Recent Posts
Jul 3 2012, 12:30 PM ET
In the fight between Apple, Amazon, the government, and publishers to set prices for electronic books, independents were overlooked. Now, they're banding together and voicing complaints.
bookstoreee.jpgGarrett Gill/Flickr
To briefly recap: In April, the Department of Justice filed anti-trust cases against Apple and five publishers -- Penguin Group USA, Hachette Books Group, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan -- alleging that they had joined in a scheme to raise the price of newly released and bestselling e-books. Three of the publishers -- Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster -- insisting they had done nothing wrong, settled with the DOJ rather than undergo protracted and extremely expensive litigation and accepted stringent terms on future pricing strategies. Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan refused to settle, and U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote has set a trial date for June 3, 2013.
Now, nine of the country's leading independent publishers have taken a bold step, and deserve public recognition for their action. On June 25, they submitted a cogent, twenty-page comment to the court objecting to the Department of Justice's settlement with the three publishers on the grounds that it would "adversely impact competition -- harming independent publishers, authors, booksellers and consumers -- and should be rejected." The case itself would still go forward, unless it is dismissed by the judge or is settled in some way that remains to be devised. At first glance, this may seem like a complex legal dispute far outside the general concerns of most bookbuyers. But stay with me and hopefully you will appreciate why the publishers deserve credit, and why this contentious issue matters to readers.
At the core of the case is the role of Amazon, which has dominated the e-book market since its release of the Kindle in 2007 set off the enormous surge in digital reading. Publishers, booksellers, and authors generally agreed that Amazon's practice of selling bestsellers and many newly released e-books at below the price they were paying to publishers was to encourage Kindle sales and, eventually, to monopolize the market by driving any potential competitors into untenable losses. The dispute is essentially over how e-book prices should be determined: by the retailer under the longstanding practice known as "wholesale" pricing, or by the publisher in the "agency" model, in which the bookseller takes a commission on each sale. The Department of Justice contends that the publishers colluded to satisfy Apple's preference for agency pricing when the iPad was unveiled in 2010. Unexpectedly, the agency concept came to be seen as a way to expand opportunities for bookselling and to limit Amazon's ability to undercut the prices of its competitors.
As the iPad gained in popularity and other e-readers became available, Amazon's share of the e-book market dropped from 90 percent to about 60 percent. Then came the DOJ suit that was widely interpreted by most publishing industry insiders and observers as a likely boost for Amazon, assuming it once again would be permitted to lower any prices below what other retailers could afford. While Judge Cote decides whether to accept the Department of Justice agreement with Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster, there was a sixty-day period for comments to be submitted by parties with an interest in the case in an effort to influence the outcome.
Complaints came from major booksellers, including Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, and members of the American Booksellers Association, the trade group for independent booksellers. Their arguments were all similarly focused on the belief that the agency model had actually increased "competition and diversification" in the e-book marketplace and encouraged innovation in the brick-and-mortar stores, which were under intense pressure from Amazon's practices. But until the final hours of June 25, the close of the comment period, publishers restrained themselves from speaking out, reluctant to antagonize Amazon, which has a reputation for responding aggressively to criticism.
That brings me back to the nine independent publishers who finally took a stand: Abrams Books, Chronicle Books, Grove/Atlantic Inc. Chicago Review Press, Inc, New Directions Publishing Corp., W.W. Norton & Company, Perseus Books Group (where I work), the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, and Workman Publishing. The five publishers accused in the DOJ case plus Random House (which managed to avoid becoming a target by adopting agency pricing months after the others) are known in industry parlance as "The Big Six," and together they account for about half of total trade book sales. In their comment, the independent publishers asserted that, "in aggregate, according to market data published by Nielsen BookScan the independents accounted for approximately 49 percent of total trade book sales nationwide in 2011." A significant portion of those sales were through Amazon, which is why their decision to challenge the settlement and incur the possible wrath of this retailing giant is courageous. Here in some detail is the independent publishers' position:_______________________________________Using language that in legal terms is very strong, the publishers objected to the proposed settlement as lacking "adequate factual basis" and "contrary to the public interest." The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on how books are sold in the digital era, but at least these nine publishers have made it clear where they stand: in favor of robust competition. And that is why they deserve our thanks.
If the agency model is effectively banned, Amazon will have the ability to price whole categories of e-books below cost in a way that is likely to drive out competition from other less deep-pocketed booksellers as well as brick and mortar booksellers. DOJ, however, has completely ignored the Independent Book Publishers. DOJ never contacted or sought to collect information from the Independent Book Publishers as part of its investigation that led to the filing of the lawsuit at issue. And the proposed settlements . . . demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Independent Book Publishers and, indeed of the publishing industry as a whole. By effectively banning the agency model for the settling publishers, the proposed settlements would harm rather than enhance competition--enabling one large retailer (Amazon) to regain a monopoly or near monopoly position through below-cost pricing.
_______________________________________
July 4, 2012
On July Fourth, America celebrates its independence.
In the summer of 1776, 13 disenfranchised colonies spoke. It took days for their declaration to be printed and distributed throughout the colonies, and it took weeks for it to be seen across the Atlantic.
Today, such a document could be published and shared with the world in seconds. More than any time in history, more people in more places have the ability to have their voices heard.
Powering these voices are billions of Internet connections around the world—people on their mobile phones, tablets, laptops and desktops. The Internet is a powerful platform that makes it easier for people to speak, to assemble, and to be heard. This is true no matter where freedom is taking root.
Yet we’ve only just begun to see what a free and open Internet can do for people and for the freedom we cherish.
Today we’re sharing a video we made to celebrate our freedom and the tools that support it. Please take a moment to watch it, share it with your friends, and add your voice.
Join us in supporting a free and open Internet.
Posted by Susan Molinari, Vice President of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Americas
Labels: free expression
Thank god. Are people (and/or governments) waking up to the detrimental effects of copyright maximalism?Snap! That's almost exactly what I thought to myself too.-eleman (July 03, 2012, 10:25 AM)
Posted by timothy on Tuesday July 03, @08:46AM
from the over-and-over-and-over dept.
Sique writes:
"An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licenses allowing the
use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a license is exhausted on its first sale. This was decided [Tuesday] (PDF) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case of Used Soft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp.."
The splash damage from Facebook's forced addition of @facebook.com e-mail addresses to users' profiles has carried over to phone contacts. Users who have given Facebook permission to sync information from the site to their phone's contacts have noticed that since the great e-mail address donation, legitimate e-mail address entries have been replaced with Facebook ones (as reported by CNET). As a result, some messages have been going to unintended locations or have become hidden. And there's no easy way to revert the changes...(you can read the rest in the link above)I'm not sure what the word is that could describe this sort of shambles.
...-wraith808 (July 02, 2012, 02:00 PM)
Minor Update 2.68.3
Fixed: No longer resets manual settings when changing equalizer preset
Fixed: Minor bugs
Ground-breaking news. Hear the news from the first station to broadcast the news ... that Russia was taking steps to prevent the risk of a world war crisis over Cuba.Now that is arguably leagues ahead of the kind of spin you get out of Downing Street or the WH. Pretty impressive.
Good luck, but the powers that be will never ever ever give up on lobbying politicians to make it all illegal.Yes, sadlement, I suspect you are right.
ACTA Info blog: http://acta.ffii.org/-zridling (July 02, 2012, 03:49 AM)
“...the politicians should be doing the thinking for the citizens”- about ACTA, then you probably need to do something pronto to hang onto what's left of your Internet freedoms. This is likely to affect the Internet community worldwide, not just the EU.
This is it. This is the week when ACTA lives or dies, globally. We have seen it coming. Now is the time for the very final push in contacting the European Parliament. On Wednesday, in the session between 12 noon and 14:00, the European Parliament votes on ACTA. If the European Parliament kills it, it dies globally.
There has been no shortage of ugly tricks, and they keep coming. The latest is a rumor that the pro-big-business and pro-monopoly EPP party group is going to try couping the ACTA vote off of this week’s agenda, postponing the vote indefinitely rather than risking a defeat.
I say “coup” as the agenda is usually set in mutual understanding, and is not considered a place for political last-minute sniping if you can’t win your issue in the public and honest debate.
The agenda is set in a small Europarl meeting tomorrow Monday at 17:00, before most Members of European Parliament (MEPs) have arrived to the weekly plenary session. It’s supposed to be a matter of formalities.
But the good news is that all other parts of Parliament – and indeed even some parts of the EPP group – are listening to citizens. They’re seeing their inboxes fill up with mails urging them to reject ACTA, mails coming in from all over the world.
And this is where we need to get working in a final gigantic effort in mailing the European Members of Parliament. That’s regardless of where in the world we live – ACTA is a global concern. It’s even quite the statement for an American or Brazilian to ask the Europarl to reject ACTA.
I have taken the liberty of setting up a mail alias, [email protected], that resolves to all the official addresses of the 750-plus Members of European Parliament. This is your time to tell them why you don’t want ACTA, in polite, courteous, and personal words.
(If you want example letters to look at and send, I have three examples over at my own blog. Do not under any circumstances write in a threatening or aggressive manner.)
It is not readily visible from the outside, but the street protests and concerned mails from citizens in Europe and elsewhere have made all the difference in turning the tide on this treaty that locks in the incumbents and shuts out the next generation. Every mail makes a difference. A mail a minute is a torrent. We know we can do better than that, we can do much better than that.
The European Commission – the pro-incumbent-business administration of Europe – has been rumored to be contacting Members of European Parliament individually to get them to postpone the vote. The responsible Commissioner Karel de Gucht even went on record that he’s going to be so furious with a Parliament that rejects ACTA, he’s going to keep it in the desk and present it again to the next Parliament in 2015 if it is rejected this week.
(We’ll see about that, by the way. Parliament takes its dignity very seriously, and it’s Parliament that appoints the Commission. I’m not sure that a Commissioner with that poor a judgment and that much a disrespect for Parliament will keep his job when the next Commission gets appointed.)
This week, a half-decade of political trickery, sneakery and thievery comes to its end. Let’s indeed make sure it comes to an end. This is the political and business nobility against the rest of the people, against all of us. Fortunately, the European Parliament knows who to listen to when nobody else does – so we must make sure that ACTA doesn’t pass there.
Just to give an impression of how desperate the monopoly proponents have become, one MEP in the EPP group – Marielle Gallo – has called the citizen protests “a soft form of terrorism”, and says that “the politicians should be doing the thinking for the citizens”.
Did you mail the MEPs yet? What are you waiting for? The vote is on Wednesday at noon.
This affects the global community - not just the US. How can people outside the US add their support?You're darn tootin' right it affects us all.-Carol Haynes (July 01, 2012, 12:35 PM)
Well, it seems obvious enough to me that the US is a terrorist police state, and I'd posted that in another thread, but it belongs in Soap Box.I have copied my post there, also.
I certainly don't mean it as any kind of flamebait. It simply seems obvious. Kind of like "it's dark at night" or "the sun is hot".
...-Renegade (July 01, 2012, 09:01 AM)
Thanks for signing up in support of our legal brief.
The hearing is tomorrow and we need to make it clear to the judge that this case impacts MILLIONS of Internet users, so please get your friends involved right away.
If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign.
Or, just email the link to your friends:
http://act.demandpro...ax&source=auto-e
Here's a sample email you can send to your friends:
Friends-
It's us versus THEM again.
Hollywood attorneys are trying to use the courts to circumvent Congress and implement a backdoor SOPA/PIPA scheme.
Fight Back: YOUR FILES ON Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr, etc. and even your emails are in jeopardy.
We need to make sure the judge understands that his decision will affect millions of people.
Demand Progress is fighting back in the courts and standing up for Internet users. We are taking on the United States and the MPAA. Please click here to support our legal brief -- the court will be hearing the case TOMORROW.
http://www.theinternetvshollywood.com/
BACKGROUND: One day after the Internet staged a massive blackout to protest Congress's Internet censorship legislation (SOPA/PIPA), the United States responded by seizing millions of ordinary user files hosted on the popular website Megaupload.com.
With an aim of shutting down Megaupload and other Cloud-based hosting services (like Dropbox, YouTube or even your email provider), the government is trying to claim website operators should face decades in prison for the misdeeds of some of their users.
But while they pursue trumped up criminal charges against the companies' founders, they are shutting down dozens of websites, and leaving ordinary Internet users without any way of retrieving their files.
Please click here to sign on as a supporter of Demand Progress's legal brief: The judge will be hearing the case TOMORROW, and we need to make sure he understands that his ruling affects millions of us.
http://www.theinternetvshollywood.com/
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak called the case against Megaupload a "threat to innovation". Wozniak likened the Megaupload site to a highway and those who shared pirated movies and songs to speeding motorists.
"You don't just shut down the whole street because somebody is speeding," he said.
Numerous laws on the books already give copyright holders plenty of avenues to stop actual infringement, but that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood's lawyers and lobbyists.
And get this: The prosecutor in the case, Neil MacBride, previously served as the Anti-Piracy Vice President of the Business Software Alliance, where he represented the intellectual property interests of countless multinational corporations.
Now Hollywood's lobbyists, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, want him to make it nearly impossible for ordinary Internet users to get their property back.
Please click here to sign on to our legal brief, and make sure the courts understand that millions of Internet users will be impacted by the judge's decision.
http://www.theinternetvshollywood.com/
Thanks!
One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work.
Please consider clicking here to chip in $5 or $10 to Demand Progress.
Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here.
Thank you!
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Looks like some real wins may be imminent for the MPAA - Using Megaupload Case as Backdoor SOPA/PIPA Scheme.
You may still have time to sign the brief support petition and spread the word before the hearing/decision referred to below.
- To add weight to their plea, a new campaign titled “The Internet vs. Hollywood” is being launched today in which members of the public are invited to add their name as supporter of the brief.
- These are worrying developments according to Demand Progress, not just for Megaupload users, but also for the hundreds of millions of people who store files on Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr and other online services.
- 2012-06-28: MPAA Using Megaupload Case as Backdoor SOPA, Court Hears
SpoilerPolitical activist group Demand Progress has filed a brief in the Megaupload case, urging the court to disregard the MPAA’s concerns over the return of data to former Megaupload users. The group argues that Hollywood lobbyists are out to make it impossible for Megaupload users to access their property, effectively using the court case as a backdoor SOPA.
Demand Progress is joining the Megaupload case as a non-party. The group has filed a brief refuting claims made by the MPAA, and asking the Court to consider the many innocent users who are still unable to access their personal files.
The MPAA previously told the court that Megaupload users should only be allowed to get their files back as long as access to copyright-infringing files is blocked. According to Demand Progress this request is practically impossible, against the presumption of innocence, and effectively an attempt to enforce SOPA-like actions through the backdoor.
In the brief the activist group says the MPAA is trying to use the Megaupload case to achieve what Congress rejected earlier this year, when it decided to shelve the SOPA and PIPA bills.
“Legislation that sought to achieve the very results the MPAA now seeks to obtain de facto through mere seizure of Mega Servers — with or without a conviction – was rejected by Congress,” the brief reads.
“Specifically, the failed legislation tried to render inaccessible data on websites that host user-uploaded files, and to do so at the request of private parties like MPAA, without due process for targeted business owners and users.”
Despite the fact that Congress rejected SOPA and PIPA, the MPAA will now get the same secondary liability scheme enforced when the court grants the requests of the movie studios, the group argues.
Demand Progress further tells the court that the MPAA’s request not to allow access to infringing files goes directly against the fundamental principle that Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“The MPAA reasons property owners should prove their property non-infringing before the Court permits them access to it. This is akin to arguing that when a thief rents a hotel room and is caught, the contents of all of the guests’ luggage should be presumed contraband until proven otherwise. This result would be absurd and unreasonable.”
“On its face, the MPAA’s request is suspect and asks the Court to bootstrap the guilt of parties onto a collateral motion, prior to a judgment,” they add.
These are worrying developments according to Demand Progress, not just for Megaupload users, but also for the hundreds of millions of people who store files on Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr and other online services.
To add weight to their plea, a new campaign titled “The Internet vs. Hollywood” is being launched today in which members of the public are invited to add their name as supporter of the brief.- 2012-06-28: The Internet v. Hollywood - Demand Progress petition
SpoilerHOLLYWOOD IS HIJACKING THE COURTS AND POLICE.
YOUR FILES IN GMAIL, FLICKR, PICASA, ETC. ARE IN JEOPARDY
Hollywood attorneys are trying to use the courts to circumvent Congress and implement a backdoor SOPA/PIPA scheme.
Fight Back: YOUR FILES ON Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr, etc. and even your emails are in jeopardy.
Demand Progress is fighting back in the courts and standing up for Internet users. We are taking on the United States and the MPAA. Please sign up at right to support our legal brief so the court understands that millions of people will be impacted by this decision. The judge is hearing the case TOMORROW.
BACKGROUND: One day after the Internet staged a massive blackout to protest Congress's Internet censorship legislation (SOPA/PIPA), the United States responded by seizing millions of ordinary user files hosted on the popular website Megaupload.com.
With an aim of shutting down Megaupload and other Cloud-based hosting services (like Dropbox, YouTube or even your email provider), the government is trying to claim website operators should face decades in prison for the misdeeds of some of their users. But while they pursue trumped up criminal charges against the companies' founders, they are shutting down dozens of websites, and leaving ordinary Internet users without any way of retrieving their files.
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak called the case against Megaupload a "threat to innovation." Wozniak likened the Megaupload site to a highway and those who shared pirated movies and songs to speeding motorists. "You don't just shut down the whole street because somebody is speeding," he said.
Numerous laws on the books already give copyright holders plenty of avenues to stop actual infringement, but that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood's lawyers and lobbyists. The prosecutor in the case, Neil MacBride, previously served as the Anti-Piracy Vice President of the Business Software Alliance, where he represented the intellectual property interests of countless multinational corporations.
Now Hollywood's lobbyists, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, want him to make it nearly impossible for ordinary Internet users to get their property back.
______________________
NOTE: Your name will appear below as a public supporter of our legal brief.
We do not share your email address without your permission. We will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from our email list, you may do so.
The Demand Progress legal brief in United States vs. Kim Dotcom asks the government and all parties to facilitate the return to Megaupload users all files unrelated to the case. Stand with Demand Progress as we advance Internet user rights and fight to prevent the creation of dangerous legal precedent. Sign up to support our action in the Court.
READ THE FULL BRIEF
Please join us as we take it to the courts to fight Hollywood -- the hearing is TOMORROW, so please sign up right away. We need to make sure the judge understands just how many people will be affected by his decision.- 2012-06-30: Megaupload Judge To Issue Order On Return Of User Data “Shortly”
SpoilerA United States District Judge indicated in a hearing today that a little more time is needed to consider the fate of data uploaded by a Megaupload user and lost when the file-hosting company was closed without warning by U.S. authorities. The user’s case is being championed by the EFF who heard today that an order would be issued “shortly”. Additionally, the judge said he would schedule a hearing to consider Megaupload’s motion to dismiss.
It’s been almost six months since Megaupload’s servers were raided and seized by U.S. authorities, a long time if you have valuable data stored on the companies now-frozen infrastructure.
That’s the predicament sports reporter Kyle Goodwin found himself in after he chose Megaupload as the company to host his videos. Ever since he’s been campaigning for the return of his files with the invaluable help of the EFF. Together they filed a motion demanding a workable solution to enable him, and other users, to regain access to their data.
Today the EFF appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to continue the fight, in the face of what they describe as a government failure to assist Goodwin and other lawful Megaupload users to retrieve their property.
According to Bloomberg, during the hearing prosecutors argued that users such as Goodwin should be treated as “unsecured creditors” who should file civil actions against either Megaupload itself or Carpathia Hosting, the company where Megaupload housed its rented servers and where the data remains in limbo.
In Court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Peterson described Megaupload as a service provider as opposed to an entity that holds people’s property. “A file-copying service is what Megaupload provided,” he said.
In response, Judge O’Grady noted that Goodwin wasn’t asking for a service to be restored, but his videos back. “He’s asking for his data back, and that’s property, right?” he said.
O’Grady did not make a decision on return of the data today, but indicated that one will come soon.
“We’ll look at it a little further and issue an order shortly,” he concluded at the end of the hearing.
According to PC World, during the hearing O’Grady rejected a request from Megaupload’s lawyers to challenge the Department of Justice’s seizure of Megaupload assets, describing the request as “premature” while noting he’s still considering their motion to dismiss.-IainB (July 01, 2012, 09:17 AM)
- To add weight to their plea, a new campaign titled “The Internet vs. Hollywood” is being launched today in which members of the public are invited to add their name as supporter of the brief.
- These are worrying developments according to Demand Progress, not just for Megaupload users, but also for the hundreds of millions of people who store files on Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr and other online services.
Political activist group Demand Progress has filed a brief in the Megaupload case, urging the court to disregard the MPAA’s concerns over the return of data to former Megaupload users. The group argues that Hollywood lobbyists are out to make it impossible for Megaupload users to access their property, effectively using the court case as a backdoor SOPA.
Demand Progress is joining the Megaupload case as a non-party. The group has filed a brief refuting claims made by the MPAA, and asking the Court to consider the many innocent users who are still unable to access their personal files.
The MPAA previously told the court that Megaupload users should only be allowed to get their files back as long as access to copyright-infringing files is blocked. According to Demand Progress this request is practically impossible, against the presumption of innocence, and effectively an attempt to enforce SOPA-like actions through the backdoor.
In the brief the activist group says the MPAA is trying to use the Megaupload case to achieve what Congress rejected earlier this year, when it decided to shelve the SOPA and PIPA bills.
“Legislation that sought to achieve the very results the MPAA now seeks to obtain de facto through mere seizure of Mega Servers — with or without a conviction – was rejected by Congress,” the brief reads.
“Specifically, the failed legislation tried to render inaccessible data on websites that host user-uploaded files, and to do so at the request of private parties like MPAA, without due process for targeted business owners and users.”
Despite the fact that Congress rejected SOPA and PIPA, the MPAA will now get the same secondary liability scheme enforced when the court grants the requests of the movie studios, the group argues.
Demand Progress further tells the court that the MPAA’s request not to allow access to infringing files goes directly against the fundamental principle that Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“The MPAA reasons property owners should prove their property non-infringing before the Court permits them access to it. This is akin to arguing that when a thief rents a hotel room and is caught, the contents of all of the guests’ luggage should be presumed contraband until proven otherwise. This result would be absurd and unreasonable.”
“On its face, the MPAA’s request is suspect and asks the Court to bootstrap the guilt of parties onto a collateral motion, prior to a judgment,” they add.
These are worrying developments according to Demand Progress, not just for Megaupload users, but also for the hundreds of millions of people who store files on Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr and other online services.
To add weight to their plea, a new campaign titled “The Internet vs. Hollywood” is being launched today in which members of the public are invited to add their name as supporter of the brief.
HOLLYWOOD IS HIJACKING THE COURTS AND POLICE.
YOUR FILES IN GMAIL, FLICKR, PICASA, ETC. ARE IN JEOPARDY
Hollywood attorneys are trying to use the courts to circumvent Congress and implement a backdoor SOPA/PIPA scheme.
Fight Back: YOUR FILES ON Google, Dropbox, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr, etc. and even your emails are in jeopardy.
Demand Progress is fighting back in the courts and standing up for Internet users. We are taking on the United States and the MPAA. Please sign up at right to support our legal brief so the court understands that millions of people will be impacted by this decision. The judge is hearing the case TOMORROW.
BACKGROUND: One day after the Internet staged a massive blackout to protest Congress's Internet censorship legislation (SOPA/PIPA), the United States responded by seizing millions of ordinary user files hosted on the popular website Megaupload.com.
With an aim of shutting down Megaupload and other Cloud-based hosting services (like Dropbox, YouTube or even your email provider), the government is trying to claim website operators should face decades in prison for the misdeeds of some of their users. But while they pursue trumped up criminal charges against the companies' founders, they are shutting down dozens of websites, and leaving ordinary Internet users without any way of retrieving their files.
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak called the case against Megaupload a "threat to innovation." Wozniak likened the Megaupload site to a highway and those who shared pirated movies and songs to speeding motorists. "You don't just shut down the whole street because somebody is speeding," he said.
Numerous laws on the books already give copyright holders plenty of avenues to stop actual infringement, but that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood's lawyers and lobbyists. The prosecutor in the case, Neil MacBride, previously served as the Anti-Piracy Vice President of the Business Software Alliance, where he represented the intellectual property interests of countless multinational corporations.
Now Hollywood's lobbyists, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, want him to make it nearly impossible for ordinary Internet users to get their property back.
______________________
NOTE: Your name will appear below as a public supporter of our legal brief.
We do not share your email address without your permission. We will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from our email list, you may do so.
The Demand Progress legal brief in United States vs. Kim Dotcom asks the government and all parties to facilitate the return to Megaupload users all files unrelated to the case. Stand with Demand Progress as we advance Internet user rights and fight to prevent the creation of dangerous legal precedent. Sign up to support our action in the Court.
READ THE FULL BRIEF
Please join us as we take it to the courts to fight Hollywood -- the hearing is TOMORROW, so please sign up right away. We need to make sure the judge understands just how many people will be affected by his decision.
A United States District Judge indicated in a hearing today that a little more time is needed to consider the fate of data uploaded by a Megaupload user and lost when the file-hosting company was closed without warning by U.S. authorities. The user’s case is being championed by the EFF who heard today that an order would be issued “shortly”. Additionally, the judge said he would schedule a hearing to consider Megaupload’s motion to dismiss.
It’s been almost six months since Megaupload’s servers were raided and seized by U.S. authorities, a long time if you have valuable data stored on the companies now-frozen infrastructure.
That’s the predicament sports reporter Kyle Goodwin found himself in after he chose Megaupload as the company to host his videos. Ever since he’s been campaigning for the return of his files with the invaluable help of the EFF. Together they filed a motion demanding a workable solution to enable him, and other users, to regain access to their data.
Today the EFF appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to continue the fight, in the face of what they describe as a government failure to assist Goodwin and other lawful Megaupload users to retrieve their property.
According to Bloomberg, during the hearing prosecutors argued that users such as Goodwin should be treated as “unsecured creditors” who should file civil actions against either Megaupload itself or Carpathia Hosting, the company where Megaupload housed its rented servers and where the data remains in limbo.
In Court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Peterson described Megaupload as a service provider as opposed to an entity that holds people’s property. “A file-copying service is what Megaupload provided,” he said.
In response, Judge O’Grady noted that Goodwin wasn’t asking for a service to be restored, but his videos back. “He’s asking for his data back, and that’s property, right?” he said.
O’Grady did not make a decision on return of the data today, but indicated that one will come soon.
“We’ll look at it a little further and issue an order shortly,” he concluded at the end of the hearing.
According to PC World, during the hearing O’Grady rejected a request from Megaupload’s lawyers to challenge the Department of Justice’s seizure of Megaupload assets, describing the request as “premature” while noting he’s still considering their motion to dismiss.
...I didn't know this to be a fact, and so I went googling to find out.
...Everyone knows the US is a terrorist police state.-Renegade (June 29, 2012, 08:48 PM)
Find more on overzealous police raids, look here, here, here, here, and here.
ReasonTV covered police raids here.
...Meant to say thanks for this link. I had been looking for E.M.Forster's classic just recently - for my daughter actually. The link you provide is great, as it can give you a copy in several formats and for several different reading devices.
...The Machine Stops is worth a read and available for download here.
[/i].-40hz (June 27, 2012, 07:06 AM)
...use breath mint (before you enter the building).How nice.
...smile and nod (at appropriate times) when the interviewer is talking, but, don't overdo it. Don't laugh unless the interviewer does first.
http://news.cnet.com...altered-e-mail-lost/An alarming number of people are reporting that the new e-mail address Facebook forced on users this week is changing their address books while intercepting and losing unknown amounts of e-mail.
Facebook users say contacts' e-mail addresses on phones and personal devices have been altered without their consent -- and their e-mail communication is being redirected elsewhere, and lost.-Jibz (June 30, 2012, 05:35 PM)
Good point. In the future, I'll try to start a topic in Soap Box and simply refer to that there. I know I can be extreme at times.Everyone knows the US is a terrorist police state.Maybe this should be taken to the soapbox? I ignore it for a reason. I might not believe in everything that the US does, and disagree with quite a bit. But to stand by while such flamebait is posted? A little too much to ask. And I don't want to bring such things into the mainstream of DC- doesn't usually work out.-Renegade (June 29, 2012, 08:48 PM)-wraith808 (June 30, 2012, 12:23 PM)
So, point taken. I'll try to keep it out of the Living Room.-Renegade (June 30, 2012, 12:33 PM)
- but I certainly didn't suppose that you were intending to goad anyone to debate the point. On the contrary, it seems that you were just stating your POV.
Dotcom's US-based lawyer, Ira Rothken, said the ruling was an embarrassment, especially as US authorities have called the case the largest in copyright history.
''One would think, with such a large case, that they would have a higher standard of care in how they conducted themselves,'' he said. ''In terms of egregious behaviour, this is at the high end of the scale of egregious, wrongful intrusion on privacy.''
Mr Rothken said the ruling supported the view that NZ police were acting at the FBI's beck and call.
