That back story sets up the current “six strike” system that the RIAA proposed in July 2011. They signed on AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable to implement a “graduated response system.”

What would this “six strike” system entail? Well, a P2P user would be give warnings until their fifth or sixth alert. The ISPs at this point would implement more strict measures such as throttling the user’s Internet or redirect them to a warning page until they call their ISP to discuss copyright matters. They could also deem it necessary to permanently disconnect the user from the Internet.

The group put in charge of this is the new Center for Copyright Information. CCI’s Web site and Twitter account were created on July 7, but neither have been updated since. The group said that ISPs would be implementing copyright alerts in 2011 and 2012 and that the center would be formally opened in 2011.

It’s now February 2012 and there’s no sign of the CCI. Ars Technica found this odd and went digging. They found a couple of sources who would comment on the group off the record. They confirmed that the CCI is still continuing onward and will launch shortly. They have hired an executive director and are waiting for the director to get caught up to speed before they announce anything.

As Ars Technica rightly points out, the Internet has changed since the RIAA first formulated this plan. More people are sharing content through streaming sites and file lockers. Going after people on P2P networks isn’t going to be as effective as it would have been a few years ago.

Liuxia Wong received a letter last year from Hard Drive Productions claiming that she had used her IP address last year to share “Amateur Allure Jen” on BitTorrent. The porn studio told her that they would take her to court for $150,000 but she could settle for only $3,400. Wong didn’t take the bait and is taking the porn producer to court according to TorrentFreak.

Wong is fighting back and has hired Steven Yuen, an experienced IP litigator from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to sue Hard Drive Productions. In the lawsuit, Wong alleges that she did not download the work in question and attacks the porn studio on multiple accounts.

Hard Drive claims that the infringement took place on March 28, 2011. Wong did her research and found out that the film didn’t release until April 22, 2011. She claims that the letters “were designed to coerce her into settling the case despite the absence of any facts supporting liability against her.”

The lawsuit also claims that the letter from Hard Drive says that Wong could be indicted even if her router was unsecured and somebody else uploaded it. An assertion she dismisses as “erroneous.”

The best part is that she even throws up the opinion that you can’t copyright porn:

“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: ‘To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” the lawsuit details, adding:

“Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright.”

Wong is asking the court to declare that she is not liable for infringement. She is also asking that the court to declare the company’s movie as not copyrightable and is illegal due to Hard Drive engaging in “solicitation, conspiracy to commit prostitution, pimping and/or pandering” during the making of the film.

Hard Drive Productions, all in all, seems to be pretty bad at this claiming damages over copyright infringement thing. They failed to mitigate alleged damages since they didn’t use the DMCA to have offending torrents removed.

They also hired non-California licensed investigators to monitor torrents which is in violation of the California Business and Professions Code.

We have the entire lawsuit for your perusal. It’s a fascinating read and if it goes in Wong’s favor, it could change the porn industry, at least in California.

Gov.uscourts.cand.250725.4.0

Coelho, the best-selling author of The Alchemist and Brida, has been unwavering with his opposition to SOPA, calling it “a REAL DANGER that will affect the whole planet.” Many people, politicians and anti-SOPA advocates alike, have made similar statements but Coelho went one step further in order to prove his point: he wants you to pirate all of his books.

Seriously. Go download them. He really wants you to.

In a post on his blog, Coelho opined about the controversial anti-piracy law and argued that the proliferation of artist content, even if it does have a copyright, is never a bad thing. “The more often we hear a song on the radio,” he wrote, “the keener we are to buy the CD. It’s the same with literature. The more people ‘pirate’ a book, the better.”

Coelho makes a solid point that eviscerates the argument that piracy is harming entertainers: anybody who has ever entertained the notion or even been able to call themselves an artist at any point in their life was pursing that interest out of passion, not monetary compensation. Most people, while it does sound pretentious, can understand that. Well, the philistines won’t but, then again, the philistines are the ones writing SOPA bills in the first place.

Still, artists gotta eat, and Coelho is aware that they need some kind of compensation for their works. However, he doesn’t believe that piracy is what stands in the way of artists getting paid. He related a personal anecdote in this blog:

In 1999, when I was first published in Russia ( with a print- run of 3,000), the country was suffering a severe paper shortage. By chance, I discovered a ‘ pirate’ edition of The Alchemist and posted it on my web page.
An year later, when the crisis was resolved, I sold 10,000 copies of the print edition.
By 2002, I had sold a million copies in Russia, and I have now sold over 12 million.

When I traveled across Russia by train, I met several people who told me that they had first discovered my work through the ‘ pirated’ edition I posted on my website. Nowadays, I run a ‘Pirate Coelho’ website, giving links to any books of mine that are available on P2P sites.
And my sales continue to grow — nearly 140 million copies world wide.

He uses the anecdote to illustrate how pirating can actually help an artist become successful. “A good idea doesn’t need protection,” he wrote.

In a way, Coelho’s pro-piracy argument isn’t terribly different than the relationship that authors and libraries have enjoyed since, well, since always. They’ve managed to successfully coexist with no detriment to the artists’ well-being; in fact, I’d hazard the guess that libraries have been instrumental in fostering many authors who, without the free and available access to literature, might never have become writers in the first place.

So what say you of Coelho’s argument? Does piracy actually benefit an artist by permitting copyrighted material like books and music to proliferate through the hands of the masses at literally zero cost? Do you think people actually go out and financially support artists after getting their wares for free if they like what they’ve read/heard/watched/etc.? Comment below with your opinions.

TMZ obtained the cease and desist letter sent by Francis’ attorney threatening legal action if Madonna sings her new song “Girls Gone Wild” at the Super Bowl halftime show. It should be pretty clear what he’s basing this threat of legal action on, but here’s what’s detailed in the letter:

Mr. Francis and Girls Gone Wild have worked tirelessly for an excess of two decades to build his brand and to protect his trademark Girls Gone Wild.

Obviously, your misappropriation of my clients’ trademark will not to be tolerated.

Girls Gone Wild’s trade identity and trademark are extremely valuable assets which my clients protect vigorously.

My research indicates, and numerous news articles have mentioned, that Madonna plans to perform publicly the song entitled Girls Gone Wild at this Sunday’s Super Bowl on February 5, 2012. It is clear Madonna is making unauthorized commercial use of Girls Gone Wild’s trademark.

Your attempt to “free ride” on the valuable consumer goodwill and brand recognition of my clients’ trademark constitutes, inter alia, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution.

The letter goes on to demand Madonna and her “co-conspriators” perform a few actions if they wish to avoid “costly and extensive litigation.” First, they must agree not to perform the song at the Super Bowl. Next, he wants Madonna to negotiate an immediate licensing agreement. Lastly, he wants her to go back and count all the times she’s already used the phrase to promote her song and pay up.

Madonna released her new video for “Give Me All Your Luvin” earlier today on YouTube. Any ZZ Top fans will recognize that she’s skirting close to the line on that one too.

In a document obtained by TorrentFreak, it has come to light that copyright holders held a meeting with search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo to make demands in regards to copyright. The meeting was held by the UK Department for Media, Culture and Sport.

The document begins with a lengthy diatribe on why search engines are hurting legitimate business in the UK by linking to illegal sites first instead of their Web sites:

Consumers rely on search engines to find and access entertainment content and they play a vital role in the UK digital economy. At present, consumers searching for digital copies of copyright entertainment content are directed overwhelmingly to illegal sites and services. This causes consumer confusion and significantly impedes the development of licensed digital entertainment markets in the UK. Search engines, as trusted intermediaries, should assist consumers in finding legal services and should not contribute to copyright infringement.

This paper proposes the introduction of a voluntary Code of Practice for search engines, overseen by Government, which would help to ensure that consumers are directed to safe and legal sources for entertainment content online and grow the UK digital economy.

The paper then goes on to list its propositions:

- assign lower rankings to sites that repeatedly make available unlicensed content in breach of copyright

-prioritise Web sites that obtain certification as a licensed site under recognized scheme

-stop indexing Web sites that are subject to court orders while establishing suitable procedures to de-index substantially infringing sites

- continue to improve the operation of the “notice and takedown” system and ensure that
search engines do not encourage consumers toward illegal sites via suggested
searches

-ensure that they do not support illegal sites by advertising them or placing advertising
on them, or profit from infringement by selling key words associated with piracy or
selling mobile applications which facilitate infringement.

The paper goes on to detail the voluntary “Code of Practice” for search engines that would actively direct consumers to “legal entertainment content,” encourage Web sites towards improved online behavior, ensure that consumers reduce their exposure to malware or scams, ensure the existing system of removing illegal content from search results works to optimum effect, and help ensure that search engines unwittingly profit from illegal content.

The paper quotes a survey that says consumers are overwhelmingly in support of search engines directing them to legal sources of entertainment. The paper says that consumers favor legal sites over illegal sites because they don’t want to break the law unwittingly by downloading from illegal sources.

The paper then details individual actions for each of the propositions listed above. There’s a lot there and it’s a good read. The paper is listed as “private and confidential” but it’s too important not to see. There’s some good stuff here on how businesses interact with search engines. I suggest you take some time out of your day to read it.

Proposals to Search Engines

While it doesn’t look like the U.S. will see any legislation regarding online piracy this year, intellectual property attorney Miles Feldman tells us that it is a serious issue.

“It’s really a serious issue because of the volume,” he said. “We have a content industry that’s in trouble, and we have rampant copyright infringement that is going on, and it has decimated the music industry… and is deeply impacting the motion picture and television industry as well as the gaming industry, video gaming industry, and publishing.”

Feldman specializes in media and intellectual property and has personally been involved with litigation involving the Black Eyed Peas, Will Smith, and other high profile personalities. He told us of a recent incident, in which a video game that was just published by one of his clients began appearing on other websites and was available to download. Another site was also involved and, even though it did not make the game available to download, it still contained infringing content.

Since the sites were based in other countries, they couldn’t be effectively sued or shut down. According to Feldman, getting any action done is not only very cost-prohibitive, but it is also nearly impossible.

An option that is often the only alternative and that is non-judicial is the idea of turning the infringing sites into licensed fan sites. Feldman said he used this option with the site that did not include the download.

One of the specific arguments that has risen up against the bills recently is the fact that the Department of Justice shut down MegaUpload, one of the world’s largest file sharing sites, the day after the Internet blackout. Protesters say that, if the DoJ could take down this site, then why is there a need for new legislation?

“What the problem keeps being is it may take years to shut down the offensive site, like it did with MegaUpload, but the infringement continues and the damage continues,” said Feldman.

Even though there is clearly a problem of piracy online, Feldman told us that the SOPA and PIPA bills were not the right solution. He did believe the original purpose of them was well intentioned but said the language of the bills were not clear.

“What this legislation was intended to do was to provide a mechanism very much like the DMCA but with a little bit different of a process,” he pointed out.

However, the bills were written in a way that would put a big burden on companies such as ISPs, financial transaction providers, advertising providers, and more.

“The problem with crafting language and legislation is that it’s an imprecise science, and it has to be done with care,” said Feldman. “The aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which work so perfectly are clarity and a procedure, and that’s what we need with respect to foreign sites.”

SOPA and PIPA also called for criminal enforcement, which Feldman believes is a very bad idea.

“I think that it’s a mistake to use criminal law to deal with streaming and to deal with file sharing of content, especially when that could potentially be used by consumers,” he said.

Feldman told us that he would like to see the entertainment and Internet communities come together to talk about how both sides can benefit from legislation.

“What the entertainment industry should do is try to embrace the consumers and try to embrace the technology rather than just trying to control it,” he said.

He went on to say that the attacks that both sides have been making are not all true and that more dialogue was needed to work out the conflicts. If this happens, he believes these groups could create a more current DMCA that embraces the concept of SOPA and PIPA but that has a clause that eliminates a safe harbor for companies who are in compliance with the law.

Another outcome that Feldman potentially sees happening is that, instead of a new piece of legislation being written, the principles that were in SOPA and PIPA could be absorbed in other bills.

While the SOPA/PIPA debate is being celebrated as a victory in the Internet community, there is rising concern over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Many people believe it would bring the same harm that SOPA and PIPA would have brought in regards to freedom of speech and intellectual property.

“Every time you restrict or you impose copyright regulations, copyright laws under jurisdiction, you’re gonna limit expression – and that is always a concern,” said Feldman.

Incidentally, the European Union signed the agreement into effect this morning.

According to Feldman, the debate surrounding these issues will be around for a while saying, “this drama is still being written.”

What would you like to see result from the anti-piracy debate? Let us know.

On Wednesday, the “official” Anonymous twitter feed linked to the group’s list of demands. The document is titled, “Bright, and Clear: The Future of Free Speech.” In it, the group details their list of demands for the future of the Internet that they believe SOPA and PIPA want to dismantle.

As we watch the web go dark today in protest against the SOPA/PIPA censorship bills, let’s take a moment and reflect on why this fight is so important. We may have learned that free speech is what makes America great, or instinctively resist attempts at silencing our voices. But these are abstract principles, divorced from the real world and our daily lives.

We believe a healthy society doesn’t allow its artists, musicians and other creators to starve. The copyright industry has been justly criticized for abusing the political process in a desperate attempt to maintain its role as a cultural gatekeeper, a business model made obsolete by a digital age of free copies. But the RIAA, MPAA & IFPI deserve our opprobrium for making enormous profits while often leaving the very artists it claims to represent *poorer* than they would be as independents. While the public may have greater access to the few artists deemed sufficiently marketable to gain mass media promotion, fewer and fewer of us are making art and music in our own lives.

Do you agree with Anonymous’ claim of a digital age of free copies? Are the MPAA and RIAA’s business models outdated? Let us know in the comments.

From there, the group lists their demands starting with the call for the WIPO to be disbanded. They also demand the elimination of the DMCA‘s registration requirement for qualification under the “safe harbor” provision.

They move onto more court-related topics with their expectation that courts apply penalties just as severe to rightsholders who issue abusive takedown notices as those applied to copyright violators. They also demand that any penalties for copyright infringement must be sane and reasonable and not to be based on “unsubstantiated, outlandish claims of harm.”

They demand that the Department of Justice begin an anti-trust investigation into the copyright industry, with a specific focus on collusion between rightsholders and ISPs in monitoring Internet users.

They demand an end to sales of radio frequencies into private hands. They believe that the radio waves are a form of speech and should belong to the people.

A big one that most would not agree with is their demand that ISPs stop interfering with file sharing via BitTorrent or any other protocol.

They want recognition of total ownership, not merely licensing, of products purchased. They feel that they have a right to tinker and modify devices as they see fit. The Library of Congress should not be in charge of determining acceptable use.

They reject the principle of contributory infringement under the pretense that “while there may be bad uses, there is no bad code.”

One that I think everybody can get behind is their expectation that legislators and judges make efforts to educate themselves about the technologies they oversee, and to call on and respect the opinions of technical experts when necessary.

All research receiving any public funding must be placed in the public domain upon publication. Likewise, the US Patent and Trade Office must immediately cease issuing software and business patents, and declare all such existing patents null and void. They also call on the rejection of any patents on mathematical formulas and genes or other naturally-occurring substances.

They demand that copyright and patent terms be reduced to reasonable lengths (two and five years from the time of creation, respectively). Works should only be eligible for the length of protection when created.

They recognize a broad right of “fair use” that would allow anybody to remix, sample, mash up, translate, perform or make parodies of any work as they see fit.

Their final demand is that courts give bloggers the same freedoms that journalists enjoy.

“The right to a free press originally meant a literal, physical printing press – not membership in some government sanctioned elite. Blogs are the modern day digital equivalent.”

They end their list of demands with a final call to action to their fellow “Internauts.” They end their message with “either stand with us or get out of the way.”

What do you think about Anonymous’ list of demands? Do you agree? Or are they just the ramblings of an idealist? Let us know in the comments.

Anonymous is not new to protesting human rights violations or making demands of certain groups that they don’t agree with. This is the first time, however, that they have laid out reasonable (to some people) changes to Federal and International law that most people could get behind. It’s fascinating to see a group that only a few years ago was attacking Web sites for the “lulz” has transformed into an activist group that more people can support.

It’s important to remember, however, that this only represents a portion of Anonymous. As these movements grow, there will be counter Anonymous movements that will want to respond to threats like SOPA and PIPA with more targeted, direct physical action like Operation Blackout.

Does Anonymous strike you as the new frontier of activism? Let us know in the comments.

It ended up going for $3,300. That’s unfortunate for Righthaven, seeing as how they’ve been ordered to pay about $60,000 more in court.

For Righthaven, commonly referred to as a “copyright troll,” having to auction off its domain was rather ironic, as the “company” sought the domains of other sites in its quest for copyright infringement “justice”. As courts tended to rule on the side of fair use in these cases, things got financially worse and worse for Righthaven, which brings us to why it has let its domain go for just over three grand.

While it’s not an incredibly high amount, especially considering the amount Righthaven owes, how much value does this domain really hold anyway?

Is the buyer (which is unknown) looking to capitalize on that awesome brand power of the Righthaven name?

(hat tip to DomainNameWire)

Still, as fun as it might be to register face.book or lexa.pro, those site pranks will cost you a cool $185,000 a pop.

That price tag might seem like a strong enough preventive measure to keep everyday buffoons from taking advantage of the names of corporations but the U.S. government is still wary of ICANN’s new offerings. Lawerence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information for the Department of Commerce, met with representatives from several businesses to discuss ICANN’s decision. As Bloomberg puts it, “General Electric Co. (GE), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and Coca-Cola Co. (KO) are among more than 40 companies that have joined with the Association of National Advertisers to oppose the expansion, saying it will increase costs for companies, confuse customers and create new risks of Internet fraud.”

In a letter to ICANN citing concerns of potential cybersquatting of websites including brand names and increased confusion among consumers, ANA President Robert D. Liodice wrote:

The ANA and its membership regard the Program as not merely unsupportable, but potentially disastrous — exacting outrageous fees and costs, requiring massive diversion of resources, and instituting an application, evaluation and dispute resolution process that is certain to lead to increased contention and costly federal and international legal action with no demonstrable benefit to businesses or consumers. These concerns are especially heightened in an economy that day by day continues to pose ever-increasing challenges and unprecedented uncertainties for businesses and consumers worldwide. Another layer of unnecessary and unjustifiable costs is the last thing the selling and buying public needs in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Corporations already patrol the Internet for websites that they believe violate trademarks. Additionally, they don’t want you getting your rocks off at the expense of their namesake. Just try visiting microsoft.xxx, facebook.xxx, apple.xxx, amazon.xxx, or even twitter.xxx. All of these URLs present visitors with the same message:

And yeah, you barely even need to take one guess as to who the owners of those respective domains might be. Corporations have a steady practice of snatching up websites that they have zero intention of using solely to prevent the URLs from being used by cybersquatters and shady businesses.

ICANN acknowledged all of the above concerns and stated that they’re “going to go slow” in divvying out the new URLs to applicants. Regardless, Reuters reports that “ICANN has no plans to delay rollout of the top level domain expansion, a goal that is to allow more innovation in website addresses and to open the space to the non-Latin alphabets. It has pledged a quick take-down for trademark violators under the new system.”

All said, it seems a little presumptuous of businesses to assume that the average Internet user would be duped by a site like facebook.xxx. Besides, who’s to say that apple.xx wouldn’t be a legitimate site? Maybe there’s an untapped market out there for people with antediluvian fetishes that such a URL would perfectly satisfy? Besides, it’s not just anybody that’s going to fork over nearly $200K in order to create such a website. As Mr. Liodice mentioned above, the U.S. economy is still in crisis and people might wanna hold onto that money for more meaningful purposes.

What do you think? Is this brand protection overkill or do these corporations have a fair complaint for protecting their brand? Add your comments to the discussion below.

If you’re not familiar with the story, the irony here is that RightHaven itself has sought the domains of other sites, which it deemed in violation of its copyrights. For more backstory on RightHaven, see our previous coverage here.

After losing in court a number of times (losing out to fair use), Righthaven has been unable to pay its own fines and legal fees, delaying payment to avoid bankruptcy. Earlier this month, a judge ruled for Righthaven’s copyrights to be auctioned off. On Monday, the domain name went up for auction.

At the time of this writing, there are six bidders, and the auction goes on until January 6. There was reportedly an initial minimum bid price of $100. It’s currently at $1,300.

Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson (along with his wife) is due in court on January 6, the same day as the auction is scheduled to end.