Has the Pirate Bay given up piracy? – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs

Has the Pirate Bay given up piracy? – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs 

Has the Pirate Bay given up piracy?

 

The Pirate Bay, a Swedish file-sharing Web site used by millions to exchange movies and music, is reportedly being sold to the Swedish company Global Gaming Factory X AB for nearly $8 million.

 

A blog posted on thepiratebay.org Tuesday morning says rumors of the sale are true:

We’ve been working on this project for many years. It’s time to invite more people into the project, in a way that is secure and safe for everybody… The profits from the sale will go into a foundation that is going to help with projects about freedom of speech, freedom of information and the openess of the nets.

The Pirate Bay and its founders have been under legal attack from copyright owners for years. While the Web site does not host copyrighted content, it does host millions of torrent files which enable peer-to-peer file-trading. Many of these torrent files point to copyrighted material.

In April four of the Website’s co-founders were convicted of collaborating to violate copyright law and sentenced to one year in jail as well as ordered to pay $3.6 million in damages to several major media companies.

A press release from Global Gaming Factory suggests, following the sale, the Pirate Bay is done with piracy:

Following the completion of the acquisitions, GGF intends to launch new business models that allow compensation to the content providers and copyright owners. The responsibility for, and operation of the site will be taken over by GGF in connection with closing of the transaction, which is scheduled for August 2009.

There are hundreds of competing Websites that offer copyright infringing torrents, but it appears the Pirate Bay, which once claimed a spot on the Web’s top 100, will no longer be among them. The site claims more than 3.5 million registered users.

The news made Pirate Bay one of the top trending topics on Twitter Tuesday morning, with many tweets mourning the sale. “The Pirate Bay walks the plank for new biz model,” said one Twitterer.

Will the sale of the Pirate Bay mean an end to free copyrighted material for all? And can Global Gaming Factory monetize a site that is based on piracy?

Has the Pirate Bay given up piracy? – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs

Music Firm Sues Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real Networks Over Copyright Infringement | paidContent

 Music Firm Sues Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real Networks Over Copyright Infringement | paidContent

Music Firm Sues Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real Networks Over Copyright Infringement

Not your typical targets for a music copyright infringement lawsuit: The big companies that run paid online music subscription services. But MCS Music America, which says it administers almost 45,000 tracks, is suing Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO), Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), and RealNetworks (NSDQ: RNWK), basically saying that they left some seemingly big Ts uncrossed when they obtained the rights to offer some songs to their members. From the lawsuit: “In order to transmit, perform, reproduce and deliver any sound recording of any musical work via ‘on-demand streams’ or ‘limited downloads’ defendants must first obtain not only the rights for the sound recording itself but also the rights for the underlying musical composition which is embodied on said sound recording.”

MCS Music America wants the tracks taken down and is also asking for damages—either “actual damages and profits derived by the defendants” or $150,000 for each act of copyright infringement (That could add up since it takes 90 pages for MCS Music America to simply list all the songs that it says have been misappropriated—and MCS Music America says that a separate act of copyright infringement took place each time one of those songs was downloaded or streamed).

TechDirt, which first reported the lawsuit, says it’s an indication of “just how incredibly confusing and impossible copyright law has become” since the three companies obviously did take the time to obtain some rights to the songs. Representatives from Yahoo, Microsoft and RealNetworks had no comment.

Music Firm Sues Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real Networks Over Copyright Infringement | paidContent

RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case | Digital Media - CNET News

 RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case | Digital Media - CNET News

RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case

by Greg Sandoval

Note: See Usenet.com's reaction at "Usenet.com says RIAA 'whittling down' Betamax case."

The Recording Industry Association of America has prevailed in its copyright fight against Usenet.com, according to court documents.

In a decision that hands the RIAA an overwhelming victory, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the music industry on all its main theories: that Usenet.com is guilty of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement. In addition, and perhaps most important for future cases, Baer said that Usenet.com can't claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision. That ruling says companies can't be held liable for contributory infringement if the device they create is "capable of significant non-infringing uses."

Baer noted that in citing the Betamax case, Usenet.com failed to see one important difference between it and Sony. Once Sony sold a Betamax, an early videotape recorder, the company's relationship with the buyer ended. Sony held no sway over what the buyer did with the device after that. Usenet.com, however, maintains an ongoing relationship with the customer and does has some say in how the customer uses the service.

Usenet.com's lawyers could not be reached Tuesday evening.

The two-decade-old Usenet network was one of the early ways to distribute conversations and binary files, long before the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. Usenet.com is a company that enabled users to access the Usenet network.The RIAA filed suit against Usenet.com in October 2007, accusing the company of encouraging customers to pay up to $19 a month by enticing them with copyrighted music.

The case is highly unusual because of Baer's many findings of discovery misconduct by the Usenet.com side. The rules of discovery in a civil case requires both sides to exchange information. The RIAA produced evidence, however, that Usenet.com destroyed evidence or failed to produce witnesses on multiple occasions.

The RIAA accused Usenet.com of intentionally destroying the contents on seven hard drives that contained employee-generated data; providing false information; and attempting to prevent employees from giving depositions by sending them to Europe.

The judge found the evidence credible but denied the RIAA's motion to hand it a victory based solely on the misconduct. Instead, the judge sanctioned Usenet.com "from asserting (the company's) affirmative defense of protection under the DMCA's safe harbor provision."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provides refuge to Internet service providers from being held responsible for criminal acts committed by users. Without that and without the Betamax decision, Usenet.com was a sitting duck.

In a brief note posted Tuesday to RIAA.com, the trade group for the music industry said: "We're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation misconduct."

RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case | Digital Media - CNET News

The Ridiculous Copyright Situation Faced By Academics Who Want To Promote Their Own Research | Techdirt

The Ridiculous Copyright Situation Faced By Academics Who Want To Promote Their Own Research | Techdirt 

The Ridiculous Copyright Situation Faced By Academics Who Want To Promote Their Own Research

from the don't-ask,-don't-tell dept

Ed Kohler points us to a long, but fascinating blog post, by Stuart Shieber, a CS professor at Harvard, discussing the somewhat ridiculous copyright situation that many academics deal with in trying to promote their own works. I've heard similar stories from other professors I know, but this one is worth reading. Shieber points out the importance of academics getting their research published in journals, but how annoying it is that most journals require those academics to give up all sorts of rights -- including the right to distribute their own research on their websites. However, he notes that most published academics simply ignore this rule, and you end up with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Even though they're legally prevented from putting up a PDF of their work on their website, they do so anyway, and journals just look the other way.
Shieber, however, finds this situation to be a bad thing, and instead adds an amendment that at least grants him the right to publish his own research on his own website. It seems pretty ridiculous that this should even be an issue at all. He notes that most journals haven't had a problem with this -- which is surprising, but good to hear. He did run into one publisher, however, who fought him on it, and after lots of back and forth, his paper was pulled. The reasoning that the journal gave didn't make much sense, and Shieber shows how wrong they are (for example, they claim that if professors published the works on their website, demand for journal subscriptions would go down -- but Shieber did a quick look, and found that about 80% of those who published in the same journal had posted the content anyway, and it hadn't killed off the journal, so arguing against him seemed pointless). Eventually, he was able to convince the journal to change its policies and got his paper published, but it delayed publication for a while.
It's really unfortunate that journals still think that locking up such content makes sense. The idea that researchers shouldn't be allowed to share their own research with the world because some journal needs artificial scarcity for its business model is something that needs to be put to rest.

The Ridiculous Copyright Situation Faced By Academics Who Want To Promote Their Own Research | Techdirt

F.D.A. Approves Wyeth Antidepressant

Faced with the looming loss of patent protection for its top-selling drug, the antidepressant Effexor XR, Wyeth received federal approval on Friday for a successor drug, Pristiq, which the company hopes will also become a blockbuster.

With the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Pristiq, Wyeth said the company planned a big sales effort to introduce the product to psychiatrists and primary care doctors.

Wyeth needs a product that will replace some of the revenue expected to be lost to generic competitors of Effexor XR, whose patent protection expires in 2010. Sales of Effexor XR last year were $3.8 billion.

Dr. Philip Ninan, a Wyeth vice president for neuroscience, said he thought that Pristiq, which is chemically similar to Effexor, would have similar benefits in treating major depression. But the company said the drug had distinct advantages over its existing product.

Among them are that patients can start taking Pristiq at the therapeutic dose of 50 milligrams. Frequently, antidepressants must be started at a low dose, then ramped up to the therapeutic dose, to test whether patients can tolerate the drug and to determine the correct dose for the individual. Another advantage is that Pristiq does not have to be broken down by the liver, Dr. Ninan said, so it is not likely to interact with other medications metabolized by the liver.

“I think what’s important to understand in the depression category is that many patients fail to respond to anything that’s available,” said Geno Germano, Wyeth’s president of pharmaceuticals for the United States. “What’s important is that physicians and patients need multiple options available.”

But several analysts are skeptical of Pristiq, saying it has little advantage over other products on the market. And they raised questions about whether insurance companies would cover its cost in light of the availability of other drugs, including a less expensive generic version of Wyeth’s original version of Effexor that is already on the market.

Wyeth applied for F.D.A. approval of Pristiq in 2005. But in January 2007, the agency asked for additional information, a process that delayed approval until now.

During regular stock market trading on Friday, when most of the market was plunging, Wyeth’s shares were up more than 2.5 percent, closing at $43.62, in apparent anticipation of the F.D.A. approval.

Wyeth, based in Madison, N.J., has not yet announced how much Pristiq will cost. Effexor XR sells for about $120 for a 30-day supply, while the generic version of the original Effexor has been priced at less than half that recently on the Web site of one domestic chain pharmacy.

Dr. Timothy Anderson, a pharmaceutical analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, said that data Wyeth presented at a recent meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology failed to distinguish Pristiq from other marketed antidepressants.

“Payers are not likely to widely cover Pristiq in our view, and we forecast only low levels of sales,” Dr. Anderson wrote in a note to clients. He predicted the drug’s sales at $500 million by 2012, a relatively small figure in the antidepressant category.

And Dr. Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist in Newburyport, Mass., who publishes the Carlat Psychiatry Report, said the release of Pristiq appeared mainly to be an effort by the company to, in effect, extend its patent for Effexor XR.

That is because Pristiq is a metabolite of Effexor — meaning it is the chemical compound that results after Effexor is swallowed and processed in the body.

“Is there a compelling public health reason for Wyeth to be releasing another antidepressant into the market, with no clear advantages over others?” Dr. Carlat said. “Not that I can see.”

Wyeth is also seeking F.D.A. approval for Pristiq as a drug to reduce hot flashes in menopause. The agency has asked for more data for that use.