Ares Connect

Long considered a safe haven for many diverse internet activites, Sweden has gone from Hero to Villain in the filesharing world. Internet traffic dropped by around 30% in April last year (according to official figures) as a direct result of the introduction of the then new Ipred law. This law enables copyright holders to obtain details of people who download their copyrighted material. The copyright holder must simply demand the information from the relevant ISP.

Now, this makes ISPs very unhappy for two reasons. Firstly, there’s more work involved for them if copyright holders are continually asking for details of their customers. Secondly, there is a big conceptual problem in reconciling the requirements of the Ipred law with the generally accepted concept of maintaining customer privacy.

Giant ISP TeliaSonera are the latest to take such a request to the very top of Sweden’s court structure. They are currently fighting a battle against a small Swedish film production company Svensk Filmindustri. It goes without saying that the results of this legal battle will be very important indeed for the many Swedish filesharing fans who are feeling particularly sorry for themselves at this point. Let’s hope that common sense prevails for once.

Sweden has a love-hate relationship with filesharing: the Swedish people love it, and the authorities hate it. The recent Ipred law which came into effect last year essentially gave copyright holders the chance to require ISPs to provide names and address of the people that are downloading their material.

This law definitely shocked the users into submission, with reported drop over ALL Internet use of 30%. ISPs don’t like the ruling, presumably as it means a lot of hard work for them. Presumably also some of the ISPs just don’t agree with the huge and rather obvious breach of human rights that occurs when this information is surrendered.

Telecom giant TeliaSonera has announced its intention to go to the Swedish supreme court to challenge an earlier decision that it must hand over users’ details to a Swedish film production company. This move, it states, is “in the name of customer privacy”.

Lawyers and the courts have had a difficult time balancing the compromise between the Ipred law and the basic provisions regarding confidentiality of communications.

Here’s hoping that TeliaSonera can strike a blow in the name of common sense. Watch this space, people.

A Judge’s ruling in a New York court means that the RIAA have struck what may be a fatal blow to LimeWire, the popular filesharing service. With it, filesharing services everywhere will be wondering what is going to happen next.

The judge ruled that LimeWire was engaging in illegal activity and promoting the copyright infringement of a large number of copyrighted works. Interestingly for filesharing entrepreneurs, the Judge has decided that LimeWire’s owner, Mark Gorton, should take at least some of the blame. The RIAA have announced that they feel they are owed the maximum damages in this case, which would amount to $150,000 per copyrighted work that has been infringed. The math behind the total figure that could be owed by LimeWire is staggering.

The RIAA’s next logical step is to seek an injunction from the courts preventing LimeWire from continuing its filesharing activities. LimeWire are likely to battle this all the way, but it looks like the beginning of the end for them unless they can pursuade a higher court to overturn the decision.

Does this mean the immediate end of filesharing with services like LimeWire and Ares? Unlikely. For a start, Ares is a huge open-source project, and pinning the blame on any one person would be impossible. Stopping development of Ares is also likely going to be unfeasible. Hopefully Ares will get out of this relatively unscathed. Watch this space.

Perhaps, you may be thinking, that is an overly dramatic title. Maybe not, though, after what could prove to be a landmark case in New York. In the decision – by Judge Kimba Wood – LimeWire and its owner Mark Gorton have been accused of committing copyright infringement. The RIAA brought the case against LimeWire as part of its long-running battle against anything relating to filesharing. This time, though, they seem to have at least got a foothold into something that may lead them somewhere.

Is this likely to effect the rest of the filesharing industry? Well yes, it can’t avoid doing just that. The Judge’s decision to pursue the owner as well as the company itself will cause many entrepreneurs to think twice before embarking on any filesharing venture. The interesting part about this is that the users themselves are likely to be safer, since the RIAA have much bigger fish to fry.

Ares users should rest easily – for now, at least – since the RIAA is unlikely to be able to bring an action against open-source software as easily as it has done with LimeWire. The logistics of pinning the blame on any one variant of Ares, or on any one person as being responsible are mind-boggling. Let’s hope it stays that way.

The accusation – and subsequent court battles – by Blue Destiny (a small Blues-oriented label) promised to provide a resolution to the question of Google’s alleged facilitation of piracy and copyright infringement. Promised, until Blue Destiny dropped the legal action in March, that is.

The reasons behind the sudden drop are unknown, but it is thought that Blue Destiny simply ran out of funds before they could force the matter into the courts. Google breathed a sigh of relief then went like a lion after its prey. Would Blue Destiny now officially waive the right to pursue similar claims in future? Not a chance, the label wanted to reserve its right to future actions. This was not enough for G, who are now going back to the courts to force the issue: it wants nothing less than a declaratory judgment confirming its belief that it is not responsible for the actions of filesharing sites and services such as Rapidshare, and that linking to these sites does not mean it is endorsing copyright theft.

Google’s argument is a simple one: it cannot be held responsible for the actions of everyone on the web. If people want to put illegal material up on the web, then it is not for Google to play international policeman. This, it would argue, is an impossible task even if it wanted to.

Should be an interesting few months.

Recent claims by the filesharing industry that the search engine is facilitating copyright infringement and piracy by linking to sites such as Rapidshare (among others) are being denied by Google. It is not, it contends, facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs.

Google’s attempt is a brave attempt by the giant to gain the advantage over content industries; a win here will pave the way for two things:

1.To be left alone by those who are branding it as a ‘pirate’ (et al); and
2.To start moving into related areas without worrying about the immediate legal consequences.

The move by Google started when California-based Blues label Blue Destiny mounted a challenge again Google, Microsoft and Rapidshare last year. The Google and Microsoft search engines were, it claimed, helping to prop up the business of Rapidshare. Rapidshare was in existence solely to run a “distribution center for unlawful copies of copyrighted works”. Strong (and fairly inaccurate) words.

For whatever reason, Blue Destiny withdrew the lawsuit in March. One has to guess that the protracted fight against Google’s battle hardened lawyers just got too expensive for them. Google wants to settle the issue once and for all, so is now looking for a declaratory judgment that it is not in the wrong here.

Interesting times.

Taylor Swift – along with a number of other notable stars and celebs – has shown incredible generosity in providing half a million dollars towards the relief efforts in Nashville. The total raised by a CNN-commissioned telethon was a staggering $1.7 million. This just goes to show just how generous these celebrities – together worth several billions can be. $1.7m will no doubt help to cause a small dent in the horrific damage caused by the flood.

If I sound a little tongue-in-cheek when discussing this ‘generosity’, then forgive me. I do actually applaud these stars for at least making some effort in giving back in times of need, but there just isn’t enough of it. $1.7m is small change even in this localized disaster. When it comes to bigger national disasters like Haiti, it wouldn’t even register. Sad but true.

The telethon was a cog in a wheel of events and benefits across the city. Clearly musicians feel something of an affinity with Nashville, the home of country music.

Other stars that helped out include: Michelle Branch, Holly Williams, Keith Urban, Amy Grant, Ke$ha and Tim McGraw. Well done guys, seriously. Just try to dig a little deeper for the things that matter.

Taylor Swift – music starlet whose pop video was famously inferior to that produced by Beyonce – has reportedly donated an impressive $500,000 to the Nashville Flood victims. Swift, 20, called into a telethon organized by NCC to donate the purse-trembling figure. Her donation helped the telethon raise $1.7 million.

Swift herself has seen the effects of the flood, though she would be the first to admit that she hasn’t been anywhere near as affected as those people who have lost homes – and lives – to the flood. She has a house in Hendersonville, and saw the tragedy unfolding first-hand.

Other stars that had been moved enough to donate and help the cause included Vince Gill, Keith Urban, Alison Krauss and Darius Rucker. It’s nice to see stars trying to make a difference like this. Whether the figures we are talking about here will be sufficient to make inroads in the horrific situation remains to be seen, but it’s a start at least.

Nashville, of course, is something of a metonym for the country music industry, with music clubs and honky tonk bars being found in abundance downtown and in surrounding areas. To see this historic institution of music drown in this way would be a sad day for musicians everywhere.