Tag Archives: file-sharing law

Deal Proposed to US Universities: File Sharing Fee Included in College Tuition

Digital music strategist Jim Griffin has come forward with a brand new proposal in the form of a “voluntary blanket licensing’ for online access to music” plan that would add a small music-royalty fee to the tuition payments U.S. universities collect from students. The success of the plan might guarantee its expansion in passing the task of collecting such fees to ISPs, thus dealing with some of the most tedious and litigious matters which usually create tensions between the music industry and its customers.

According to Wired.com this new-to-beformed independent nonprofit organization that would manage the funds from universities and ISPs and distribute them to copyright owners will be called Choruss.

The proposal is currently touring college campuses on a national scale with technology advocate Educause in close-up, and with Columbia, Stanford, University of Washington, University of Chicago, University of Colorado, MIT, University of Michigan, Cornell, Penn State, University of California at Berkeley and University of Virginia all appearing to be interested in the plan.

Supervisory body group the Electronic Freedom Foundation backs up the plan, and Warner Bros said that it is looking for options to the lawsuit-based method at the schools’ request.

“Of course, we are actively engaged with universities and other parties to seek a constructive resolution to a complex issue — how to assure artists appropriate compensation while enabling the widespread dissemination of their work among fans,” a Warner Music Group spokesman replied to the presentation’s publication on Techdirt.

“Therefore, we are undertaking an effort to develop new voluntary business models that seek something other than — and we believe, better than — a litigation-based approach. This is exactly the type of solution that several universities and their associations have been asking for.”

However, there’s a catch, and an odd one as well – the scheme compels all students, whether they live off campus or not, or even whether they engage in sharing music or not, to pay an additional fee with their college tuition. The plan’s motto seems to be “All students or none.” It’s kind of rising up the issue of fairness, doesn’t it?

Yet, the most stressing problem might come from the fact that all labels, both indie and major, would be asked to shake hands in order for the ‘download-what-you-want’ proposal to work. This means that some copyright holders could fear this proposal may backfire in the form of heavy piracy leaning on pretexts like “I didn’t know I was supposed to only download music.”

Swedish Government about to Launch the New File Sharing Law

We promised to keep you posted with the ongoing process of implementing a file sharing law in Sweden so here’s the follow-up of the latest related events. The Swedish government says is still working on a law that will give record and film labels the permission to go after people sharing unauthorized audio and video files, Associated Press informs.

What this proposal does is enable industry lawyers to seek a court order to idenyify the user behind an Internet subscription in cases of suspected copyright infringement. The idea is that labels would be able to get money from the file-sharers as compensation for their losses.

There is, however a consolation in that people not indulging in uploading unauthorized content and who are involved only “occasionally” in downloading such material will not be pursued.

Countries such as Finland and Denmark have a similar legislation already functioning.

However, there’s still one more step to go as the proposal made public today needs approval from the Parliament.

File sharing Law Gets Further Delay

The Swedish Government still has to make efforts in coming forward with a decision that would keep things in a balance with respect to piracy and copyright as it has postponed such a decision based on the proposition on an anti-piracy law.

About two weeks ago P2POn was writing “that a cloud of controversies is about to spread due to a new law proposal against illegal file-sharing. The two factors that will stand opposed are the protection of intellectual property vs. the protection of personal integrity”. Well the two factors kept things on a standstill. The Ministry of Justice intended to have a law proposition against illegal file sharing in the hands of the Parliament this month. However, the session held two days ago didn’t end with the passing of the bill as hoped.

What will follow will be further discussions between the four centre-right parties regarding all the aspects that formulating such a law imply. Time seems to be a main priority since there are so many expectations (that differ) related to the controversial law bill and a final decision in this respect.

The opinions are divided – on one side we have those engaged in the music and film industry, a number a celebrities who’ve spoken in support of the law proposal and on the other side there are those adhering to the pro-integrity opinion against the law proposal.

The disagreement is also maintained at a political level between persons inside the four governing parties.

The situation kept government politicians busy over the last two weeks finding a solution that would equally respect both the protection of intellectual and the protection of personal integrity.

File Sharing Law Changed?

On October 26 P2PON reported about statements coming from Sweden’s Council on Legislation’s that were hinting towards embracing a new law meant to facilitate the capture of suspected online pirates. Now we pick up from where we left off.

The Stockholm News reports that a cloud of controversies is about to spread due to a new law proposal against illegal file-sharing. The two factors that will stand opposed are the protection of intellectual property vs. the protection of personal integrity.

The original proposal said that copyright holders should be legally allowed to demand access to IP numbers of copyright infringement suspects and, of course, ask for damage fees from them by filing lawsuits.

The law originates in a directive given by the EU-commission but gets a bit overzealous as it extends pass the EU demands.

However, there are many those who argue saying that it’s not the responsibility of private companies to play the cop especially since it’s possible to use your neighbours’ wireless broad band without their knowledge, which means that the person connected to an IP number may very well not be the one liable for the infringement.

The record industry has been rubbing its hands in anticipation. Not everyone shares the same view, oscillating between the right of ownership and personal integrity. However, until now the critics seem to be louder.

On Tuesday the government suggested that the ´File sharing law´ might undergo some adjustments. Svenska Dagbladet points to such a change saying that the copy right owners will be given the IP number only if the commercial purposes lie behind the respective suspected copyright infringement. Back in 2006, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (photo) said: “We should not hunt a whole young generation”, words that many keep reminding him of.

P2P Defendant Compensated by RIAA

Tanya Anderson is one of the many individuals RIAA filed a lawsuit against for illegally sharing music over the Internet. The case has been on for two years.

Of course damage compensation was demanded. So, on one hand we had the music industry representatives Atlantic Recording, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and BMG Music claiming the fee, and, on the other hand, we had a very determined woman who would not have it without a fight. And well she did. After taking a firm stand denying the accusations whose subject she was, finally, she had the complaints against her dismissed. However, by now some money – and we talk about $300,000 – would be kissed goodbye due to legal fees. Since the allegations had been withdrawn, she was now allowed to demand compensation for attorney fees. The wheel had turned.

Her demand went pretty well. The judge initially ruled that “Andersen now requests an award of attorney fees in the amount of$298,995.00 and costs in the amount of $5,387.05.” Naturally, the music industry wasn’t at all happy with the decision and objected to the considerable fee.

The objection proved to be justified once again and the judge re-visited his order and ruled that “Andersen should be awarded attorney fees in the amount of$103,175. Andersen’s Bill of Costs in the amount of
$4,659 should be APPROVED.”

Is it me or this does look like a cat and mouse game?