Introducing How To Download Free Movies Online - Entertainment

If you wished to to download free movies online may it be authorized or not? Which is the query many folks ask me, and all I can response is which it depends on the videos and their age. One can legally download community domain videos use document discussing operating system additionally have any idea as peer to peer or P2P operating system. It's not the operating system which's unlawful. It's which you use it for.

For example, if you use your vehicle to nationality guys on the freeway at 2 times the pace threshhold it's not the car which's unlawful, it's the way you use it. In reality, very little operating system is unlawful - it's how folks use it which can bust the law, and folks tend to use certain types of operating system much more illegally in contrast to other individuals. Document discussing is one.Why is this, and how achieves it do the job?

The why is apparent - simply because P2P operating system is very simple to use and the temptation to download copyright g uarded content is immense. The way it works is which document discussing operating system enables you to hook up to a aspect of the difficult disk of any computer in the network, and download any records on which aspect of the doorway's difficult disk.So let's say you were seeking the latest version of Titanic. You login and key in 'Titanic' into the search box.

Which should come up with a list of 7 videos beginning with the German 1943 propaganda motion picture (don't ask!) of which identify, and ending with the 1997 Kate Winslet version, simply after the (better to me) Catherine Zeta Jones 'Titanic' a 12 months earlier which didn't get the acclaim it could have received.Having said that, back again to means to download totally free videos online and the first variations of the Titanic: the 1943 version may have now been in the community domain, its copyright (50 many years) having expired. Having said that, the motion picture and audio moguls modified this to 70 many years after the demise of the originator.

Walt Walt disney world be cautious!Nevertheless, you can possible download totally free videos online if the motion picture was first launched 70 many years ago. The originator's identify might be open up to argument, but it is unlikely which anyone should follow you for downloading the first 1943 version of the Titanic: the originator of which was Goebbels, Hitler's Minister for Propaganda! It showed Americans as incompetent dummies (who ended up the dummy then!). No person should complain if you download community domain videos similar to these.In up to date days even so you can watch movies online by utilizing P2P document discussing operating system and you can additionally use a similar operating system solutions to download totally free audio procedures and totally free games.

You must guarantee which the procedures and games you download are not guarded by copyright, and the finest document discussing operating system should warn y ou once a particular motion picture document or audio monitor is guarded.The reason why folks still use this form of operating system in spite of the ext of the copyright time period is twofold:a) Due to the fact they believe which the audio and motion picture moguls are being greedy by prolonging the copyright time period to long after their own deaths which can make it following to not possible to download community domain videos any much more, andb) Due to the fact many artists, specifically the younger ones, use this class of totally free publicity to let their names and their do the job be have any idea, and whilst this applies mostly to audio, it additionally applies to the younger motion picture studios which need to come across the community's reaction to their do the job.

So they make their do the job totally free for those which need to use P2P operating system to download it.Almost nothing unlawful concerning which, and for many it works very well. When you downlo ad totally free videos online on internet TV which have been written, developed and focused by amateurs you can typically arrive in all of gems similar to The Blair Witch Undertaking and other individuals which whilst not freely available, were yet were generally downloaded which without doubt contributed to their success.

How to Find Public Domain Content - Entertainment

One of the easiest places to find authoritative public domain content is... your local used bookstore or library!True -- virtually everything contained in the books you'll find at these locations were protected by copyright. But... it's also true that many of these copyrights have expired -- making the contents of those volumes completely public domain.US copyright law has gone through several iterations -- but the two things you need to remember are "75 years from copyright date" and "Sonny Bono"!

The copyright law originally stated that a copyright would last for 75 years. Thus, if a book were copyrighted in 1900, the copyright would expire in 1975. If a book were published in 1920, the copyright would expire in 1995. If a book were copyrighted in 1922, the copyright would expire in 1997. But... if a book was copyrighted in 1923 or later, then things take on a whole new slant... courtesy of then-Congressman Sonny Bono.

You see, a particular item was originally copyrighted in 1923. It's copyright was due to expire in 1998 -- sending this item into the public domain. This is normally not a problem -- truthfully, most people don't care about things copyrighted so far back. Expiring the copyright can actually grant these works new life in the public domain.In this case, though, the item due to expire was a mouse -- Micky Mouse!Its interesting that Disney has no problem using stories that are already in the public domain Sleeping Beauty, Treasure Island, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Three Musketeers, etc, etc but theyre not too crazy about their flagship icon becoming available in the public domain.

Disney lobbied Congress heavily and Congressman Sonny Bono introduced legislation to extend copyright protection for an additional 20 years. This legislation passed in 1998 -- but only applied to items that were not yet in the public domain. Thus, an item copyrighted in 1992 was public domain after 75 years -- but anything copyrighted in or after 1923 wa s protected for 95 years.So -- to play it perfectly safe and legal -- if the copyright date on a published work is 1922 or earlier, the item is now in the public domain and may be freely used (but not necessarily re-copyrighted and sold). If the copyright date is 1923 or later, it's best to leave it alone till at least the year 2018!So what good is a book published and copyrighted prior to 1923?

Well, if it's a book of sheet music -- or a book of classic poetry, literature, or theater -- or a book of formulae, travel, or... well, you get the idea. Some things become dated -- but some things are just as current today as they were when they were originally published.This doesn't mean you can find a book by Mark Twain in the bookstore and freely copy and distribute it. You'll likely find the copyright on that published work is fairly current. However, if you find an old version of the same book published and copyrighted prior to 1923, then you can safely use it!The best places to spot these treasures -- try your local public library, used bookstores, or estate sales.

Copyright Infringement - What to Do If Someone Steals Your Content and/or If You are Falsely Accused of Stealing Someone's Content

Product By Copyright Infringement

Lowest Price - Hurry Up!!
1 Days, 1 Hours, 20 Minutes, 8 Seconds Left.

->>> Click Me - Special Price !!<<<-



[Product Description] [Specifications]

In the UK? Click HERE

Ngoc Larabee : Bought Copyright Infringement as a xmas gift for my dad. He loves it! Came quickly. I think it's very cool and may end up buying for myself.

Linda Letscher: I bought this Copyright Infringement from this website last week. Up to this moment, I am happy with this guy.

Renetta Corson: I have been using this Copyright Infringement for 1 week now. Nice built quality.

Marcelino Kingman: I was skeptical about the high quality of Copyright Infringement in this cost range. taking many hours, I agree with previous reviewers.

Laverna Gauron: Everything is great. There is really nothing bad about Copyright Infringement .

Authors, Publishers and Librarians – Perspectives on Copyright Laws

When it comes to copyright, there are basic concepts we all need to know about. Issues such as what is protected by copyright, for how long, and determining ownership of a work are some of these basic concepts.  However, depending on the issue, each of us comes to the copyright table with a perspective. For example, I may be authoring a book, or publishing a newsletter, or a librarian helping a patron find appropriate resources. The table below is only the beginning of this discussion and is set out in somewhat cryptic language.

It is based on U.S. law but the issues are similar in all countries. The table is inspired by two courses I am teaching on copyright – one for authors and publishers – and one for librarians.

Copyright does not protect ideas.Only the words I use to express my ideas are protectedAnother publisher can have a similar publication to mine on a similar topic.If ideas are not protected, then I can summarize articles and books rather than reproduce themI will use the © so people know I am the author of a work; this may also deter copyright infringementI will place the © on our publications because I can get greater damages in a lawsuit if the infringement is willful.

I must remind everyone in our library that works are protected even without a ©Copyright registration is voluntary. I will register my works in case I need to enforce my rights; I may consider registering a collection of works to save on registration fees and paperwork. I will register to ensure that in a lawsuit I receive any losses to us, any profits to the infringer, and possibly attorney feesIf a work is registered, it may be easier for me to obtain permission to use the work as the work will be listed in the records of the Copyright OfficeCan I use a short quote in an article I write, or lyrics from a song in a book.

Will I specifically permit certain nonprofit, noncommercial uses to make it easier for readers to interpret fair use. How can I make a proper analysis of the 4 fair use factors and make a copyright risk analysis in each situation. Copyright infringement is unauthorized use of a work. How can I prevent others from using my work without my permission; how do I monitor unauthorized uses of my work.

How can I make a living with all the unauthorized uses of content; should I consider using DRM (digital rights management). Will I be liable if I unintentionally use content without permission. I need to know all I can about copyright law so I can best protect my work. I need to be on top of how copyright law affects electronic publishing and social networking. I need to know about complying with copyright law and be able to educate others I work with about copyright law.

View the original article here

Copyright Infringement - What to Do If Someone Steals Your Content and/or If You are Falsely Accused of Stealing Someone's Content

Product By Copyright Infringement

Lowest Price - Hurry Up!!
1 Days, 1 Hours, 20 Minutes, 8 Seconds Left.

->>> Click Me - Special Price !!<<<-



[Product Description] [Specifications]


In the UK? Click HERE

Ngoc Larabee : Bought Copyright Infringement as a xmas gift for my dad. He loves it! Came quickly. I think it's very cool and may end up buying for myself.
Linda Letscher: I bought this Copyright Infringement from this website last week. Up to this moment, I am happy with this guy.
Renetta Corson: I have been using this Copyright Infringement for 1 week now. Nice built quality.
Marcelino Kingman: I was skeptical about the high quality of Copyright Infringement in this cost range. taking many hours, I agree with previous reviewers.
Laverna Gauron: Everything is great. There is really nothing bad about Copyright Infringement .

Copyright Office Releases STELA Section 302 Report

Copyright Office Releases STELA Section 302 Report


The Copyright Office has issued its report on marketplace alternatives to statutory licenses set forth in Sections 111, 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act, as required by Section 302 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). The report, prepared after a year of review that included a public hearing, provides recommendations for commencing a structured phase-out of the statutory provisions while taking into account the reasonable needs of those who would be affected. In announcing the report, Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante welcomed "the opportunity to work with Members of Congress and the copyright community as technology, business models, and the broadcast programming market continue to evolve." More on the Section 302 report process is available at .

Read our press releases

View the original article here

The International Copyright Symbol

Some people believe that if a work does not bear a copyright symbol, then that work is not protected by copyright law.  This is not true.  In most circumstances, the use of the copyright symbol is not mandatory.  However, the symbol © is used universally to identify a copyright-protected work and to indicate its copyright owner.

The symbol is not required in the leading copyright convention, the Berne Convention (to which 164 countries belong), but remains a requirement in another copyright convention, the Universal Copyright Convention.  The information in this article discusses Berne member countries’ use, or non-mandatory use, of a copyright symbol. The U.S. and Canada are members of Berne.

Reasons for Using a Copyright Symbol


In general, a copyright symbol is a reminder to the world at large that copyright exists in the work.  It identifies the copyright owner and therefore may help people who want to use the work to locate the copyright owner and obtain permission to use it.  Also, it shows the work’s first year of publication.
Using a copyright notice does not require copyright registration of a work or any specific permission or rubber stamping.  In other words, do not assume that you can locate the copyright owner by searching the records of your country’s Copyright Office just because there is a copyright symbol on the work.

In countries like Canada and the U.S., the symbol is not mandatory however there are incentives to use it.  In Canada, use of the symbol provides evidence in a court action that the alleged violator should have known that copyright existed in the work.  In the U.S., use of the symbol precludes an alleged violator of copyright from submitting that he did not know that copyright existed in a work.  In the U.S., works published before March 1, 1989 were subject to different rules and the copyright notice was mandatory, though corrective steps cold be taken if it was omitted on a published work.

Elements in a Copyright Notice


There are three elements in a copyright notice.  First, the “c” in a circle, ©, or the abbreviation “Copr.” or the word “copyright” should be present.  Second, the name of the copyright owner (not necessarily the author) should be included in the notice.  Third, the year of first publication should be set out.  These elements need not necessarily appear in this sequence.  An example is:  © Mary Clark  2012 or Copyright © Mary Clark  2012

The year to include in a copyright notice should be the year of first publication of the work. First publication is when the work is made available to the public without restriction.  This includes selling a book or leaving free copies of it in a public place, but not sending sending copies of a book to a publisher or circulating copies internally to co-workers. For compilations or derivative works which incorporate previously published content, the year of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient.

New versions or editions of works should contain the publication date of the new version or edition. For constantly evolving websites and blogs that contain works published over several years, the notice may include a range of years (e.g., 2001-2012), starting from the date of the oldest published elements and ending with the date of the newest published elements.

A copyright symbol is not usually used on an unpublished work but may be used, and instead of year of publication, the year could be the year the author distributes the work in some manner.  The symbol could indicate this with the following wording:  Unpublished work © 2011 Mary Clark.
At least in the U.S., the year may be omitted from the copyright notice where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with or without text, is reproduced on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys or any useful objects.

Placement of the Notice


The copyright notice should be clearly placed in a manner and location best suited to alert the user of the work in question to the fact that copyright subsists in the work.  This can vary depending on the type of work involved.  For a website, a suitable location for the copyright notice may be on the home page, or on a page that appears by clicking through to a specified copyright or legal notices page, or both.

For instance, website owners may include a simple copyright notice on its home page and perhaps on other pages of its website, with a click through to a more detailed copyright and legal notices page.  If you are looking for the copyright notice, go to the bottom of the home page and check the listed links for copyright notice or legal disclaimers, etc.

For works published in book form or periodicals, the notice could be placed on the title page, the page immediately following the title page, on either side of the front of back cover, or on the first or last page of the main body of the work.  The notice should be in a manner and location that is conspicuous and will not be missed by a casual observer.

The Sound Recording Symbol


Sometimes you see a p in a circle on a sound recording.  The p in a circle is used like the ©, but only with respect to sound recordings.  The reasons for marking a work with p in a circle are similar to those for marking a work with ©.  The notice should be placed on the label attached to the recording, or on the cover or container accompanying the recording, or both.

Copyright Warning/Information


In addition to a copyright symbol, some include a “copyright warning” or additional copyright-related information on any copyright-protected works.  The warning/information may be as simple as:
For requests to use this copyright-protected work in any manner, email  xxx@xxx.com or call xxx.xxx.xxxx.
More comprehensive copyright warning/information may refer to concepts like fair use and fair dealing, and may mention whether permission is required for non-profit and non-commercial uses of the work.  Most print publications and websites have some form of copyright warning/information and in determining what uses are permitted without further permission, read through this information.

View the original article here

Copyright Infringement - What to Do If Someone Steals Your Content and/or If You are Falsely Accused of Stealing Someone's Content

Product By Copyright Infringement

Lowest Price - Hurry Up!!
1 Days, 1 Hours, 20 Minutes, 8 Seconds Left.

->>> Click Me - Special Price !!<<<-



[Product Description] [Specifications]


In the UK? Click HERE

Ngoc Larabee : Bought Copyright Infringement as a xmas gift for my dad. He loves it! Came quickly. I think it's very cool and may end up buying for myself.
Linda Letscher: I bought this Copyright Infringement from this website last week. Up to this moment, I am happy with this guy.
Renetta Corson: I have been using this Copyright Infringement for 1 week now. Nice built quality.
Marcelino Kingman: I was skeptical about the high quality of Copyright Infringement in this cost range. taking many hours, I agree with previous reviewers.
Laverna Gauron: Everything is great. There is really nothing bad about Copyright Infringement .

Copyright For Fashion? The discussion - Publishing - Copywriting

The copying of fashion design originals - "knocking off" or "affordable interpretation," depending on your point of view - is a practice that designers may have grudgingly accepted in the past, when less expensive copies took some time to reach stores and only those consumers who could afford the designer-label originals could be the first to follow a trend. This practice is costing designers greatly as more advanced technology makes it possible to see high-quality copies appear in stores before the original has even hit the market. While it has long been the practice of the American fashion industry to knock off European designs, American designers did not copy one another. They registered their original sketches with a trade group called the Fashion Originators Guild, an organization that urged retailers to prohibit styles known to be knockoffs.

In 1941, the Supreme Court held that the Guild was an unreasonable restraint-of-trade; the end of the Guild marked the beginning of the knocking off "free-for-all" that we are familiar with today began. It is now common for imitators to photograph the clothes in a designer's runway show, send the photo to a factory to be copied, and have a sample ready within a couple of days for retail buyers to order. Since fashion collections are displayed in runway shows approximately four to five months before they are available to the public, this leaves the fashion impersonator plenty of time to get the copies to stores at the same time, if not earlier, than the originals. Designers assert that design piracy cuts into their longstanding franchise of uniqueness, lowers their sales volume, and ultimately removes incentives for creativity.

Sometimes the same department stores that carry the higher-priced version of a garment will also sell the lower-priced knockoff, often under the store's private label. Knocking-off is widespread in the fashion industry and even those designers who fume over being copied are not above doing it themselves. Because of the speed with which designs can be recreated, it is not even always clear which designer created the original and which designer simply copied it. This discussion will explore how protection of fashion works fits - or does not fit - into the current intellectual property law framework in the United States. The overall organization of this discussion is a systematic consideration of possible protection for works of fashion under copyright, patent, and trade dress law. This discussion will encompass not only the current state of the law, but also proposals for reform, such as an amendment to the Copyright Act to protect fashion works.
The central question is whether fashion design is an art worthy of protection or a craft whose practitioners can freely copy one another. In an industry where many designers come out with similar looks each season - and where inspiration is said to be "in the air" - designers and the thriving knockoff industry are fiercely debating the issue.

Another key question: whether knockoffs actually benefit the industry as a whole. Copying, some argue, propels the fashion cycle forward by creating popular trends that encourage designers to move on to the next big idea. In what they call the "piracy paradox," law professors Kal Raustiala of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Christopher Sprigman of the University of Virginia argue that copying makes trends drench the market quickly, driving the fashion cognoscenti to search out newer looks. "If copying were illegal, the fashion cycle would occur very slowly, if at all," While they admit copying can harm individual designers, they say Congress should protect industries only when piracy stymies -- rather than encourages -- innovation.

Despite the apparent unsuitability of copyright protection to works of fashion, commentators are often confused by the anomalies in copyright law under which fashion accessories, works of architecture, and computer chip designs are eligible for copyright protection. Some argue that since copyright has already been extended to protect the aforementioned items, copyright may be the best legal tool that fashion designers have when fighting design piracy.

For example, Robert Denicola has argued that it would be more consistent with the legal principles of intellectual property law to draw the line of copyright with respect to arguably "useful articles" by shaping whether, in the process of creating the item, the designer focused primarily on aesthetic or utilitarian consideration. Such a test would to a great extent improve the odds that works of fashion would be granted copyright protection, as most fashion designers are concerned with the aesthetic rather than the functional aspects of their clothing.

The specific extension of copyright to fashion works would have many advantages for designers. First, a copyright owner may seek an injunctive remedy to prevent the impersonator of his or her design from making and selling copies of the original. Second, copyright law allows for the imposing and discarding of the infringing items. Third, the copyright owner can recover damages, either actual or statutory, and also profits. Finally, the copyright owner may be able to recover court costs and attorney's fees. This last remedy is especially important in fashion design cases, as it allows small new designers to take on big manufacturers whose greater power and financial resources would otherwise be an intractable obstacle.Despite these advantages to fashion designers, an amendment to the Copyright Act for works of fashion is not likely to be passed soon.

As one commentator concisely stated that the current situation of the legislators and courts has a great deal of trouble seei ng past the utilitarian function of a piece of clothing. While industrial designs have been the subject of repeated bills, Congress has explicitly excluded fashion works from these bills. For example, while the Design Anti-Piracy Act of 1989 would have protected original designs of useful articles against unauthorized copying, the bill would have barred apparel designs composed of three-dimensional shapes and surfaces with respect to apparel. According to one commentator, this exclusion has no basis in any discernible principle. It was added to help still the vociferous opposition of retailers to the bill." In this current climate of judicial and legislative hostility, copyright protection will probably not be extended to specifically protect fashion works.

Fashion seems to be an industry particularly ill-suited to legal restrictions against copying. Copying - or "borrowing" or "reinterpreting" - is prevalent at every level of the fashion industry. When a lower-priced designer knocks off a higher-priced designer's clothing, the copy may be a huge success because it offers more value for the price. But it is the higher-priced designers who are copying each other.
Fashion designers labors over their finished product just like any other creator or inventor. It takes hours upon hours of careful effort until a dress with just the right cut or a purse with the perfect design is complete. Why should this hard work and effort not grant the person behind the creation some level of security, allowing them to collect the benefits of their labor?

As a matter of Public policy it is generally believed that copycats are good for the economy. The claim asserts that preventing copyright for fashion eliminates the possibility of a monopoly by providing the consumer with lower priced knockoffs. Furthermore it is contended that knockoffs really promote business for the designer by creating a market for a style of fashion. But do we believe this actually? And what's wrong with having a monopoly on fashion? When a consumer spends thousands of dollars on a purse or a dress that others will recognise as a Louis Vuitton or Versace, they should be able to enjoy the exclusivity that comes with such a purchase. Knockoffs steal from the consumer of their exclusive right to enjoy a specific product.

There are policy based arguments behind the government's resistance to providing a copyright for fashion; ranging from the dislike for creation of monopolies to improving the market.

If the designer believes another person infringed his copyright, he could sue those who sell or manufacture the design in any federal court. Those found guilty would face fines of 250,000 or $5 a copy, whichever is greater.

Copyright Office Announces Technical Amendment

Copyright Office Announces Technical Amendment


The Copyright Office is making an amendment to its regulations by removing Part 251, Code of Federal Regulations, “Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel Rules and Procedures.” In 2004, Congress replaced the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels with three Copyright Royalty Judges, who operate under separate regulations. The Office, however, had retained its regulations after this transition in order to complete open proceedings and as a historical reference for those determinations that had been decided under the CARP system and had been appealed. Removal of these regulations is thus an administrative task taken to remove regulations that have not been needed for a while.  (Read more.)

Effective date of technical amendment to 37 CFR Part 251Effective date of expiration for suspension of special handling fee for registration claims that have been pending for at least six months.
Read our press releases.

View the original article here

Copyright Laws Management Online Course

Whereas proactive management of copyright issues is key to copyright compliance, active involvement in students learning about copyright is equally important. With that in mind, I am preparing my “non-lecture” for the upcoming online course, Intro to Copyright Management: Principles & Issues, as an interactive-think for yourself-start planning your copyright management, session. I am beginning with three common scenarios which should engage the students and get them thinking about why they need to manage copyright. We will look at situations where a nonlawyer (often a librarian) answers the day-to-day copyright questions, and discuss why, what, when and how to manage copyright.
This course will help the student think about his role in copyright through the courses in the Certificate in Copyright Management program which has 6 required online courses and 2 in-person courses. In addition to the interactive web sessions, there will be a discussion list and each student will begin her own checklist for copyright management and compliance taking into account domestic and global copyright, digital, library and author/publisher perspectives, and spreading the copyright message. You do NOT need to be in the Certificate program to take this or any of the courses. Each course in the Certificate program is a “stand-alone” course – pick a course or two which interests you!

View the original article here

Copyright Infringement - What to Do If Someone Steals Your Content and/or If You are Falsely Accused of Stealing Someone's Content

Product By Copyright Infringement

Lowest Price - Hurry Up!!
1 Days, 1 Hours, 20 Minutes, 8 Seconds Left.

->>> Click Me - Special Price !!<<<-



[Product Description] [Specifications]

In the UK? Click HERE

Ngoc Larabee : Bought Copyright Infringement as a xmas gift for my dad. He loves it! Came quickly. I think it's very cool and may end up buying for myself.

Linda Letscher: I bought this Copyright Infringement from this website last week. Up to this moment, I am happy with this guy.

Renetta Corson: I have been using this Copyright Infringement for 1 week now. Nice built quality.

Marcelino Kingman: I was skeptical about the high quality of Copyright Infringement in this cost range. taking many hours, I agree with previous reviewers.

Laverna Gauron: Everything is great. There is really nothing bad about Copyright Infringement .

Copyright Laws Newsletter – 16 Years Later

Copyright discussions are everywhere – in the office of your physiotherapist, in your local coffee shop, at work, in the bookstore, at schools – and of course online on discussion lists, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter — lots of bits and pieces and debates and news.  Within this flow of information is a constant:   The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter. This quarterly Newsletter devoted to explaining copyright law, compliance, management, and licensing issues in plain English to a diverse audience is now in its 16th year of publication in 2012. Enjoy a sample copy!  Subscribe.

View the original article here

Director of U.S. Copyright Office Announces Priorities, Special Projects for Next Two Years

Copyright Office Reviews Fees, Requests Comments
The Copyright Office is reviewing the fees it charges for services and will publish a proposed revised fee schedule in spring 2012. As part of the process of formulating that fee schedule, the Office seeks the views of interested parties on two particular issues. (1) With respect to the basic registration fee, should special consideration be provided to individual author-claimants registering a single work? (2) Are there any special services and corresponding fees that the Office should expand, improve, or add to its offerings at this time, including, for example, additional expedited services and fee options? Comments are due February 23, 2012.

Due date for comments on proposed classes of works to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention
Due date for comments on Copyright Office fees Due date for reply comments addressing points made in the initial comments on proposed classes of works to be exempted from the prohibition against circumvention



Read our press releases.
View the original article here

Copyright Law Commentary and Information

The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, Volume 2011, Issue 4, is now available. Contents include an editorial (by Lesley Ellen Harris) on Asking the Right Copyright Questions; The Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Pentalogy (by Sundeep Chauhan); Copyright as Assets; Employee Liability for Copyright (by Tonya J. Gisselberg); Small Claims Court for Copyright Infringement; Reviews – Digital; and Questions & Answers.

View the original article here

Maria Pallante Appointed Register of Copyrights

Maria Pallante Appointed 12th Register of Copyrights
Librarian of Congress James H. Billington has appointed Maria A. Pallante as the 12th Register of Copyrights and director of the United States Copyright Office, effective today, June 1, 2011. Pallante served as the Acting Register for the past five months, following the retirement of Marybeth Peters on December 31, 2010.

Effective date of appointment of Maria A. Pallante as Register of CopyrightsRoundtable on copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings
Due date for submission of testimony in June 10, 2011, hearing and for suggested questions for the panel to use in the hearing
Hearing on marketplace solutions to statutory licensing



Read our press releases.
View the original article here

Managing Copyright Issues in 2012

12 Copyright Priorities in 2012
Your 2012 challenge-prioritize copyright this year with the following twelve suggestions.
Plan and Budget
1.    Consider your 2012 budget for permissions, licenses, and copyright training.  Consult various people in your organization to gather their needs and preferences.  Prepare a budget and ensure you have the funds and support you require to meet your copyright needs in 2012.
Assess your Copyright Knowledge
2.    Continue your own copyright education.  Do you need a refresher course on copyright?  Or perhaps a course on international copyright, web 2.0 copyright issues, copyright issues for librarians or for authors and publishers?  Register for an in-person or online course.
3.    Brainstorm ideas to get the copyright message to your colleagues.  A new poster in the lunchroom?  A copyright page on your intranet?  How about a weekly lunchtime discussion group on copyright issues? Include senior management, marketing and information professionals, lawyers, and others.
Review Licenses
4.    Check all licenses for electronic content to determine if any expired at the end of 2011.  Were any of these licenses subject to automatic renewal, and still valid in 2012?  Are any licenses now unintentionally lapsed?  Will you need to take any action to notify the vendor/content owner of your intention to renew or not renew a license?
5.    Prepare a database of all content your organization has licensed (see 11 below for content you own.) Whether it’s an image to use in your newsletter, computer software, or an electronic journal subscription, include all content in a single searchable database that allows you to quickly and easily locate that content and determine what rights you have in it.
6.    Do you need permission in 2012?  Generally, the duration of copyright expires at the end of each calendar year.  Determine if any of the works you want to use are in the public domain in 2012.
Compliance
7.    Develop a written copyright policy. If you do not already have one, first determine why you need one and how you would use it. If you have one, determine whether it is valuable and how you can improve or update it.  Have there been amendments to the Copyright Act?  What about court cases that affect how you use content?  Or does your organization now use digital content in a new way that needs to be addressed consistently throughout your organization?
8.    Do the same copyright questions arise again and again in your organization? Keep track of these questions.  Every time you have six new questions, prepare short written answers; consult a lawyer if necessary. Circulate these Qs & As to your colleagues or post them on an intranet.
Developments and Networking
9.    Consider how to use social networking to follow copyright developments.  Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn groups all provide interesting venues with copyright information as it happens, and a broad network of “copyright” people. Grow your copyright network.
Copyright Symbol and Protection
10. Review how you are protecting your own copyright-protected works from documents to images to podcasts and videos.  Although voluntary in most countries, using the universal copyright symbol, ©, is a reminder that copyright exists in a work.  Including contact information for permissions will direct people to you when they are seeking copyright permissions.
11. Undergo an audit of copyright works that you own. It’s also a great way to find out what IP you own and how to market and better profit from that IP. This is true for individuals and both small and large organizations.
12. Set up a mechanism for monitoring the legal use of your own online content on an international basis. This can be as simple as doing search engine searches, or you could hire a professional who specializes in finding unauthorized uses of content.  Piracy is not only the domain of the software and entertainment industries.  You may find surprises in how your individual or organization’s rights are being exploited and your works used, and perhaps even sold, without your permission.

View the original article here

U.S. Copyright Laws Online Primer – Copyright Act

To teach a course on U.S. copyright laws to nonlawyers, it’s important to provide readings and resources targeted at a varied audience at a level they can comprehend. Luckily, there are many excellent books, articles and blogs on U.S. copyright law. However, one of the best resources is the Copyright Act itself. Nonlawyers who I have introduced to the Act have been pleasantly surprised that the Act, for the most part, is fairly straightforward to read. So, I will begin the online course on U.S. copyright law with referring the students to the Act and we will together read the Act in our first two webinars, and discuss it in our online discussion list. We will look at the definition sections for application and explanations, focus on specific provisions, talk about copyright parlance, find logic in the Act as a whole and in specific provisions and more.  From there, we will proceed to cases and writings that explain, discuss and analyze the copyright law.

Issues we will discuss include:

background and composition of U.S. copyright lawcriteria for copyright protection (such as originality and fixation)what works are protectedhow to protect works (e.g., registration and copyright notice requirements)ownership and protection of rightscopyright protection durationexploitation of rightscopyright infringement and remedies.

View the original article here

Happy Copyright Day! An Opportunity to Educate

Birthdays, religious holidays, statutory holidays – so many events take place on an annual basis.  Have you ever considered implementing a Copyright Day in your organization?  This would be your day to stop and think about copyright issues, debate various perspectives, and educate about what the copyright law says.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) lists three “special days”:

World Intellectual Property Day.  April 26 is a day to highlight creativity and innovation in all of our lives.  WIPO has press releases, posters, bookmarks and special publications to help member States celebrate this day.World Book and Copyright Day.  The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designates April 23 as the day each year to promote the protection of written works and to recognize authors and their rights.World Anti-Counterfeiting Day.  The Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group (GACG) selects a day at the end of June each year to raise the awareness and costs of counterfeiting and piracy.

Many governments and organizations promote and have appropriate activities on the “special days” set out above. Check out the links and get ideas for your Copyright Day.  Others ideas in a self study eCourse on copyright education. Start planning now for 2012 World IP Day or World Book and Copyright Day on April 26 and 23, respectively.

View the original article here

Ghostwriting - Ghostwriting For Profits - Publishing - Writing

Ghostwriting is becoming a very profitable business online in the last couple of years. If you don't know what this is there are many e-books and reports released on the Internet every month.
You will find that with any ebook, more are not written by the owner of the product themselves. Many of these products have come from other ghostwriting gurus, that have advertised themselves. The ghostwriting experts job is to write and entire e-book or series of reports for the product owner.
Ghostwriting is such in demand and lucrative that freelancers around the world have joined in and have taken up this great opportunity and has been making some serious ghostwriting gurus serious amounts of money. The real secret to this is to prove yourself and write lots of great content for your clients so you can use this for proof with future prospects. Its like having a series of resumes ready, and once these people see your work they will snap you up in a second if you impress them.
As a ghostwriter, you will need to come up with a series of tiny books, products and reports while follow a specific criteria:
1) Give them exactly what they want and follow the deadline dates.
2) All the work undertaken must be your own original work and not copied from someone else.
3) It must be high quality work and free from spelling and grammatical errors.
4) You must submit your work in.doc or.rtf forum so that it is easy to read.
5) With Ghostwriting you must follow deadline dates, as you clients may have deadlines themselves.
6) All copyrighted material must be discussed to ensure legal issues do not brew up futher down the track.
Remember that you are a writer on behalf of your client. This means that all copyrighted material belong to your clients for good.
Once you have sorted out your ghostwriting arrangements, you need to complete your work and charge your client.
Normally Ghostwriting experts charge their clients Per Page - the amount you can charge is up to you but it normally ranges in the 2 - 10 dollars per page. But it is important on the quality and reputation of your work.
Ghostwriting experts also charge Per Word - This is where your reputation comes in. The better and more known you are and (your experience and reputation) the more you can charge.
Before you create your masterpiece you need to spend a great deal of time writing, and coming up with ideas. Next you need to do a lot of research and find out what info you have accessible to you. This will increase the success and the quality of you end product.
Sometimes there are favorite clients who will like your ghostwriting works so much they will hire you over and over, and as a ghostwriting expert repeat business is the easiest money you can make. You just have to make sure you put out high quality work and on time.
There are lots of resources online and no matter if you are young and looking to start a career online or have just retired, ghost writing is becoming a favorite for lots of people. Some have even replaced their normal wage by doing this ghostwriting.

What Does It Mean to be "Pro-Technology and Pro-Internet?"

Ahead of the Academy Awards this weekend, Chris Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, would like to assure you that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet." But what does that mean? The comments filed at the Copyright Office this month by MPAA and RIAA, together with the Business Software Alliance, the Entertainment Software Association, and other copyright owners' groups, paint a clear picture of these groups' vision for the future of the Internet and digital technologies.

EFF is asking the Copyright Office for legal exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to allow jailbreaking (or "rooting") of smartphones, tablets, and game consoles, so that people can run their software of choice on the devices they own.  EFF is also asking for exemptions that will allow noncommercial video remixers to use video clips from DVDs and online video services.  Other organizations are asking for exemptions for various forms of digital video, accessibility for the disabled, and other important projects.  Under the DMCA, exemptions expire every three years, and have to be justified all over again. Many of you sent comments and signed petitions in support of EFF's exemption requests, and the Copyright Office received almost 700 comments.

MPAA and friends don't approve of a single one of the exemption requests. "The risk associated with encouraging people to circumvent and test the limits of fair use is too high," they say, and the makers of computing devices should be able to stop "unintended uses" of their products.  In fact, say the entertainment lobbies, giving you the ability to modify your own devices for your own use will "wreak havoc" on "markets for consumer access to works."

Let's unpack this. Almost everything we do on the Internet or with digital media makes a copy - even viewing a webpage.  In many cases, the fair use rule of copyright law is what keeps these everyday activities from being copyright violations. But proving definitively that a use is fair often requires a courageous artist or entrepreneur to go to court and risk massive penalties for the chance of having a judge say that what they're doing is legal.  According to the entertainment lobbies, the U.S. government should not encourage people to do this.

Ironically, most of the devices that let us create and experience movies, music, software, and so on "test the limits of fair use" - and many have wound up in court. If this were discouraged, we may never have had the VCR, the MP3 player, the digital video recorder, image-searching websites, or social networks - at least not without asking the entertainment industries' permission first. 

And speaking of permission, MPAA regrets that "the Copyright Office missed an opportunity to endorse" the custom of "asking permission" before innovating.

So what should the Copyright Office be doing? MPAA et al. humbly suggest that the Office should be protecting the "ongoing viability of business models" that create "predictability with respect to how works will be accessed and how copyrighted software and technologies used to facilitate such access will be used and manipulated."  You won't find that in any law, although it sounds a lot like the goals of the now-defunct SOPA and PIPA bills. Again, let's look behind the euphemisms: the entertainment lobbies want the U.S. government to protect their members' bottom lines by regulating how digital technologies can be used.  Only uses that receive Hollywood's permission, and are "predictable," should pass muster.

Apparently this is what Mr. Dodd means when he says "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet": technology that blocks "unintended uses" and an Internet subject to Hollywood's veto power.  SOPA and PIPA may be dead, but the agenda behind them seems alive and well.

View the original article here

How Internet Companies Would Be Forced to Spy on You Under H.R. 1981

Online commentators are pointing to the Internet backlash against H.R. 1981 as the new anti-SOPA movement. While this bill is strikingly different from the Stop Online Piracy Act, it does have one thing in common: it’s a poorly-considered legislative attempt to regulate the Internet in a way experts in the field know will have serious civil liberties consequences. This bill specifically targets companies that provide commercial Internet access – like your ISP – and would force them to collect and maintain data on all of their customers, even if those customers have never been suspected of committing a crime.

Under H.R. 1981, which has the misleading title of Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, Congress would force commercial Internet access providers to keep for one year a “log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.”  Let’s break that down into simple terms.

Temporarily Assigned Network Addresses: More than IP Addresses

Under this proposal, ISPs would have to maintain “temporarily assigned network addresses” to enable the identification of a subscriber. At a minimum, this refers to the IP addresses assigned by ISPs, including the Internet services associated with mobile phones.  It could also potentially include mobile phone numbers or other forms of cell phone identification, such as the three major mobile device identifiers: IMEI, IMSI, TMSI. These are the tracking IDs for your mobile devices, the unique identifiers that mobile phone companies use to track handsets and the accounts associated with them.

IP Addresses Aren't a Perfect Identifier

An IP address is like a street address or a phone number; it's the arrow that points packets of information your way when people send you things over the Internet. But it cannot tell you who is actually sitting behind a computer screen, typing at a computer.

Currently IP addresses by themselves aren’t a perfect way to identify individuals. One reason is because there are only a limited number of IPv4 addresses (the current schema most ISPs use to allocate IP addresses), and so there are many situations in which a bunch of Internet users are sharing a single IP address. This strategy, called Network Address Translation (NAT), is a creative way to deal with the shortage of IP addresses while we are still in the protracted process of transitioning to IPv6. All of which is to say: H.R. 1981 mandates that companies keep a log of assigned network addresses in order to identify customers, but IP addresses are only one clue in figuring out a user's identity.

IP Addresses: Useful for Location Tracking

But there’s another element many commentators are forgetting: even if a single IP address isn’t a perfect identifier, a collection of IP addresses assigned to a user can be combined with other data elements to create a frighteningly detailed map of a person’s location over time. For example, law enforcement could review the IP addressses an individual used to log onto her email account over the period of several months to create a detailed picture of when she was at home, when she went to work, when she was in transit, and when she went to sleep - and whether there were certain days she deviated from her typical schedule.

IP addresses can also indicate information about a user's physical proximity to other users. For example, if two people are using the same IP address at the same time, they are likely at the same location. Law enforcement might be very interested in how IP addresses can indicate one's associations in this way.

Law enforcement could also demand that a social network hand over the IP addresses and logged-in times of an individual using its service. Law enforcement could then combine this information with data from an ISP or mobile carrier to figure who was assigned to each of those IP addresses. For mobile providers, each entry could be combined with data about one’s GPS location. So a law enforcement agent could know when an individual was posting to a social network as well as her location. ISPs will be slightly less exact but still provide a detailed portrait of an individual’s physical location each time she logged in. 

This is no nightmare scenario. This is exactly what the U.S. government attempted when it pressured Twitter to hand over Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir’s data as part of the WikiLeaks investigation. And we’ve seen numerous other occasions where law enforcement pressured Internet companies to hand over the IP addresses and times of individuals using their services.

Law enforcement is coming to understand that IP addresses are a powerful key to location data and to tracking people's movements over time. But in order for this data to be most useful to them, they need ISPs and mobile carriers to keep records of who is assigned to which IP addresses, and when.

The Supreme Court has already decided that tracking an individual’s car with a GPS device for months at a time without a search warrant is blatantly unconstitutional.  But by passing H.R. 1981, law enforcement hopes to create a mountain of data that will facilitate the location tracking of anyone who uses the Internet, if that person is under suspicion for any reason in the coming year.

Detailed Banking Information

Because the actual language of the bill is somewhat vague, activists at Demand Progress have correctly noted that this legislation might force Internet companies to retain even more data just to be on the safe side. The proposed bill is an amendment to 18 USC § 2703, the law currently defining the circumstances under which companies that store electronic data on customers must disclose it to the government. H.R. 1981 is attempting to amend and expand this law in a way that “enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.”

So what is subsection (c)(2)?  It requires a provider to turn over to the government without a warrant:

NameAddressRecords of session times and durationsLength of service (including start date) and types of service utilizedCredit card or bank account number

The language of H.R. 1981 is dangerously unclear – it would definitely require a network to maintain an historical log of IP addresses, but will ISPs believe it also requires them to maintain detailed records on customers’ addresses, credit card, and bank information? Such an interpretation would create a honeypot of sensitive data ripe for overly ambitious law enforcement agents, malicious hackers, or even accidental disclosures.

This Attack on the Internet Has Nothing to Do With Child Pornography

H.R. 1981 is touted as a way to crack down on child pornography, but the data retention mandates of this bill will affect every Internet user who uses a U.S. ISP.  It’s sad to see our legislators using the mantle of child pornography to order Internet companies to spy on users, forcing ISPs to keep mountains of unnecessary data about innocent Internet subscribers in the hopes that it might one day be useful to law enforcement.  That’s exactly why Representative Zoe Lofgren proposed an amendment to rename the bill the 'Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act of 2011.'

This type of legislation goes against the fundamental values of our country where individuals are treated as innocent until proven guilty. H.R. 1981 would uproot this core American principle, forcing ISPs to treat everyone like a potential criminal. 

Help us defeat the Internet spying bill. Contact Congress today.

View the original article here

How to Remove Your YouTube Viewing and Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect

On March 1st, Google will implement its new, unified privacy policy, which will affect data Google has collected on you prior to March 1st as well as data it collects on you in the future. Earlier this week, we showed you how to delete your Google Web History in order to prevent Google from combining your Web History data with the data it has about you on its other products to provide you with personalized ads or suggestions across all of its products. You may also wish to delete your YouTube Viewing and Search History, which can reveal particularly sensitive information about you, including your location, interests, age, sexual orientation, religion, and health concerns.

Note that disabling Viewing and Search History in your YouTube account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information and using it for internal purposes. It also does not change the fact that any information gathered and stored by Google could be sought by law enforcement.
With Viewing and Search History enabled, Google will keep these records indefinitely; with it disabled, they will be partially anonymized after 18 months, and certain kinds of uses, including sending you customized search results, will be prevented. An individual concerned about privacy may also want to set up a secondary Google account for browsing and sharing YouTube videos. She could then download all of her existing YouTube videos to her computer, delete them from her primary Google profile, and then use a separate browser to upload them to a new secondary Google account. If you want to do more to reduce the records Google keeps, the advice in EFF's Six Tips to Protect Your Search Privacy white paper remains relevant.

The following steps will delete your viewing and search history on YouTube. If you have multiple YouTube accounts, you will have to complete these steps for each account.
1. Log in to your Google account.

2. Go to https://www.youtube.com

3. Click on your icon.

4. Click “Video Manager”

5. Click “History”

6. Click “Clear all viewing history.”

7. Click “Pause viewing history."

8. Click "Search History."

9. Click "Clear all search history."

10. Click “Pause search history.”

If you have multiple YouTube accounts, you will have to complete these steps for each account.

View the original article here

Copyright Infringement - What to Do If Someone Steals Your Content and/or If You are Falsely Accused of Stealing Someone's Content

Product By Copyright Infringement

Lowest Price - Hurry Up!!
1 Days, 1 Hours, 20 Minutes, 8 Seconds Left.

->>> Click Me - Special Price !!<<<-



[Product Description] [Specifications]


In the UK? Click HERE

Ngoc Larabee : Bought Copyright Infringement as a xmas gift for my dad. He loves it! Came quickly. I think it's very cool and may end up buying for myself.
Linda Letscher: I bought this Copyright Infringement from this website last week. Up to this moment, I am happy with this guy.
Renetta Corson: I have been using this Copyright Infringement for 1 week now. Nice built quality.
Marcelino Kingman: I was skeptical about the high quality of Copyright Infringement in this cost range. taking many hours, I agree with previous reviewers.
Laverna Gauron: Everything is great. There is really nothing bad about Copyright Infringement .

Obama Administration Unveils Promising Consumer Privacy Plan, but the Devil Will Be in the Details

Today the White House proposed a framework for protecting privacy in the digital age. The plan, laid out in detail in a white paper (pdf), includes a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on well-established fair information practice principles. EFF, which has previously proposed a Bill of Privacy Rights for Social Network Users, believes this user-centered approach to privacy protection is a solid one.

The Administration's bill of rights guarantees:

Individual Control. Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect and how they use it.Transparency. Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices.Respect for Context. Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.Security. Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.Access and Accuracy. Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate.Focused Collection. Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.Accountability. Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

The Administration vowed to push toward enacting these foundational principles into law, and encouraged Congress to give the Federal Trade Commission the sign-off to enforce them. The Department of Commerce will also bring together companies, consumer groups, and other stakeholders to develop legally enforceable codes of conduct for particular markets.

Finally, the Administration's framework will encourage global data protection by promoting mutual recognition of nations' privacy frameworks and cooperative enforcement among countries.

EFF applauds the principles underlying the White House proposal and believes it reflects an important commitment to safeguard users' data in the networked world without stifling innovation. Only time will tell whether the proposal will be implemented in a way that effectively protects user privacy, and that's where the rubber meets the road. We'll have more to say about that in the coming days.

View the original article here

This Isn't a Hoax: Pakistan Requests Proposals for a National Filtering and Blocking System

The Pakistani government is looking for new ways to censor the Internet.
This week, the Pakistani Telecommunication Authority (PTA) released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development, deployment and operation of a “National Level URL Filtering and Blocking System,” calling on institutions to submit by March 2nd a feasible proposal that would allow the government to institute a large-scale filtering system.  Shockingly, the RFP requires: “Each [filtering] box should be able to handle a block list of up to 50 million URLs (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing delay of not more than 1 milliseconds.” While content filtering and blocking has existed in Pakistan for the past few years, it has been executed manually and has thus been inconsistent and intermittent.1 The state’s latest effort to subsidize a comprehensive, automated censorship regime is deeply troubling.

The RFP, posted on the National ICT R&D Fund website, details various requirements for the system, as well as details for applying for the grant. Its terms of reference describe how this system would address the supposed “problem” that Pakistan does not currently have a sufficient mechanism to filter and block content:

Many countries have deployed web filtering and blocking systems at the Internet backbones within their countries. However, Pakistani ISPs and backbone providers have expressed their inability to block millions of undesirable web sites using current manual blocking systems.

It goes on to describe how the blocking and filtering would be carried out:

This system would be indigenously developed within Pakistan and deployed at IP backbones in major cities, i.e., Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. Any other city/POP could be added in future. The system is proposed to be centrally managed by a small and efficient team stationed at POPs of backbone providers.
The system would have a central database of undesirable URLs that would be loaded on the distributed hardware boxes at each POP and updated on daily basis. The database would be regularly updated through subscription to an international reputed company maintaining and updating such databases.

The RFP ends with 35 system requirements that details all aspects of the project and what would be required in the system. Some other specifications for the system include capabilities to block both an individual and a range of IP addresses, have support for multiple languages, and be stand-alone hardware that can easily be integrated into any network.
The entity funding this initiative is an arm of the Pakistani Ministry of Information Technology called the National ICT R&D Fund. The Ministry created the fund in 2007 to take a certain percentage of revenue from telecommunications companies and allocate it for scholarships in IT education and research and development of information and communication technologies. Therefore, all grant funding for this national censorship project comes from domestic ISPs, mobile carriers, and telephone companies. The decision-making process by which it chooses projects and beneficiaries for grants, however, is not described anywhere on their website.
Censorship and content filtering is part of a broader trend towards moral policing in Pakistan. Ever since the Pakistan Telecommunication Act, passed in 1996, enacted a prohibition on people from transmitting messages that are “false‚ fabricated‚ indecent or obscene,” the PTA has increasingly intensified their efforts to censor content online. The PTA blocked thousands of sites in 2007—not just those containing pornographic material or content offensive to Islam, but numerous vital websites and services—in response to a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the blocking of “blasphemous” websites. In 2008, they briefly blocked YouTube because the site hosted Geert Wilder’s film “Fitna.” They blocked it again in 2010, over a hosted clip of Pakistani President Asir Zardari telling an unruly audience member to “shut up.” In May of 2010, the PTA blocked Facebook in response to a controversy over a competition to draw the Prophet Mohammed.
Most recently in November of last year, the PTA sent a notice to Pakistani mobile carriers to ban 1,600 terms and phrases from SMS texts within seven days or they would face legal penalties. It was soon revealed that the list originated from an American National Football League’s “naughty words” list words that were banned from being printing on American football jerseys.
This new proposal is fundamentally different from Pakistan’s prior censorship efforts. First, it aims to find a non-governmental third party to design and implement a censorship mechanism. Second, this new system would, for the first time, automate the blocking and filtering process to facilitate comprehensive censorship of webpages. Previously, they have had to censor and block content manually and therefore the process has been less than consistent.
A range of local Pakistani digital civil liberty organizations have come out against the PTA’s initiative. Bytes for All, a human rights organization based in Pakistan focused on digital security, online safety and privacy, responded to the announcement with a press release, which strongly criticized the government:

Bytes for All, Pakistan (B4A), strongly condemns this move of the Government and holds it akin to infringing citizens’ fundamental constitutional rights. For a democratically elected civilian government, implementing such a system is highly dictatorial in nature and will directly affect the freedoms and socio-economic well-being of the citizens, reflecting the tyrannical actions of repeated oppression by past military governments.

The statement goes on to call on the attention of the UN Expert Panel on Human Rights on the Internet to the current situation. Another organization, Bolo Bhi, has sent a letter to the Ministry of Information Technology to demand transparency into the proceedings of this alarming initiative:

We feel that for successful implementation of a policy at all levels, transparency is crucial. We are a functioning democracy and therefore it is important to have stakeholders on board that could guide and assist on a policy before such a decision is made.

Both organizations call for international companies and institutions to refrain from applying for this proposal in the name of upholding the right to free expression. The RFP itself does not even attempt to explain or justify the need for the censorship system. However, the terms of reference briefly mentions that such system is needed “in order to block the specific URLs containing undesirable content as notified by PTA from time to time.”
The website for the National ICT R&D Fund states that its mission is “To transform Pakistan’s economy into a knowledge based economy by promoting efficient, sustainable and effective ICT initiatives through synergic development of industrial and academic resources.” For the past five years, the Fund has backed domestic IT projects in education, health, and technology development, including some dubious projects in biometrics and other supposed security measures.
It is deeply ironic that the National ICT R&D Fund’s purported purpose is “to transform Pakistan’s economy into a knowledge based economy,” yet it calls for proposals for a project that is itself inherently backward and draconian. A national blocking and filtering system would thrust the entire society into a tailspin of repression that would do immeasurable damage to the economy. More importantly, this automated censorship regime would violate the human right to free expression and access to knowledge.
It’s clear that the authorities behind these institutions simply do not comprehend the massive socio-economic costs this would have on Pakistan. As Bolo Bhi wrote in their press statement: “At a time when we as a country are struggling to counter a popular narrative about us, further limiting the sphere would portray us as a grim totalitarian state, which is simply untrue.” If the government of Pakistan ever hopes to catch up as a hub of innovation and re-emerge into the international realm as a modern democratic nation, a repressive censorship program restraining Pakistani expression would not be the place to begin.

View the original article here

Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Applies to Act of Decrypting Data
San Francisco - A federal appeals court has found a Florida man's constitutional rights were violated when he was imprisoned for refusing to decrypt data on several devices. This is the first time an appellate court has ruled the 5th Amendment protects against forced decryption – a major victory for constitutional rights in the digital age.
In this case, titled United States v. Doe, FBI agents seized two laptops and five external hard drives from a man they were investigating but were unable to access encrypted data they believed was stored on the devices via an encryption program called TrueCrypt. When a grand jury ordered the man to produce the unencrypted contents of the drives, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to do so. The court held him in contempt and sent him to jail.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief under seal, arguing that the man had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and that the government's attempt to force him to decrypt the data was unconstitutional. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that the act of decrypting data is testimonial and therefore protected by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, the government's limited offer of immunity in this case was insufficient to protect his constitutional right, because it did not extend to the government's use of the decrypted data as evidence against him in a prosecution.
"The government's attempt to force this man to decrypt his data put him in the Catch-22 the 5th Amendment was designed to prevent – having to choose between self-incrimination or risking contempt of court," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "We're pleased the appeals court recognized the important constitutional issues at stake here, and we hope this ruling will discourage the government from using abusive grand jury subpoenas to try to expose data people choose to protect with encryption. "
A similar court battle is ongoing in Colorado, where a woman named Ramona Fricosu has been ordered by the court to decrypt the contents of a laptop seized in an investigation into fraudulent real estate transactions. EFF also filed a friend of the court brief in that case, arguing that Fricosu was being forced to become a witness against herself. An appeals court recently rejected her appeal, and she has been ordered to decrypt the information this month.
"As we move into an increasingly digital world, we're seeing more and more questions about how our constitutional rights play out with regards to the technology we use every day," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "This is a case where the appeals court got it right – protecting the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."
John Doe was represented by Chet Kaufman of the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tallahassee.

View the original article here

White House, Google, and Other Advertising Companies Commit to Supporting Do Not Track

When Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer uncovered a Google workaround to circumvent the default privacy settings on Safari, EFF called on Google to change their tune on privacy by respecting the Do Not Track flag and building it into the Chrome browser. We specifically praised the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) multi-stakeholder process, which for a year has been convening consumer advocates, Internet companies, and technologists to craft how companies that receive the Do Not Track signal should respond. Today, in conjunction with the White House’s new publication Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World (PDF), the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) announced (PDF) that it will embrace Do Not Track. (The DAA is the latest self-regulatory organization for online advertising companies.) This is a big step in the right direction for securing user privacy rights in the digital environment, but we’ve still got a long way to go. And, unfortunately, it looks like online advertisers are already working to water down the Do Not Track protections.

There are two parts to Do Not Track: technology and policy. The technology, a simple HTTP header (“DNT: 1”), allows a consumer to signal her privacy preference. The policy specifies what companies can and can’t do when they receive the signal. Read more.

Today’s announcements are great news for the Do Not Track technology. Google, a member of the DAA, has committed to add the feature to Chrome. While we haven’t seen the user interface, presumably it’ll be a one-click check box easily accessible through your browser settings, similar to what other browsers offer. Even better, Google and other members of the DAA -- including Yahoo!, Microsoft, and AOL -- are committing to adding support for the Do Not Track technical signal.

Today also brought good news for enforcing Do Not Track. The White House recognized that user privacy protections are nearly useless without a method of enforcement, so it has reaffirmed that companies that commit to respecting Do Not Track will be subject to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement.

Time to celebrate? Should we declare February 23rd V-DNT Day? Not quite. While today was a great advancement on the Do Not Track technology, it did not meaningfully move the ball forward on the Do Not Track policy. Even as Google and the other giant advertisers make strong gestures toward giving users meaningful choice when it comes to online tracking, portions of today’s two announcements are also undermining some of the most powerful consumer protections. Specifically:

Favoring industry-crafted standards

The W3C is a long-respected Internet governance body that brings together a wide range of stakeholders -- including civil liberties advocates, engineers, and industry representatives -- to reach accord about standards affecting the future of the Internet. EFF and lots of other consumer groups are involved in the process, and anybody can read up on what’s happening through the publicly available meeting notes. For a year, W3C has been working to pin down how various websites should respect the Do Not Track header. Internet companies, including Google, have been actively participating.

The DAA, on the other hand, is an industry group for online advertisers. It includes no consumer advocates or regulators and it doesn’t offer an opportunity for public participation in their decision-making process. Historically, the DAA has eschewed providing users with powerful mechanisms for choices when it comes to online tracking. The self-regulatory standards for behavioral advertising have offered consumers a way to opt out of viewing behaviorally targeted ads without actually stopping the online tracking which is the root of the privacy concern.

While we appreciate that DAA is interested in respecting the Do Not Track flag, it’s important that they engage with the larger Internet community in doing so. DAA should use the W3C for the purposes of defining Do Not Track and determining how websites that receive this signal should react. And the White House, similarly, should turn to the well-established W3C multi-stakeholder process for addressing these issues.

Chipping away at Do Not Track’s simplicity

If you’re using the most recent version of Firefox, you can turn on Do Not Track by going into your preferences and checking the box that says “Tell websites I do not want to be tracked.”  Pretty straightforward, from a user’s standpoint. But DAA is trying to tamper with this simplicity. In its statement, the coalition of online advertisers say that they'll respect Do Not Track where a consumer "has been provided language that describes to consumers the effect of exercising such choice including that some data may still be collected." Then they noted their intention to “begin work immediately with browser providers to develop consistent language across browsers.”

The most skeptical interpretation of this statement is that the straightforward language for turning on Do Not Track might turn into some slippery legalese that doesn’t promise to do much of anything about tracking. We hope that’s not the case; much of Do Not Track’s power came from its straightforward, human-readable format.

No privacy-protective default settings

The DAA added another exception into their promise to respect Do Not Track: they won’t respect the setting unless a user affirmatively chooses Do Not Track and won’t respect it if “any entity or software or technology provider other than the user exercises such a choice.” This seems geared toward preventing a privacy-protective browser from turning Do Not Track on by default.

It’s important that advertising companies remember that users can express a preference simply by choosing a privacy-protective browser. In the same way many users may have chosen the Safari browser because of its privacy-protective policies regarding third-party tracking, many users in the future might affirmatively choose a browser that has Do Not Track enabled by default. 

While there remain serious concerns about attempts to water down enforceable tracking protection for consumers, one thing is clear: Today represents a powerful step forward in helping users protect their online privacy. We applaud Google’s decision to implement Do Not Track in the Chrome browser, and we’re looking forward to collaborating with the DAA and other stakeholders in the W3C to communicate the concerns of users and advocates in online tracking issues. 

View the original article here