Hi-Sci-Fi

by Irma Arkus

Of all the machiavellian moves to engage in censorship and control over Internet traffic, none is more insidious than the proposed ACTA, an international treaty designed as a draconian move to protect the interests of corporate copyright holders.

Thus far, most of ACTA has been deemed illegal - disconnecting users based on a detection of certain traffic suspected of copyright infringement does not translate into a solid proof of such infringement- and that is only the tip of an iceberg that is ACTA.

Either way, ACTA is a purely American invention, designed to provide optimal protection for corporations struggling to survive in a data-rich era.

The idea of course, is to create not only an environment in which Internet users are keenly aware of not only the legality of their own actions, but are exposed to continuous loss of any anonymity and sense of privacy.

The video enclosed is provided by Google DC talks, and it contains some very valuable insights, running at whopping 1 hour and 24 minutes.

One of the disturbing aspects of ACTA is that it is also designed to be kept a secret - as in, in order to protect corporations, the protections themselves will be kept out of the public sphere.

This stratagem of a legalistic maneuver is explained by the corporate sluts below:

by Irma Arkus

thanks to generalcastro for tip!

Cryptome.org has leaked a 17 page price list from Yahoo! Inc. as a guide to selling the email content of its users to law enforcement and intelligence collecting agencies.

Not only are personal emails available for sale to agencies in question, but the concern has an foreign relations angle, as the increasingly popular free email services provided by telcos, led to many officials across the nations to using them for private and business purposes.

While many responded to this revelation by closing their email Yahoo accounts, users should be warned that the company stores the said accounts for a 90 day period after closure.

Upon release of the whistleblowing documents, Yahoo issued a legal letter to Cryptome, stating that the information hosted on its site is proprietary information and copyrighted to Yahoo, thus. Cryptome’s answer to that is that the copyright on the documentation is not registered in any way, nor does the documentation itself bear any copyright insignia.

Apart from Yahoo, Cryptome has also released ATT, Sprint, Voicestream, Verizon, Nextel, Pacific Telesis, GTE, and Cingular documentation of similar nature. I highly encourage you to review the said documentation at Cryptome.org [Cryptome]

by Irma Arkus

One of the most remarkable lawsuits to surface while discussing copyright legislation in Canada is the most recent one discussed by Michael Geist. It involves artists - yes, those very same huddled masses you often hear of during anti-piracy ads - suing large recording companies: Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada for some $60b worth of copyright infringements, estimated at $20,000 per song, a number based on what the companies are demanding from potential infringing individuals.

Why now and why at all, begs the question, and Geist gives us a rather satisfying answer:

“After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing “the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers.”

Ta da! But what is the case based on? Apparently, copyright laws have changed in Canada since the 1980s, explains Geist: “The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use.”

While many artists, including some little known names of McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen, are at the forefront of the lawsuit, others are more obscure artists, demanding their fair share of the profits.

“It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills,” says Geist, only to elaborate further:

“the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown, David Basskin, the president and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that “the record labels have devoted insufficient resources for identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the pending lists.” The CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability.”

At $20,000 per song, the lawsuit now reaches an estimated $60b. And unlike individuals being sued for loss of profits at $20,000 dollars per song, these corporations can afford it, and have directly profited off of said music. Copyright for all, or copyright for some. Time will tell. [TheStar]

This image was uploaded with the post Taping a Birthday Party With Few New Moon Scenes in Background Gets You A Prison Ticket.

If you weren’t sure just how preposterous and draconian copyright legislations are, then feast your eyes on this example of human horror.

According to the Chicago’s Sun Times, 22-year old Samantha Tumpach was taping her sister’s birthday party at the local cineplex, catching glimpses of New Moon film during the Happy Birthday song. An employee, most likely one of those poor teens who work for minimum wage and smell of popcorn palm oil grease, caught the glimpse of her handy-cam and called authorities.

Now, Tumpach faces severe charges for recording less than 4 minutes of New Moon, a film production that is not worth anyone’s time or money. She is looking at up to three years in prison, and has been charged with felony. Who’s the vampire now? [Sun Times

This image was uploaded with the post Al Franken on Net Neutrality .

by Irma Arkus

In an unusual, yet not entirely unforseen manner, European Parliament has “softened” their position on Internet access as a fundamental right, allowing French Parliament to exercise the 3-strikes-and-you’re-out law.

The law, brought on by attempts of media conglomerates, including music and film distributors, to control “Internet piracy” was not applicable due to the fact that the European Parliament called acceess to Internet, a fundamental right.

Now, after a closed door meeting with big business, the European Parliament settled on a compromise saying that the “prior fair and impartial procedure” is required in order to disconnect users from access.

While political parties, such as the Green party are “celebrating” their apparent victory, it is obvious to anyone that business interests have successfully pressured the EU to partially accept the draconian measures made to punish potential “pirates.”

The very concept of considering access to the Internet as a fundamental right was seen as a relatively progressive move on the part of EU. While it puzzled North American lawmakers and big business, it did not fail in envisioning what Internet access represents to civil participants, even disobedient ones, in EU’s version of Information Society or Knowledge-Based society. [BusinessWeek]

by Irma Arkus

Few days ago, Lilly Allen surprised the media by being relatively upfront over the fact that her recent album has been a download favorite. On her blog, she writes “I think music piracy is having a dangerous effect on British music…For new talent though, file sharing is a disaster as it’s making it harder and harder for new acts to emerge.”

Whoow Lilly, the last time we checked at HiSciFi, the new talent has been emerging using exactly these very tactics you criticise. New bands are constantly gaining new audiences (and landing those juicy contracts) by releasing their first albums via torrents and mp3 sites such as myspace.

But what do I need to say, when Dan Bull has it covered:

This image was uploaded with the post UK Photo Journalists: List of Areas Subject to Section 44 Unknown.

by Irma Arkus

Photographers in UK are facing what many describe as a catch 22. According to Section 44 of the newly introduced Terrorism Act, photographers can be detained, and any police officer is authorised to search, and seize equipment. The tricky part is that the act “allows Chief Constables to request authorisation from the Home Secretary to define an area” in which police officers have the authority to enact such searches.

The question is then, which areas are off limits?

After British Journal of Photography submitted their request to Home Office requesting information on these areas under the Freedom of Information Act, the office refused: “The Home Office has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the BJP regarding the disclosure of the list of all areas where police officers are authorised to stop-and-search photographers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

According to the British Journal of Photography, the common knowledge is that the entire city of London is covered under the legislation, but which other areas of London are affected is unknown.

This places photography journalists under a disadvantage. Because of the lack of tranparency and information disclosure, they can be detained anywhere, without being certain of their legal rights.

This, on the other hand, gives an unprecedented freedom to the police. They can technically, detain journalists, search and seize them based on this idea of “safeguarding National Security.”

We’ve experienced in recent years, stories of many journalists who, upon entry to various dictatorial regimes, experienced such inexplicable treatment by authorities who violated their rights and freedoms.

Their questioning, detention, seizure of equipment and property, seemed unthinkable to our civilized, western world counterparts. We, unlike them, were assured that certain freedoms were to be had for all. Now, it seems, not only are we no better than those we pointed fingers at, but the freedoms our predecessors fought for, were discareded, exchanged for a measly, meaningless term: security. [BJP]

This image was uploaded with the post Pirate Party Wins, Seats in EU Parliament Guaranteed.

by Irma Arkus

The Pirate Party has not only won, but will enter the European Parliament.

Swedish elections had one of the unlikeliest victors: the Pirate Party, established as a unifying force behind the popular Pirate Bay torrent website, has won a sizeable number of votes, supressing some of the long-standing Swedish political parties from holding parliamentary seats.

Initially dismissed as a temporary ire of youth, the Pirate Party has grown in numbers, mostly due to now infamously mishandled and widely criticised Pirate Four trial.

Now, the Pirate Party not only secured potentially two seats in the European Parliament, but beat more than few traditional oponents in the elections with their win of almost 200,000 votes.

Many view the Pirate Party win as a change of current in the European Parliament when it comes to issues of fair copyright, and net neutrality.

One of the Pirate Party goals is to legalize file-sharing for personal use in Sweden as well as in EU.

You know what this means? That you, yes you, have just become political. Get used to it.

by Irma Arkus

Net Neutrality in Canada is once again a big topic. Rabble.ca is collaborating with Open Internet Coalition in hosting “The Future of the Internet: Access, Openness, and Inclusion, A Town Hall Discussion.”

You can join the conversations as per following:

TORONTO - Open Internet Town Hall Meeting
Monday June 8, 2009, 7:00pm - The Gladstone Hotel, 1214 Queen St. West

Speakers:
Mark Surman - Executive Director, Mozilla Foundation
Steve Anderson - Co-founder, SaveOurNet.ca
Rocky Gaudrault - CEO, Teksavvy Solutions Inc.
Derek Blackadder - National Representative with CUPE
Olivia Chow (Member of Parliament (NDP))

Special:
* David Skinner - Prof, York U
* Kim Elliott - Rabble.ca
* Mark Kuznicki - remarkk consultant

REGISTER TO RESERVE A SEAT: http://saveournet.ca/toronto

OTTAWA: Open Internet Town Hall Meeting
Wednesday June 10, 2009, 7:00pm - Ottawa Public Library Main Branch, 120 Metcalfe St.

Speakers:
Michael Geist - law professor at the University of Ottawa where he is Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, blogger
Charlie Angus - NDP MP, Heritage and Culture
Rocky Gaudrault - CEO, Teksavvy Solutions Inc.
Bill St. Arnaud - Chief Research Officer for CANARIE Inc.

Introduction by Steve Anderson - Co-founder, SaveOurNet.ca

Discussion Facilitator: Marita Moll - TeleCommunities Canada

REGISTER TO RESERVE A SEAT: http://saveournet.ca/ottawa

VANCOUVER: Join the Save Our Net campaign, see: SaveOurNet.ca

by Irma Arkus

In US, federal judges ascertained that cases illegal domestic surveillance of American citizens are to be dismissed, based on the fact that Telecoms have immunity from prosecution under the controversial FISA Amendments Act (FISAAA).

Dozens of cases tying government’s illegal wiretapping and communication surveillance have been brought to the courts by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

As previously discussd, EFF in particular addressed a case of NSA wiretapping activities in San Francisco. These, EFF argued, are unconstitutional.

Now that the cases of wiretapping and surveillance of US citizens are to be dismissed, EFF and American Civil Liberties Union will appeal on the basis that FISAAA is unconstitutional.

According to EFF’s latest press release, “The retroactive immunity law unconstitutionally takes away Americans’ claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government’s separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law.”

Signed by President Bush in 2008, the FISAAA allowed for the dismissal of the lawsuits over the telecoms’ participation in the warrantless surveillance program if the government secretly certifies to the court that the surveillance did
not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president.

Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey filed that classified certification with the court in September and demanded that the cases be dismissed.

“The immunity legislation that the court upheld today gives the telephone companies a free pass for flouting the law and violating the privacy rights of millions of their customers,” said Ann Brick, ACLU of Northern California
staff attorney.

by Irma Arkus

The latest news on Japanese manga are all about getting arrested.

A US manga collector, Christopher Handley, has been found guilty of possessing drawings depicting child pornography, after US Custom Service authorities examined the materials sent to Hendley’s home from Japan, and determined that it depicts sexual acts with minors.

For anyone familiar with manga and hentai…sexual acts constitute a great deal of content. And despite the fact that the experts brought into the case agreed, Henley has been convicted of owning child pornography, and is looking at sentence that may land him up to 15 years in prison.

The unprecedented action against Henley who according to his lawyer has collected *everything manga* rather than just comics with sexual content is causing waves of panic amongst collectors and fans of Japanese manga in US. And justifiably so.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is outraged, as this conviction means that many of comic book collectors and afficionados are in danger of being arrested and incarcerated. [CLBDF]

This image was uploaded with the post Pirate Bay Review Judge Removed For Bias???.

by Irma Arkus

The reveal of judge Tomas Norström presiding over the Pirate Bay Four case as a biased judge sent shockwaves through Sweden. Norstrom was found to be involved with a number of active copyright-reenforcement lobbying groups. The case, Pirate Bay Four lawyer stated, was biased.

Now, the plot thickens, as the judge Reviewing the case circumstances, Ulrika Ihrfelt, has been removed herself from involvement…for being biased.

Ihrfelt was to determine whether Norström’s judgment can be dismissed in favor of a re-trial. Now, however, due to the discovery that Ihrfelt herself is a member of those same lobbying groups, she will no longer be in charge of the investigation.

The plot thickens though - even if Ihrfelt was removed from the case, Swedish courts apparently have a difficult time finding members who are not tied to the lobbying groups. Currently, three new judges have been appointed to review the case appeal.

Even though the court stated that the three are uninvolved with pro-copyright lobbyists, simple Google searches confirmed otherwise. Anders Eka, for example, has been found to be tied to The Stockholm Center for Commercial Law organisation, whose members are also Monique Wasted and Peter Danowsky, prosecution lawyers in the Pirate Bay Four case who generally work on behest of movie and music industries.

Currently, it is the question of Norström’s bias that must be determined. And the results of the review will be seen in a matter of weeks. [TorrentFreak]

by Irma Arkus

Last time we spoke to Erik Dubbleboer (find copy of interview few articles below this one), president of Mininova.org, he assured us that Mininova will not be affected by current lobbying efforts to curb piracy. Now the tides have changed, and Mininova is announcing Torrent removals.

In our interview with Dubbleboer, we asked whether Pirate Bay Four trial or generally, lobbying, is affecting distribution of content on Mininova. Dubbleboer assured us that they are not going to be affected by external pressures, that trial will not have consequences on Mininova.org operations, and that policy in place by which rights holders can inform Mininova of copyright infringement upon which administrators remove the mentioned torrent, exists and works quite well.

Now, however, Mininova.org is succumbing to pressure of lobbyist, as it announced a “Torrent Removal Trial.” The brief information promises that they are utilizing content recognition trial, similar to that of YouTube, in order to remove all copyright content.

The flood of responses by disappointed fans and users has been overwhelming, as people expressed their anger over the move.

We are yet to find out how successful the technology in question is, and whether any legally posted content will be affected by this technology.

by Irma Arkus

A new Swedish government proposal leaked and reported by Dagens Nyheter daily newspaper reveals efforts of the Anti-Piracy lobbyists to legally curb piracy in Sweden. The proposal is similar to that of recent French efforts, by which ISPs store user data, identify and report those sharing copyright materials over Internet.

ISPs in Sweden currently do not store user data, but if proposed legislation were to be adopted, they would store six months worth of user data, that would be acessed by authorities.

This would place ISPs in a peculiar role of watchmen, or a security detail. Furthermore, this type of surveillance clashes with existing rules and rights of EU citizens.

The Pirate Party response to the proposal is vehement according to TheLocal.Se:

“Storing the data means that the state has a register of all contacts ordinary people have via the internet and the telephone, even though they aren’t suspected of any crime. It violates the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights,” said Christian Engström, “The internet isn’t a playground where politicians get to do what they want. The constitution applies, even on the internet. We have the right to keep our private lives private.”

The legislation is currently under review. Parliamentary response is expected in a matter of weeks.[TheLocal.se]