble.

The good news is that the mainstream press seems to finally be waking up to this. As a bunch of you sent in, the Times Online in the UK has published a nice study highlighting the PRS numbers, complete with some very nice charts, showing that musicians themselves are making more than ever. The other interesting part: for all the talk about how recorded music sales losses are hurting artists, the chart proves the point we've made over and over again: musicians see such a tiny part of recorded music sales that this has had almost no impact on their revenue at all. The amount of money musicians make from recorded revenue has remained just about constant.

Source: Times Online Labs blog

It's great that the press is finally starting to dig into this -- and the Times Online even admits that perhaps it should not have let Lily Allen claim in its own pages how much "harm" was being done to artists due to file sharing, because the numbers simply don't support it (of course, we pointed this out when the whole Allen mess was going on...).

Now, some people have raised some concerns over the numbers -- specifically, there have been some claims that the "live" numbers are distorted due to so-called "heritage" acts and legacy acts, who have been around forever and still pack large stadiums with increasingly higher ticket prices. And, indeed, that almost certainly has some impact on the numbers. It would be nice to see a similar report that starts to break out some of the details -- and we've been talking to a few people who are trying to dig deeper into the amount of "live" and "alternative" revenue streams to better understand where the money is going. Hopefully we'll have more complete data soon, but the initial things I've seen suggest that the original point remains true. Artists across the entire spectrum of the industry are making more in live revenues than they have in the past -- and, in part, the increase in live revenue is due to file sharing. In talking to different musicians, we've been hearing plenty of stories about how they're strategically pushing free versions of their songs on local audiences before embarking on tours or even individual shows -- and they're seeing larger turnouts than in the past because of it.

Hopefully, with more mainstream publications finally picking up on this, both the press and politicians will begin to recognize that the only real "crisis" in the music industry is for those who have stupidly relied on selling plastic discs for way too long. There are plenty of revenue opportunities for musicians, and because of that (in combination with better and cheaper tools for music creation), the actual music industry is thriving at levels never seen before.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us

from the we're-from-the-gov't-and-we're-here-to-help-Hollywood dept

With all of the concern over the proposed bill in the UK to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions), some have been raising concerns about innocent users kicked off the internet. Culture Minister Sion Simon has hit back at those claims insisting that the innocent won't be kicked offline. Really. Trust us. Or something like that. The main reason he claims that it won't impact the innocent is because multiple letters will be sent and there will be an "appeals" process. Of course, that ignores the fact that this could still be quite a disruption in someone's life. If they're falsely accused, they risk losing their internet access and have to fight an appeal? That could be costly in terms of both time and money. And, of course, we've already seen, with other similar threats, that the warning letters sometimes get sent to the wrong address or wrong person and get ignored entirely.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Again Says That Mod Chipping Isn't Legal

from the you-bought-it,-but-you-don't-own-it dept

The war against actually being able to own the products you (thought you) bought continues. An appeal by a guy convicted for installing mod chips in video game consoles in the UK has been rejected. Even though the guy himself might not have been violating copyright law, apparently the fact that such mod chips could be used by others to potentially violate copyright law is enough to get him convicted. So, basically, modifying the hardware that you legally purchased? Not legal.

And... in somewhat related news, a bunch of folks have sent in the story of Microsoft cutting off what may be hundreds of thousands of players from Xbox Live for using modded consoles. Microsoft, obviously, is trying to stop players from cheating (one use of a modded console), which is understandable, and certainly within Microsoft's right. Still, the action does come across as a bit heavy handed. There are perfectly good reasons to mod a gaming console, such as to play unofficial games -- and as much as I understand the desire to stop people from cheating or playing pirated games, it still seems like you should be able to modify hardware that you legally purchased.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK To Require Service Providers Monitor And Store Info On Users

from the more-data-isn't-good-data dept

Despite lots of criticism over the plan, UK politicians are moving forward with demands that online service providers store and monitor certain types of internet communications. While the government will be compensating service providers for some of this (your tax dollars at work), it's still a rather large burden on these service providers, and raises all sorts of privacy questions. Oh, and on top of all of that, we've already seen that law enforcement in the UK is struggling to cope with the fact that they're already inundated with too much data. They don't want more data, they need better data. Making service providers hang onto even more data doesn't help the situation, it just opens up the potential for serious privacy invasion.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lord Mandelson Wants Students To Get More Tech Education; Can We Start By Educating Him?

from the learning-begins-at-home dept

Lord Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who has been the leading force behind putting in place the entertainment industry's desired plan to require ISPs to kick accused file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, apparently is also saying that young people need better technology skills. Along with that, he's supporting a plan to get universities to do more technical skills training. Now, I'm all for more tech skills training in universities, but wouldn't it be nice if Mandelson started by getting some tech skills training himself -- including a basic understanding of why an IP address is not an accurate indicator of who is doing something online? Or, perhaps, an understanding of how BitTorrent actually works and a brief primer on encryption technologies....

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Law Firm Sets Up Special Team To Hunt Down Anonymous Commenters

from the free-speech-is-for-suckers dept

Stephanie Migot writes in to let us know how UK law firm Wragge & Co has decided to set up a special "cyber tracing" team, whose job it will be to scour the internet for anyone making negative anonymous comments about any of their clients and then take action. Of course, the law firm says it's really looking for people leaking confidential information (such as disgruntled employees), but, as you probably know, defamation laws in the UK are significantly more draconian than those elsewhere. Thus, the line is a lot more blurry, and will almost certainly lead to these sorts of activities targeting mere criticism and complaints, rather than true defamation. The unfortunate end result is a series of chilling effects on any concept of free speech.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

from the we've-done-this-before dept

When Lord Mandelson officially announced his plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- the so-called "three strikes" plan -- I asked a simple question: how will this get people to buy more. It was fun watching industry defenders paint themselves into corners trying to explain it, but they couldn't. The best they could say is that the fear of losing an internet connection would get them to stop file sharing. But, of course, getting them to stop file sharing is a lot different than actually getting them to buy something.

And, on top of that, we already have empirical evidence that a fear-based campaign doesn't make people buy any more. Over at The Telegraph in the UK (where I'll now be writing a semi-regular column) I explore how the industry already tried a fear-based campaign when they threatened and/or sued tens of thousands of individuals for file sharing. Even the industry's most strident defenders, who support taking away people's internet access have admitted that such a punishment is less scary than being sued and potentially on the hook for millions of dollars.

So how did that work out? If the industry's logic is correct, than the fear of being hit with a multi-million dollar fine should be a lot more persuasive in (a) getting people to give up file sharing and (b) buy more instead. And yet... the industry is still freaking out, complaining about phantom "losses" and demanding new laws to protect them. So, if kicking people off the internet is less fearful than being on the hook for millions of dollars, and the potential of being sued for so much did not slow the growth of file sharing or get people to buy any more, can someone explain (please) how it's possible that anyone thinks kicking people off the internet will get them to buy?

79 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Storm Trooper Copyright Lawsuit Back On In the UK

from the in-a-galaxy-far,-far-away dept

Last year we wrote about a copyright fight between George Lucas/Lucasfilm and Andrew Ainsworth, the guy who created the original costumes for the storm troopers in Star Wars. Ainsworth believes that he has every right to now sell storm trooper costumes. Lucas, and his licensing empire, feel otherwise. It got to the ridiculous level of Ainsworth claiming that Lucas actually owed him money, for all the free merchandising Ainsworth has done for the various Star Wars movies by selling his costumes. Eventually, the High Court in the UK tossed out Lucas' claims, saying that the costumes were not works of art and not covered by copyright in the UK. It did note that there may have been copyright infringement in the US, but said that Ainsworth was immune from a US court ruling on the subject since his US sales were not that big.

Apparently, Lucasfilm isn't happy about this and is appealing the ruling, claiming that the storm trooper costumes are indeed works of art, like sculptures. The whole thing, frankly, seems like a waste of time. Is it really that big of a concern to Lucasfilm if the guy who created the original costumes is selling them himself?

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Says Kentucky Has No Right To Seize Gambling Domain Name

from the not-that-it-cares dept

We've covered the bizarre legal battle in Kentucky, where the governor tried to have a long list of gambling-related domain names (none of which had anything to do with the state of Kentucky) declared "illegal gambling devices" so that the state could seize the domain names. The governor has been pretty open that this has nothing to do with any moral issue over online gambling, but is a blatant attempt to help protect local gambling establishments in the state. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that a state governor could claim the right to seize domain names that are not based in Kentucky at all, and after a lower court (that didn't seem to understand the issue) sided with the governor, an appeal court overturned that ruling. Rather than recognize how silly this campaign is, the case is going to the state Supreme Court.

But, apparently the lawsuits aren't just happening in Kentucky. Michael Scott points us to the news that one of the companies targeted by Kentucky brought a lawsuit both against Kentucky and its own registrar in the UK to get a ruling that it is not subject to the whims of Kentucky politicians. The state of Kentucky ignored the proceedings, which resulted in the court agreeing that Kentucky has no right to seize the domain name. Of course, the state of Kentucky probably couldn't care much less about what a court in England thinks (which explains why it didn't even bother to respond), so the victory may be somewhat meaningless. However, at the very least, if Kentucky somehow wins its case in the US, perhaps the registrars in the UK can point to this ruling to refuse handing over the domain names.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?

from the might-be-a-long-shot dept

With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." Over and over again people explain to us why it'll decrease file sharing (something I actually doubt for a variety of reasons that I'll explore later), but no one has explained how it will make more people buy stuff.

But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK. TalkTalk, the ISP that has been fighting the proposal for a while (and even gave a nice demonstration to show why IP addresses are not accurate in figuring out who's responsible for online activity) is now saying that it will take legal action to block such a proposal from being put in place, saying that it's a violation of human rights to kick people offline based on accusations, rather than due process.

On top of that, the idea is already incredibly unpopular with the majority of people in the UK... and (most importantly) there's an election coming up soon in the UK. Backing a massively disliked proposal to kick people off the internet based on accusations using weak evidence... probably isn't a savvy political move at this moment. Given all of that, I'm wondering if the plan ever really moves forward in the UK, or if it just makes a lot of noise so that Mandelson and his colleagues can tell the entertainment industry how they tried, to make sure the political donations keep coming in.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..