Belgian Media Planning Shared Digital Content Passport:
Despite a new agreement with Google, Belgian media will launch their own shared user management and payment system, reducing the amount of free content on their sites.
Belgian Media Planning Shared Digital Content Passport:
1. (3) (e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.
The Ecommerce directive prevents any general obligation to monitor. See the cases of Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) . There is also a firm rule against prior restraint of defamation –so that not even the courts by court order will restrain defamation pre-publication (as opposed to privacy) –to avoid the courts acting as censor. It would be an unlawful restraint on speech/expression and so engage Art 10.
In modern practice the rule against prior restraint applies whenever a defendant has a defence –not just when that defence is Truth. The rule was affirmed in Green v Associated  EWCA Civ 1462. There is also now a significant body of human rights jurisprudence to support the rule. Eady had questioned whether the rule was compatable with the new convention jurisprudence and the test for balancing Art 8 (reputation and privacy) and Art 10 (freedom of expression) which gives no precedence to either Article as applied in privacy cases (see Campbell and Re S) in Sunderland Housing v Barnes –but the rule has held except where as in the Solicitors from Hell case the defendant has evidenced an intention to repeat. The rule is good law and not under attack.
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is set to amend Copyright Law in the UK.
Please note the explanatory notes:
“Repeals section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 so as to provide full copyright protection for the period of the author’s life plus 70 years.
Creates a power to amend exceptions for copyright and rights in performances without affecting the existing criminal penalties regime.”
Under Section 52 of the CPDA, you can see that Section 52 of CDPA 1988 relates to designs for artistic works. It applies where an artistic work has been exploited by the copyright owner by making 50 or more copies by an industrial process and marketing those copies. In those circumstances, the designs lose their protection after 25 years and copies can then be made without infringing copyright. That section came into effect on 1 August 1989. In Lucasfilm the items were first marketed in the 1970s and, accordingly, the earlier Copyright Act 1956 applied, which imposed a shorter time period of 15 years.
Mann J and the Court of Appeal found that while McQuarrie’s paintings were artistic works, they were exploited by more than 50 copies made in the form of the stormtrooper toys (and also, potentially, by the 50 costumes made by Ainsworth at the behest of Lucas for production of the film). This established a defence for Ainsworth under s52 once the relevant time period expired.”
Francis Davey expands on this on his blog here:
What about clause 56?
I suspect someone has pointed out that the effect of s.52 is that a great many depictions of Mickey Mouse are almost certainly no longer protected by copyright, having been reproduced on an industrial scale for well over 25 years. If this provision is repealed, the transitional arrangements are going to be fun to draft.
In relation to Lucasfilm v Ainsworth, the defence was in the end redundant as Mann J held that Ralph McQuarrie’s paintings were design drawings within the meaning of s51 and so were not infringed by the making of items based on them (i.e. the Stormtrooper costumes at the heart of the case). However, the defence had been run as a fallback and there was discussion of exactly how many costumes had been made at the time.
The intersection of UK design and copyright law is a mess that has only got more confusing with time. The effect of s51, as interpreted in Lucasfilm, is that Imperial Stormtrooper armour is not protected by copyright, but Iron Man’s suit is. Why? Because the initial drawings for the Stormtroopers were done specifically as designs for a 3D article that was later deemed not to itself enjoy copyright protection, whilst Iron Man was drawn as a comic in its own right.
The file-sharing landscape is slowly adjusting in response to the continued push for more anti-piracy tools, the final Pirate Bay verdict, and the raids and arrests in the Megaupload case. Faced with uncertainty and drastic changes at file-sharing sites, many users are searching for secure, private and uncensored file-sharing clients. Despite the image its name suggests, RetroShare is one such future-proof client.
The avalanche of negative file-sharing news over the past weeks hasn’t gone unnoticed to users and site operators.
From SOPA to Megaupload, there is a growing uncertainly about the future of sharing.
While many BitTorrent sites and cyberlockers continue to operate as usual, there is a growing group of users who are expanding their horizons to see what other means of sharing are available if the worst case scenario becomes reality.
Anonymous, decentralised and uncensored are the key and most sought-after features. For some this means signing up with a VPN to make their BitTorrent sharing more private, but new clients are also generating interest.
Earlier this month we wrote about Tribler, a decentralised (not anonymous) BitTorrent client that makes torrent sites obsolete. We’ve covered Tribler for more than half a decade, but it was only after our most recent post that it really took off with more than a hundred thousand downloads in a few days.
But there are more file-sharing tools that are specifically built to withstand outside attacks. Some even add anonymity into the mix. RetroShare is such a private and uncensored file-sharing client, and the developers have also noticed a significant boom in users recently.
The RetroShare network allows people to create a private and encrypted file-sharing network. Users add friends by exchanging PGP certificates with people they trust. All the communication is encrypted using OpenSSL and files that are downloaded from strangers always go through a trusted friend.
In other words, it’s a true Darknet and virtually impossible to monitor by outsiders.
RetroShare founder DrBob told us that while the software has been around since 2006, all of a sudden there’s been a surge in downloads. “The interest in RetroShare has massively shot up over the last two months,” he said.
“In January our downloads tripled when interest in SOPA was at its peak. It more than doubled again in February, when cyberlockers disabled sharing or shut down entirely. At the moment we are getting 10 times more downloads than in December 2011.”
RetroShare’s downloads at Sourceforge.
RetroShare’s founder believes that there is an increased need for security, privacy and freedom among file-sharers, features that are at the core of his application.
“RetroShare is about creating a private space on the Internet. A social collaboration network where you can share anything you want. A space that is free from the prying eyes of governments, corporations and advertisers. This is vitally important as our freedom on the Internet is under increasing threat,” DrBob told TorrentFreak.
“RetroShare is free from censorship: like Facebook banning ‘obscene’ breast-feeding photographs. A network that allows you to use any pseudonym, without insisting on knowing your real name. A network where you will not face the threat of jail, or being banned from entry into a country for an innocent tweet.”
It’s impossible to accurately predict what file-sharing will look like 5 years from now. But, a safe assumption is that anonymity will play a more central role than it ever has.
Recent crackdowns have made operators of central file-sharing sites and services more cautious of copyright infringement. Some even went as far as shutting down voluntarily, like BTjunkie.
In the long run this might drive more casual downloaders to legitimate alternatives, if these are available. Those who keep on sharing could move to smaller communities, darknets and anonymous connections.
Earlier this year the Church of Kopimism was approved by the authorities as an official religion.
Earlier this year the Church of Kopimism was approved by the authorities as an official religion. Since then, the movement has gathered thousands of believers across the world and two of them have now entered into a “Kopimist” marriage. The Church encourages the newlyweds to “copy and remix some DNA-cells and create a new human being.”
All around the world file-sharers are being chased by anti-piracy outfits and the authorities. But while copyright holders are often quick to label file-sharers as pirates, there is a large group of people who actually consider copying to be a sacred act.
To emphasize the holiness of copying, philosophy student Isaac Gerson started the Church of Kopimism in Sweden. After a rough start with two failed applications, the new religion was finally recognized by the authorities in January.
For a church that holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V as sacred symbols it is no surprise that the word of this new religion spread quickly. In recent months it expanded globally, from the United States to Estonia. All followers believe that copying and sharing is the most beautiful thing in the world.
This belief in sharing is not restricted to files, code and information, but also applies to love. It was only a matter of time before the first Kopimist couple would become married, and last weekend this joyful union took place at the Share conference in Belgrade.
On stage, a Romanian woman and an Italian man were joined in a holy Kopimist act. Both promised to share the rest of their lives together and to uphold the highest sharing standards.
The Church was delighted to bring the news and commented: “We are very happy today. Love is all about sharing. A married couple share everything with each other.”
Like any other matrimony, a Kopimism marriage is bound by rules. The Church of Kopimism allows the couple to share their love with others, as long as those others don’t steal it. Most importantly, however, they have to copy and remix themselves.
“Hopefully, they will copy and remix some DNA-cells and create a new human being. That is the spirit of Kopimism. Feel the love and share that information. Copy all of its holiness.”
Or to put it in the words of another famous religion.
“Be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.”