TechLuver.com

Feb 03, `08 –This Slashdot article reports on a new Italian copyright law, in which the Italian parliament may have mistakenly legalized sharing music over P2P networks.

The new copyright law, passed by both houses of parliament, would allow Italians to freely share music over the Internet as long as it is free of charge, at low resolution or “degraded,” for scientific or educational use, and only when such use is not for profit.

Excerpts of the Slashdot article:
According to Italian lawyer Andrea Monti, an expert on copyright and Internet law, the new Italian copyright law would authorize users to publish and freely share copyrighted music (p2p included). As Monti says in the interview, those who wrote it didn’t realize that the word “degraded” is technical, with a very precise meaning, which includes MP3s, which are compressed with an algorithm that ensures a quality loss. The La Repubblica.it article in Italian, and Google translation is here. More at Slashdot.

Los Angeles — Dec 19, `07 — In a significant victory for the major Hollywood studios, a federal judge in Los Angeles has terminated an ongoing lawsuit against the operators of TorrentSpy.com in favor of all six of the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) member companies.

The court imposed the harshest sanction against the TorrentSpy defendants because of their brazen, continuous, and systematic destruction of evidence and subversion of the judicial process. The ruling means that TorrentSpy operators are liable for copyright infringement.

The District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper of the Central District of California found that the defendants, Justin Bunnell, Forrest Parker and Wes Parker, had lied to the court and had systematically destroyed evidence. She also found that TorrentSpy is responsible for copyright infringements. A further court session next year will determine what penalties will be imposed - the extent of damages and any other sanctions, such as closure of the TorrentSpy website.

In its decision, the court ruled that “although termination of a case is a harsh sanction appropriate only in extraordinary circumstance, the circumstances of this case are sufficiently extraordinary to merit such a sanction.” The court found that the evidence was “not deleted or modified negligently, but intentionally in direct response to the institution of this lawsuit.” Observing that defendants “already had been subjected to lesser sanctions in this case”, including a fine for $30,000 for violation of a court order, the court concluded that the “harsh sanction” of terminating the defendants’ case was the only appropriate remedy.

The evidence defendants destroyed included forum postings with references to copyright infringement and other incriminating statements; site directories referencing copyrighted works and subcategories clearly referring to pirated content; and user IP addresses.

MPAA members filed lawsuits against various P2P sites including TorrentSpy, early last year, because such websites enable users to download complete films from the internet. TorrentSpy defended itself and brought a motion to dismiss the action, on the basis that it does not host copyrighted works itself. In June of this year, TorrentSpy was forced to log visitor details. In response, the torrent search engine blocked access for US internet users. More at MPAA (in pdf).

Nov 17, ‘07 — News.com is reporting on the US House of representatives passing an amendment to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (in pdf), that should make folks in Hollywood, the RIAA, and the MPAA well pleased.

The House of Representatives education committee passed a bill on Nov 15, ‘07 that would set higher-education policy for the next five years — and despite the efforts of campus officials and lobbyists, the measure directs colleges to take steps to combat illegal file sharing.

In the House Education and Labor Committee’s mammoth College Opportunity and Affordability Act lies a tiny section, which dictates universities that participate in federal financial aid programs “shall” devise plans for “alternative” offerings to unlawful downloading, such as subscription-based services, or “technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.” The committee unanimously approved the bill Thursday.

Supporters and opponents of the proposal disagree, however, on what the penalty would be for failure to comply with the new rules. The proposed requirements would be added to a section of existing federal law dealing with federal financial aid.

Some university representatives and fair-use advocates worry that schools run the risk of losing aid for their students if they fail to come up with the required plans.

“The language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs),” Steven Worona, director of policy and networking programs for the group Educause, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Worona acknowledged that “there does appear to be a great deal of confusion with respect to what penalties would be involved in not carrying out the mandates in this bill.” Still, Educause, which represents college and university network operators, continues to “strongly oppose these mandates,” he said. More at News.com.