Bono's hurting because of music pirates?

In a New York Times editorial U2 front man Bono gives his top ten things he thinks are important for the next decade. His second item is a plea to stop this horrible thing that has almost killed the music industry - file sharing. Not for the sake of artists like him, but for the little guys trying to get started. The ones who can't make a living because their music is being distributed free by pirates. He apparently does know how ridiculous he sounds, because he ends the section with, "Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles."

There are a few things he is ignoring, however. There is a thriving indy music industry based on internet distribution. Many young artists have started their careers using the internet and are quite happy as regional sensations. Other types of content providers have discovered that carefully managed free distribution increases sales instead of decreasing them. Baen books started an experiment in 1999 or 2000. Instead of trying to stop internet sharing, they embraced it. They put some of the older titles of authors who were willing to give away a book or two online as free downloads. They're still doing it today. I'll give you three guesses why.

If you are a fan of fantasy and science fiction, check out the Baen Free Library. And see how intelligence and forward thinking handle new "problems". And after picking up a book or two by an author you've never read before, if you like it, buy something else by the same author. After all, he was nice enough to give you an enjoyable free read, and he's got bills the same as you and I.

ACTA Mattah, You!

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a treaty-in-progress between the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada. Nothing has been ratified as yet, and because it is a "trade agreement" there has been almost no disclosure about what it contains. Leaked documents are quite frightening, however. There appears to be a "Three Strikes" rule on the table. The three strikes rule would require that any home accused of accessing or providing pirated works would lose internet access for a year. In entry on the Center for Democracy and Technology blog, "We Are Not Amused" we see that the Queen of England has voiced her approval of such a rule for the UK. According to Britains Department for Business Innovations and Skills (download PDF), apparently the cutting off of internet access would include any type of communication that accesses the web:

"although we continue to regard the uptake and use of Internet services as essential to a digital Britain, we are considering the case for adding suspension of accounts into the list of measures that could be imposed. This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used - this step would obviously be a very serious sanction as it would affect all members of a household equally, and might disrupt access to other communications, so it should be regarded as very much a last resort."

This is in reference to Britain's Digital Economy Bill. If you're interested, it's Chapter 10 - the amendment to Britains Communications Act of 2003. I'd have provided a direct link, but it wouldn't save in the blog. This type of law has been passed by other countries such as France, and is being looked at by the European Union, independent of ACTA. In some versions, including ACTA, the suspension occurs if you have been accused three times. Convictions are not required.

That is just one of the problems with ACTA. The only review is by the negotiators and lobbying groups - groups that have pushed such anti-consumer legislation as the DMCA. Recently a small number of others have been allowed to see the proposed ACTA document, but only after an approved application and signing a non-disclosure agreement. Why is secrecy for this document so important? Consider:

One of the proposed regulations makes ISP's responsible for the content provided by their customers - contrary to US legal precedent.

Will treat "technical protective measure" (TPM) infringements differently (presumably more severely) than "general infringements". TPM is what we commonly refer to as Digital Rights Management (DRM) in the US.

There will be no requirement for hardware manufacturers to ensure interoperability of TPM's. Imagine having to have a player for each major studio - one for Disney, one for Paramount, one for Dreamworks, etc.

Not part of the agreement, but part of the way trade agreements work - if ACTA is signed by the US Trade Representative (USTR) it is binding. The US will have to enforce it as law, without congress (our representatives) having any say in the matter. The RIAA, MPAA and their foreign counterparts have found a way to get around the laws of their respective countries.

This is something that we really need to jump on and speak to our representatives. We need to demand that they demand the ACTA negotiations be opened up to public scrutiny.

To contact your senator (if you don't already have the info):

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Your Representatives:

http://www.house.gov/
Enter your zip code in the box in the upper left and click on "go".