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.

Anonymous Groups in other parts of the world are also joining in on the fun:

The first site to go down in what is being referring to as #OpPayback was the Department of Justice. Next came Universal Music’s site. This is definitely the biggest coordinated attack we’ve seen out of Anonymous in some time. As the frequency of these takedowns increases, it’s fair to assume that this could continue through the night.

Willie Kavanagh, head of EMI in Ireland, said yesterday that the government had ignored a request from EMI to produce the law it was preparing, and that he suspected that the measure would not “satisfy the music industry’s requirement for injunctive relief.”

EMI filed the suit with Ireland’s High Court. The suit is the second EMI has filed in recent years concerning music piracy in Ireland. In 2010 the High Court shot down an attempt by EMI to enforce a 3 strikes rule on internet service providers in the country.

[Source: Irish Times]

It’s just the argument that is unbelievable, although nothing at this point should really be unbelievable.

The OPEN Act is a sort of alternative to SOPA that is similar in many ways and vastly different in others. The main difference that RIAA Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier touches on in a recent blog post has to do with what arm of the federal government aids in the enforcement of copyright infringement claims, and how they go about it.

Basically with SOPA, we all know that sites deemed “rogue” and perpetrators of illegal activity will face annihilation with the simple accusation of wrongdoing. With SOPA, the Department of Justice would be responsible in enforcing the “infringements.” We’ve extensively discussed the potential damage that SOPA could do the the free web, and fully oppose it in every way possible.

With OPEN, rights-holders that feel infringed upon would file a petition with the International Trade Commission, an independent agency that, among other things, deals with patent disputes. They would investigate, and actions would only be taken once the accused sites were deemed “rogue sites.”

That’s too slow of a process for Mitch Glazier, who writes that we can’t sit around waiting while filesharing threatens our safety and security. As Jamie Keene at The Verge points out, Glazier’s blatant fearmongering basically amounts to calling online piracy a threat to national security.

Check out the blog post in its entirety:

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently reported that it will delay ruling on an important patent infringement claim brought by well-known camera company Kodak against smartphone makers Apple and Research In Motion (RIM). The case, originally filed in January 2010, now anticipates a ruling in September 2012. The delay now means that the ITC will have taken 33 months to decide on a high-stakes and time-sensitive issue. So this is the “expedited” process SOPA opponents are embracing as an alternative in the proposed OPEN bill?

SOPA was introduced to address the devastating and immediate impact of foreign rogue sites dealing in infringing and counterfeiting works and products. Every day that these sites operate without recourse can mean millions of dollars lost to American companies, employees, and economy, and an ongoing threat to the security and safety of our citizens. Why in the world would we shift enforcement against these sites from the Department of Justice and others who are well-versed in these issues to the ITC, which focuses on patents and clearly does not operate on the short time frame necessary to be effective? In addition, the remedy traditionally offered by the ITC – an exclusion order to prevent foreign criminals from accessing the US market – is precluded under the OPEN Act.

More proof why the OPEN Act is not a meaningful solution to a serious problem.

Ars Technica has a good overview of what’s good and bad about OPEN, and the act definitely has its flaws. But according to Mitch Glazier, one of those flaws is basically the “letting the terrorists win” argument, in sharper language.

No, screw the OPEN ACT. Let’s roll with SOPA, because given the track record of the DOJ when it comes to censoring sites as of late, it only makes sense to give them a hair trigger.

In a report at ITWorld, Kevin Fogarty asks a simple question: should we turn over control of the Internet to a group that sued a dead grandmother? When phrased in such a manner, the answer is obvious, but Fogarty takes a closer look at how the RIAA conducts its business, if, for nothing else, to serve as reminder of what’s at stake if SOPA/PIPA becomes law.

Are the would-be caretakers, in Fogarty’s case, the RIAA, competent enough to help legislate the Internet? A look at their track record is enough to give pause, at least to those who don’t want the web managed in such a manner:

The RIAA is an enforcement organization, that, among other sins: 
• Once tried to sue a dead grandmother to extract what it felt was its rightful pound of flesh for files allegedly downloaded to a house in which the dead woman wouldn’t even allow a computer to be installed.
• The RIAA sued a homeless man because someone was allegedly downloading files from an apartment the man once occupied.
• It sued a Vietnam Vet, and allowed the family 60 days to grieve following the man’s sudden death, before demanding they return for depositions and threatening to lodge charges against them as well.
• It sued a 42-year-old single mother who had to retire from the Justice Department due to a disability, charging that she had illegally downloaded a rap song called “Shake that Ass Bitch” at 4:24 a.m. under the username Gotenkito. When she told RIAA lawyers she would counter-sue for harassment, RIAA operatives threatened to confront the woman’s 10-year-old daughter and interrogate her in their offices if the woman didn’t drop her effort to resist their bullying and extortion.

That’s not the most sterling track record by any stretch of the imagination, but yet, the RIAA clearly has influence in regards to these protection acts. Sometimes, the influence is more direct than others. With that in mind, how much better would these acts be without the influence of the entertainment industry? Considering the distinct lack of technical savvy some representatives have shown during the SOPA hearings, could such a group even create such a piece of legislation without the outside influence?

As for the RIAA, they made their position quite clear by indicating online piracy is a threat to national security. If you can’t get the people to support you with pleas, try fear, I suppose.

Hat-tip to Geek and Poke for the lead image.

Using IP-scraping tools similar to those used by the movie and recording industry to file lawsuits against “pirates”, a Canadian firm has discovered that *someone* at Canada’s Parliament has downloaded ebooks, films, music, Windows cracks, Adobe Premiere, and many “torrented” materials.

So, who was it? No one seems to know. But, they can conclusively prove that it was someone at an IP address at Parliament. Who should they sue? No one knows that either.

So, what if they show up at your door? Or, your grandmother’s door?

“Hello. We’re with the Recording Industry Association of America. We have conclusive evidence that someone at this residence has downloaded illegal copies of the latest release by Lady Gaga. We hope you have an attorney, ma’am, because you’re in big trouble.”

“Well, I’m a widow. I live here alone…”

“Ma’am, you’ve been downloading music from Internet torrent sites, haven’t you? Admit it.”

“I have a record player…”

“You steal music on the Internet!”

“My grandson set up my Internet so I can get pictures of cats. I call him when I can’t see cats. He comes over.”

“So, your grandson downloads music illegally using your computer?”

“Well, why would he? He has his own computer.”

“Ma’am, we have some papers here for you. Our attorneys will be in touch.”

Meanwhile, next door to Grandma, a fifteen year-old girl clicks on the same unprotected wi-fi she has been using for weeks. Somebody lives close enough and doesn’t seem to mind at all.

The tactics used by the RIAA and MPAA to track down pirates are woefully inadequate to the legal task. Mostly, they are intimidation tactics, saber-rattling. The fact that many legislators don’t know the limitations of these methods, yet have the responsibility to vote on laws that govern what these organizations can do to their enemies, is worrisome.

Meanwhile, that janitor at Parliament needs to fire up Transmission on his MacBook and finish that download of “True Blood” season four he started last night. Someone may be knocking any day.

While this could come across as an “egg on your face” scenario, especially in light of the Gilberto Sanchez verdict, the RIAA was quick to respond to these findings with something resulting in a “it wasn’t us” response. In a CNet article, quotes from RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy indicates as much:

“We checked the block of IP addresses allocated to RIAA staff to access the Internet and no RIAA employee was responsible for this alleged use of bittorrent” … Lamy had an explanation for that that implies that a third-party vendor was responsible for the downloads. “Those partial IP addresses are similar to block addresses assigned to RIAA. However, those addresses are used by a third party vendor to serve up our public Web site,” he said. “As I said earlier, they are not used by RIAA staff to access the Internet.”

With that in mind, Ernesto, the TorrentFreak writer responsible for the initial RIAA-outing article, wondered, “If official records can be wrong as the RIAA claims, then this would mean they probably accused people wrongfully also.”

From there, WebProNews asked the RIAA in an email about the false accusations related to IP address and received the following email response:

We have not suggested that the official records of IP addresses assigned to the RIAA are mistaken, however, the real issue is how and whether IP addresses assigned to the RIAA were captured. The methodology employed by the RIAA to identify IP addresses is no secret, has been validated by independent experts, and has never been successfully challenged in court.

As for the TorrentFreak story, assuming the IP addresses were validly identified and they are in a range assigned to the RIAA, the allegation that RIAA staff used BitTorrent is inaccurate. The RIAA has two sets of distinct IP addresses managed by two different ISPs and used for two distinct purposes. One set is used by our staff to access the internet and the other set is used by a third party off site vendor to serve up our website to the public and is not even accessible by our staff. The partial IP addresses cited in the original TorrentFreak story are possibly consistent with the block of IP addresses associated exclusively with our public website, and bare no relationship to the separate block of IP addresses used for Internet access by our staff.

We have no idea whether the data referenced in the story is real or, if real, how it was acquired. I would check the bottom of the website, youhavedownloaded.com. Lower left hand corner. It says “don’t take it too seriously” and “it’s all a joke.” It doesn’t sound like the website creators consider the finding to be “official records” (to use your term), so I’d tread carefully before you give this story (or website) any credence in the first place. It’s possibly a hoax.

While the people that run YouHaveDownloaded.com maintain their data is accurate, their “it’s all a joke” disclaimer gives the RIAA all the deniability it needs to discount these findings, whether they are precise or not.

Furthermore, the portion about the separate IP addresses, a block for employees and a block for third party developers who produce content for the RIAA site, gives the RIAA further room to essentially disregard the “findings,” although, it’s hard not to wonder if the RIAA will investigate whether or not any of those third party IP addresses were responsible for the downloads in question, and what, exactly, the punitive reaction would be, if any.

Either way, the phrase applies well to the results of an ongoing investigation by TorrentFreak into the practice of illegal downloading. Using YouHaveDownloaded.com, a new Russian site that shows an IP address’s BitTorrent activity, several major opponents of internet piracy have been caught downloading a wide variety of copyrighted content. First came reports that people in offices belonging to Sony, Universal, and Fox had been downloading music and movies of all kinds. Then came the discovery of at least six instances of downloading at the residence of French President Nicholas Sarkozy, an outspoken opponent of piracy and supporter of harsh anti-filesharing measures.

And the hits just keep on coming. Today it has been discovered that illegal downloading has been rampant in the offices of the RIAA, and the Department of Homeland Security. People at the RIAA have downloaded not only music (which might be expected) but also a variety of other content, including video (seasons 1-5 of Dexter, for example) and audio editing software. The RIAA has become (in)famous for suing anybody and everybody for downloading copyrighted material, and is a fierce advocate of SOPA and PIPA, harsh internet censorship measures currently working their way through the US Congress. Likewise, the Department of Homeland Security has been responsible for seizing and shutting down hundreds of domains for their suspected role in piracy. Yet over 900 of DHS’s IPs were used to download material illegally.

Throughout this process there has been no comment from any of the organizations caught downloading. No doubt they would claim that the downloading in their offices is not officially sanctioned. That, however, is not in doubt. It is highly unlikely that the RIAA or DHS or Fox or anyone else has encouraged or sanctioned “piracy” in their offices. But the fact remains that these organizations that are so intent on policing the internet use of everyone else are refraining from policing themselves. Though they may well continue to go after grandmas, dead people, and kids, you can bet that you won’t see the RIAA suing one of its own employees for downloading anything.

[Source: TorrentFreak]

But Elvis Costello doesn’t want you to buy it.

A post has appeared on the legendary artist’s official site entitled “Steal This Record.” The basic message of the plea to fans is a.) our record label priced the box set way too high, b.) you should spend your money on Louis Armstrong instead, and c.) you should probably just download it anyways.

It’s being priced at $262.46, although you can pre-order it from Amazon for a slightly less expensive $202.64.

From the post:

The live recording finds the Imposters in rare form, while the accompanying motion picture blueprints the wilder possibilities of the show, as it made its acclaimed progress across the United States throughout the year.

Unfortunately, we at www.elviscostello.com find ourselves unable to recommend this lovely item to you as the price appears to be either a misprint or a satire.

All our attempts to have this number revised have been fruitless but rather than detain you with tedious arguments about morality, panache and book-keeping – when there are really bigger fish to filet these days – we are taking the following unusual step.

What do they suggest? First, they say that if you’re going to spend money, you should probably do it on the ten-disc box set “Ambassador to Jazz,” from the great Louis Armstrong.

They also suggest that you could wait until they release the separate parts of the box set – the CD, DVD and vinyl – for a more reasonable price next year. And then there’s the other option, the one referenced in the post’s title:

If on the other hand you should still want to hear and view the component parts of the above mentioned elaborate hoax, then those items will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, assuming that you have not already obtained them by more unconventional means.

So there you have it. Elvis Costello and the Imposters think that you are being overcharged for their stuff and would prefer that you download it.

With all of the talk about the pending SOPA and PIPA legislation, and how it relates to piracy and internet freedoms, this little anecdote it just something to remember when you hear the RIAA push their support for the bills.

On that note, let’s check out Mr. Costello in the early ’80s:

[Hat Tip to Boing Boing]
[Image Courtesy elviscostello.com]

That being said, the subject of fair use has been soiled by such entities as the RIAA and the MPAA.

An example of this would be Walt Disney making beautiful art of such stories as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Alice In Wonderland. Disney played absolutely no part in the creation of these stories, but he did adapt them, giving the public classic films that have stood the test of time. With that in mind, let’s see what happens if one of us — members of the general public — try to make use of characters from the The Lion King.

For an idea of what would happen, see the story of the Air Pirates versus Disney, and try applying what happened then with what you know of the RIAA and its strong-arm legal tactics.

With that in mind, the concept explored in the Everything is a Remix videos shows just how much influence past works have on new ideas, especially in regards to movie-making. As pointed out by SlashFilm, Everything is a Remix is a project being done by Kirby Ferguson, a New York-based filmmaker.

The goal of the project is to show just how much influence — or outright concept theft — older works play a part in movie-making, and after watching the video, it’s pretty clear that without the concept of fair use, what we see as inspiration could be categorized as outright copying. Too bad these concepts are not part of the thought process when it comes to copyright enforcement from the RIAA and the like.

Over at the site, it’s explained that the series will be presented in a four parts, with three of them already available. There’s also been a new video posted, and it breaks down The Matrix, pointing out numerous occasions where the Wachowskis were either inspired by another movie, and/or directly copied a concept or a particular fight scene.

Be sure and take a look, because it’s an awesome video:

It’s pretty clear there aren’t that many original thoughts left in regards to visual entertainment, which is another reason the concept of fair use should be upheld, if not defended as staunchly as the rights of the musicians the RIAA protects. If you’d like to see the rest of Kirby’s work, be sure and check out the installments of his Everything is a Remix project, all of which are available on his site.

If it doesn’t force you to take a look at the current conditions in regards to the entertainment industry’s vise-like grip on content, I’m not sure anything will.