... The interesting questions are ... how much better collaborative filters will become in locating freely offered material.

Shirky: Fame vs Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content

The WIPO recently attempted to hold hearings about open source models and how they might be used in international development efforts. The United States got these hearings killed by claiming that, essentially, the only valid job for WIPO is in expanding restrictions on the use of information.

Here is something Lessig wrote on the issue:

I don't even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie Love and others to hold a meeting about "open collaborative models to develop public goods." One of those models is, of course, open source and free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html)this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. No surprise there. Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT's products. Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America.

But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the meeting. According to the Post, Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."

If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment.

First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in
intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to "disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants?

These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become.

EFF - WIPO action letter

] "The newly proposed 'amnesty' is clearly a strategy by
] the industry to address some of the concerns I and others
] have had in this matter," Coleman said in a statement.
] "But, it raises new issues that require careful analysis
] and review. An amnesty that could involve millions of
] kids submitting and signing legal documents that plead
] themselves guilty to the Recording Industry Association
] of America may not be the best approach to achieving a
] balance between protecting copyright laws and punishing
] those who violate those laws."

Senator Cautions Those Tempted By RIAA Amnesty Offer

] The music industry has turned its big legal guns on
] Internet music-swappers - including a 12-year-old
] New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
]
] Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was
] among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant
] music companies in federal courts around the country.

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - 12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading

The RIAA's Clean Slate program.

This website is positively creepy. I guess they are holding it under a different domain name so that people who are basically not very bright won't get that these are the same people that are filing the lawsuits. Having said that, reading explanations of "what your liability might be" knowing that the writer is the person filing the suit feels like listening to the mafia explain in a concerned and polite tone that you wouldn't want anything bad to happen to your family and the best way to avoid that is to pay the protection money. I realize thats been said before, but I can't think of a better way to explain it.

Typical corrupt logic abounds:

Upfront on the site is says that copying music is just as illegal as stealing CDs, which is correct. Its also just as illegal as running a red light, or on the other hand, committing international terrorism. This analogy is chosen for another reason, which they shore up deeper in the content by saying that copying music is just as "wrong" as stealing CDs... The typical obligatory and incorrect analogy between theft and information crimes. Later the site says that theft of physical CDs is "legally no different" then copying music. In reality, the penalty for copying music is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more severe.

Parents are literally set against their children through the use of fear. "You could be liable for your child's actions, so start monitoring their computer use..."

"Tell that to the struggling young musicians in a garage band who can’t get signed because record sales are down." Sure... Your friend's band isn't getting signed because of Gnutella... Right...

Their list of places to "legally download music on the web" is mostly (although not entirely) a list of internet CD stores.

"Copyrights don’t last forever." No, they DO last forever. Limited copyright is a legal fiction in the United States. The definition of fiction is something written on paper that doesn't actually happen in the real world. I am 27. No copyrighted material has entered the public domain during my lifetime. Repeat after me: If it doesn't actually happen, then it is not real.

"We are not against P2P services." Really, you could have fooled me at the P2P "porno" hearings last week!! From NYT: "P2P stands for piracy to pornography," quipped Mr. Lack. (That's "Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.")

"We think MP3 technology is a great thing—as long as it’s used legally and properly." REALLY!? Then why did you sue to ban the sale of portable mp3 players in 1998??
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,15535,00.html

musicunited.org

] The recording industry filed 261 lawsuits against
] individual Internet music file sharers Monday and
] announced an amnesty program for people who admit they
] illegally share music files across the Internet.

It begins...

CNN.com - 261 music file swappers sued; amnesty program unveiled - Sep. 8, 2003

] The entertainment industry says these digital versions
] of Prohibition-style speakeasies are of little concern. Since
] darknets typically include no more than 50 or 100 people
] because of technology limitations or security concerns, music
] and movie companies think they can't do much damage. "If
] they are using private networks, there is very little
] risk of being caught, but there is very little risk of
] them really doing much harm to the entertainment
] companies," says Randy Saaf, president of MediaDefender
] Inc., a copyright-protection security company.

This article is kind of annoying because it invents this term, "darknet," and then applies it to a bunch of different things without defining it. This allows them to say that Glaxo's VPN and FreeNet are the same type of thing. There are important similarities, but there are also important differences. Use of private networks by companies is not under some new growth spurt, and has no relationship to the development of private file trading networks.

Having said that, this article is public acknowledgement that we have now moved to the next phase. People are moving over to anonymous networks. Also, the spin from the recording industry has changed. Their first statements where "we can crack this technology." That was good spin. They can spread FUD for a long time that way and they never have to prove it. Here they instead say that private networks are not going to cause large financial problems for them. Thats quite an interesting take. If they think these networks will be less effective they are confused. Maybe they think they will be less visible (I.E. Shareholders will be less concerned about them)...

[IP] Businessweek Article on Darknets

] The recording industry has a message for those who
] download music: Come clean, and we won't come after you.
]
] Sources say the industry is expected to announce an
] amnesty program for those who have collected or shared
] music files across the Internet.

(Read with a mooninite voice:)

If we haven't IDed you, you can ID yourself, and we promise not to sue you for PAST infringement (which we're not going to do anyway because we haven't IDed you), but we'll check up on you now and then in the future to make sure you're still clean.

If we HAVE IDed you, you're still screwed.

The great thing about this is that we get to look merciful without making any changes in our litigation plans.

Remember, The RIAA is watching you.

It is more then you could possibly comprehend with 100% of your brain.

BEEP.

TheKansasCityChannel.com - Record Labels Plan Amnesty For Downloaders

] JENIN, West Bank, Aug. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- In response to
] the email received today from the Motion Picture
] Association of America (MPAA) to Earthstation 5 for
] copyright violations for streaming FIRST RUN movies over
] the internet for FREE, this is our official response!
] Earthstation 5 is at war with the Motion Picture
] Association of America (MPAA) and the Record Association
] of America (RIAA), and to make our point very clear that
] their governing laws and policys have absolutely no
] meaning to us here in Palestine, we will continue to add
] even more movies for FREE.

Dare I make a suicide bomber joke?

PRWire | Earthstation 5 Declares War on MPAA

] The Recording Industry Association of America says it
] will not go after small violators when it sues people who
] illegally share songs on the Internet.

CNN.com - Will you be sued by the music industry? - Aug. 19, 2003