Summary: Arizona University descends into Microsoft’s Fog Computing trap (‘cloud’) and Ballmer travels to Malaysia, hoping to derail this government’s migration to Free software by offering Fog Computing
Students in Australia and Arizona will both be receiving similar type of treatment:
The University of Arizona in Tucson will be moving 18,000 staff members to cloud-based e-mail and calendar applications from Microsoft that will include a larger inbox quota, instant messaging, and tools for holding online meetings. This will be the first major change to employee e-mail in about seven years, the university said.
“Microsoft seems to have just made another trip to fight their adoption of Free software in the government and replace that with so-called ‘clouds’ from Microsoft.”This is not about Google versus Microsoft in mail, never mind the fact that it’s wrong to let a company which is abusive spy on everyone’s activities. So-called ‘clouds’ are plainly wrong and are a big mistake for public services. The “private” cloud lie which Microsoft is using is merely a decoy. It’s not private because it’s proprietary. It’s private to Microsoft, not to the user.
This was relayed during a meeting between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft Corporation at the Prime Minister’s Office here Tuesday.
The prime minister is not a technology person. They try to politicise this.
There is some other coverage from Malaysia which we’ll remark on later today. Choosing those ‘clouds’ is even worse than relying on proprietary software on one’s own machine because there’s increased helplessness and lock-in when it’s on someone else’s machine.
“The prime minister is not a technology person. They try to politicise this.”In a recent private summit, Microsoft marketed those ‘clouds’ which it uses to control the users’ data, not just application code [1, 2]. They will hopefully not entice people to become prisoners rather than deploy Free software (to run everything possible locally for control, which is especially important for business autonomy).
No business deserves to put its financial operation at a company with a history of financial fraud [1, 2], but that never bothers financial sites that emit more deception and spin while masquerading as “news”. Richard Stallman wrote an essay about those so-called ‘clouds’. Why would anyone be naïve enough to still go for these options? It’s clear why Microsoft lobbies for it. █
Summary: Apple’s hoarding of control continues now that WebKit™ (originally KDE codebase) becomes a project it can control even by name
EVERYONE’S MOST POPULAR sect technology company is all about sharing love and distributing code — so much so that the code it took from KDE some years ago (leading to a controversy because it had not committed to giving back) is not only maintained in state where it’s centralised under Apple (with Google increasingly participating too) but it’s also becoming a real ownership of Apple in the naming sense. Need companies start asking Apple for permission in order to use the word WebKit™, which roughly translates to “KHTML the Apple way”?
Apple files for WebKit browser trademark
WebKit, the open-source project behind Apple’s Safari browser, is a pretty obscure name to ordinary folks. And perhaps Apple wants to keep it that way, judging by Apple’s May 18 WebKit trademark application.
Now that Apple is under fire for GPL violations (as stated by the FSF, which wishes to prevent Apple from illegally using GNU code against GNU itself), one ought to (re)think about Apple’s role in Free/Open Source software — code which worked pretty well for Apple, as long it ‘consumed’ and gave little or nothing in return. █
“Theres always a group of people that wants to undo the forces of industry that have given us so much in terms of wealth, and theres always people who want things to be free. The open-source movement starts with those sort of people. But it still has such good points that have nothing to do with whether its free or not. The idea of developing something and then making your solution known. Spread the information so the world can grow from it.”
Summary: How Microsoft’s money and unwatchable influence allow it to subvert laws in foreign jurisdictions while projects like Xen and Apache are paid money to keep quiet on the matter and occasionally defend Microsoft
The message of appeasement is all too comforting, but Microsoft is not interested in it. Microsoft keeps suing, threatening, and lobbying to make “open source” illegal or impractical to use. A good example of Microsoft’s direct attack on “open source” is currently found in Europe, where Microsoft’s role is described under:
The EIFv2 is a fine example not only of Microsoft’s lobbying for software patents (almost all of Microsoft's patents are software patents) but also the company’s unethical activities that involve AstroTurfing, cronyism, and intimidation in other countries. This is a company which is not interested in producing technology; rather, it bends laws, overthrows opposition, and bribes with great pride.
The Free Software Foundation Europe has just updated its Web page which shows what Microsoft did to Europe’s digital agenda through its lobbyists, essentially rendering it useless, discriminatory, and unfair.
EIFv2: Tracking the loss of interoperability
[...]
From our analysis, we can conclude that in key places, the European Commission has taken on board only the comments made by the Business Software Alliance, a lobby group working on behalf of proprietary software vendors. At the same time, comments by groups working in favour of Free Software and Open Standards were neglected, e.g. those made by Open Forum Europe.
As we speak, Microsoft lobbies to legalise software patents in Europe. When it does not sue it intimidates in order to earn “protection money” as it so often gets in the far east (where software patents bear some legitimacy, as in the United States).
Richard Stallman, one of the truly elite software developers has spoken out many times about the dangers of software patents. Curiously those most in favor of software patents appear to be lawyers from the Patent Bar.
Here is the term “Americans” used loosely in the second part of this essay.
One issue is that Americans think that their patent system is the be all and end all, and that everyone else should imitate them. Curiously a lot of Americans even believe that their Constitution requires that a patent system exist, due to a misreading of it.
One famous case where the system in the United States was shown to be corruptible involved the FDA (Microsoft connection noted), which has a close relationship with Monsanto because employees are shared among the regulators and the regulated company. Here are some “corporate takeover videos” from GM Watch:
One of the greatest concerns about genetic engineering is the way in which it facilitates the corporate takeover of the food supply. These videos show how GM crops are removing the ability of farmers to freely use their own seeds or grow food in the way they choose.
Added below is a popular video which shows what happened to Monsanto in Canada (where it didn’t have enough insiders). This might as well teach us about the role Microsoft entryism has played over the years, even in the European Commission (we gave many examples). Things also changed for Xen when Microsoft put its hands on the project, brought it to its back yard, and put Microsoft managers in it. Matt Taibi famously described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”; perhaps Microsoft’s entryism is evidence that it became a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of IT just as Monsanto became a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of agriculture. Unless people emphasise a message of software freedom, Microsoft will continue its takeover of “open source” and suppress Free software, replacing it with software patents and so-called ‘interoperability’ that depends on them. █
Summary: The latest examples of lawyers lobbying for software patents and the latest updates about the Bilski case
IT has been almost a month since we last addressed the situation of software patents in New Zealand. As we showed several times before, lawyers from New Zealand are very consistently promoting software patents over there, as opposed to developers (with the exception of multinationals like Microsoft).
We are still seeing the same trend this week. Guy Burgess, who describes himself as “a lawyer with an IT background practising in New Zealand,” has just published this article without disclosing his stake in the matter. The headline is revealing: “Protecting IP in a post-patent environment” (the word “IP” as a substitute for “patents” and “protect” instead of “monopolise” or “block” is what solicitors often do).
Recently the Government announced its intention to adopt a select committee’s recommendation to “exclude software from patentability” – that is, to ban software patents. Where will the ban — if implemented — leave local software developers’ ability to protect their intellectual property?
How will the removal of software from patentability, if confirmed, affect the ability of local IT firms to protect the intellectual property in their software?
Patent WatchTroll, a crass lawyer and loud proponent of software patents, is waiting for the Bilski decision. He wishes to patent software not because he develops any but because he is greedy and like many other lawyers he makes money when people patent their software or sue someone else who develops software.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, who is this system for? Do we want a patent system that defends lawyers’ income? Or is it better to assume that the patent system exists to encourage science and technology (as it existed before leeches arrives at the scene)?
In the month since its release, the Free Software Foundation funded documentary film about software patents and the Bilski case, Patent Absurdity, has been viewed more than 100,000 times. But are the people we most want to influence in the debate seeing it?
The End Software Patents campaign is looking to identify the 200 people who are most influential to the software patent debate in the US, and are working with the well known venture capitalist and anti-software patent blogger Brad Feld to send a copy of the documentary film to them in the postal mail.
End Software Patents director, Ciaran O’Riordan said, “We’re looking for the key people in US patent politics, the software patent critics inside the big companies, the professors who support patents but might see why software doesn’t fit that system, and anyone else that might consider giving our position some support when the post-Bilski debate erupts.”
There are some uncounted views in places such as film festivals. Here is another example:
FDL Movie Night: Patent Absurdity – How Software Patents Broke the System
[...]
Patent Absurdity takes a look at software patents, and makes what may seem to some to be radical points: That patenting software hurts innovation and harms inventors and consumers
If you have been working in the startup industry, then you may already be well aware of what venture capitalist Brad Feld calls “a massive tax on and retardant of innovation” – software patent litigation.
In his blog post this morning, Feld points to the circular court battles of companies like Apple, Nokia and HTC and the “ridiculous nature of software patents” as reason enough for all members of the startup community to take an interest in this topic.
Forbes has this to say about In Re Bilski (software is hardly mentioned):
As the Supreme Court issues its last decisions before the end of the spring session, intellectual-property lawyers have been asking: Where’s Bilski?
This is the case that may deliver a knockout blow to business method patents, those patents that everybody from free-software zealots to conservative Republicans love to hate. Inventors Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw wanted to patent a novel method for hedging against weather-driven changes in energy prices, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office wouldn’t even give them a hearing. The Supreme Court is expected to uphold that brush-off, and the big question is whether it will do so in a way that eliminates forever dubious patents like the infamous government monopoly Amazon.com obtained on one-click purchases.
Legal Briefing: When Can You Patent Math? Supreme Court Must Decide
[...]
One of the most eagerly watched cases pending before the Supreme Court is Bilski v. Kappos, which will shape the scope of patent law in profound ways. Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw created and sought to patent a way of using complex math to hedge against demand-driven commodity price risk — for example, helping a school system cope with heating oil prices spiking because an extra cold winter creates unusually high demand, or helping a fuel dealer handle the opposite situation. The Bilski/Warsaw idea is a “method of doing business by evening out risk among those in an ongoing economic transaction,” as SCOTUSblog put it.
Subscription is needed to access some other articles on this important subject [1, 2] that may define the legality of Free software in the United States and Europe. Lawyers’ sites have a special affinity for paywall (or “pay firewalls” that shut out opposition to their echo chamber).
The final decision is imminent. Let’s hope that Bilski’s patent is nullified along with software patents (although the latter may be open to doubt/debate, depending on one’s judgment).
A top UK scientist who helped sequence the human genome has said efforts to patent the first synthetic life form would give its creator a monopoly on a range of genetic engineering.
Professor John Sulston said it would inhibit important research.
US-based Dr Craig Venter led the artificial life form research, details of which were published last week.
Some people want patents on clothing (watch out, knitters). It’s an endless trap which requires economic analysis. Economists say that the harms of software patents outweigh the perceived benefits, but that’s not the story lawyers would tell. They hardly belong in this debate due to vested/conflict of interests where betterment of science gets excluded. █
I read a story this morning over at Infoworld.com that shocked me a bit. Neil McAllister discusses how proprietary software companies, like Microsoft, criticize open source projects by saying that, “They don’t innovate, they copy.” Is that really the consensus for an entire software realm that brought us the world wide web, TCP/IP, sendmail, DNS, DHCP, Perl, PHP, Apache, HTML and basically everything else that we use on the Internet today? Is that really the stance they want to take?
[...]
Here is a list of Microsoft products and the originals:
* Windows (The Name) – X Window
* Windows – OS2 and Mac
* Explorer Interface – Mac
* MS Office – Lotus and Framework
* SQL Server – Sybase
* Exchange Server – Domino
* Internet Explorer – Mosaic
* MS DOS – CP/M and IBM PC DOS
* C# – Java
* NetBIOS/LanManager – IBM’s NetBIOS/LanManager
Two years ago (and previously, in some Free/open source software conferences) we learned that Microsoft employees were being brainwashed inside Microsoft so as to believe that Linux is “stealing” from Microsoft. They daemonise software freedom over there and conveniently deny the roots of Microsoft, which were about stealing in the proper sense of the word. “Don’t Talk The Talk, Without Walking The Walk, Otherwise You Are Just Throwing Gasoline On Fire,” says another person in response to Neil McAllister’s piece.
One good example of Microsoft copying from others would be C#/.NET (running after Java). Twice even. First it was Microsoft copying Sun and later on it was a Microsoft MVP copying Microsoft’s copy of Sun (and copying Microsoft’s copy of Adobe). Yes, Mono and Moonlight are not examples of copying from Microsoft. These are a copy of a copy going back to more original projects (which Microsoft patented). Watch how Daily India has just marketed Mono:
For any of you who want to program in C#, but can’t afford Visual Studio just to play around, here is a solution.
Mono is open source C#. Check it out!
Yes, that’s what Mono is. It’s like a trial version for Visual Studio, which requires Windows and other proprietary software from Microsoft. That “Microsoft MVP” title of Miguel de Icaza was deserved and well received. █
Summary: The copycat/copyright marketing machine known as “Apple” need not be commended for a milestone achievement, which is only additional threat to people’s freedom
SEVERAL people have sent us the news about Apple leapfrogging Microsoft in terms of market cap [1, 2]. Is that good news at all? We suspect not. Apple — just like Microsoft — is suing GNU/Linux and trashing people’s freedom, even basic rights.
Well, guess what? Apple is not only the company that copied many ideas from Free software (and infringes on software patents owned by several Linux distributors). Apple is now being accused by the FSF of violating the GPL (official statement available in Arabic and other languages too).
An iPhone port of GNU Go is currently being distributed through Apple’s App Store. However, this distribution is not in compliance with the GNU GPL. The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution of GNU Go through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2. So today we have written to Apple and asked them to come into compliance. We would be happy to see Apple distribute these programs under the GPL’s terms, but unfortunately, it seems much more likely that they’ll simply make the problem go away by removing GNU Go from the App Store.
There are many other Apple violations, but this post is not intended to exhaustively cover them (we have better listing in the Wiki). A reader wrote to us last night about “hypePhone and Sony Death Trap.”
“Conditions in these sweat shops [are] unlivable.” –Techrights readerOur reader continued: “From Daily Rotten [originally here]: “A ninth employee killed himself Tuesday at the Chinese electronics supplier Foxconn, which makes the Apple iPad and Sony Ericsson phones, turning attention to working conditions at the firm’s huge complex… Workers are required to stand at fast-moving assembly lines for eight hours without a break and without talking… The basic starting pay of $130 a month — barely enough to live on — can be augmented to a more respectable $295 only by working 30 hours overtime a week.”
Speaking of the hypePhone, a new vulnerability has just been found which Linux takes advantage of:
A lost iPhone is a bigger problem than previously thought. Despite encryption the finder can gain easy access to data including photos and audio recordings, even if the owner has set up their iPhone to require a pass code. And, of all things, this is made possible with Linux – the very operating system which Apple regularly cold-shoulders.
Yet another reason to use GNU/Linux, an OS designed by geeks for performance. Carpet bombing self is not performance, Steve.
The title, “Apple Insecurity”, has two possible interpretations. Apple is very afraid that its clients will attain a level of control. They are treated like children and slaves (probably more so than Microsoft’s customers), but the funny thing is that many of them accept it quietly. One day they might wake up only to smell the consequence of their apathy — an apathy that also jeopardizes their neighbours’ freedom.
The goal is NOT to eliminate Microsoft. The goal is to promote software freedom.
For defeatists who believe that Linux fell behind the competition, well… how come it replacesVista 7 and surpasses hypePhone? [via]
(On Friday, Digitimes [5] quoted an HP Taiwan exec saying the Slate would use WebOS instead of Windows 7.)
Software freedom everywhere is an attainable goal. Let’s not lose sight of it. Let’s play for behaviour, not brand names. █
Summary: Lawyers in Europe strive to net some extra money by promoting “interoperability” (with software patents) rather than making use of open standards
EUROPEAN lawyers are trying to repeat the mistakes of the USPTO, which is permitting the patenting of business methods, software patents, and other insane things that must never become one person’s government-protected monopoly. Look at the latest numbers from the USPTO. There is clearly a gold rush when everything under the sun becomes patentable and examiners mistake that for “increased innovation” or whatever. From Patently-O:
The USPTO issued more patents during the past two weeks than in any fortnight in history. A primary driver of that upswing appears to be a dramatic rise in the allowance rate.
Lawyers who make a living by granting and managing people’s ‘ownership’ of other people’s lives are concerned about the Bilski case, which may axe many patents and limit their scope in the United States.
Betting on Bilski: The Supreme Court and Biotechnology Patents
[...]
Reviewing Bilski and the Biotech Patent Landscape. Recall that Bilski involves a form of method patent (the so-called “business method” patent) that claims a method of hedging commodities prices by setting up a relationship between a regular seller (a coal mine, for example) and regular buyer (a power company). The question is whether such a method constitutes patentable subject matter—that is, is the Bilski method the sort of “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” that meets the standards of Section 101 of the Patent Act. In its 2008 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit established—or re-established, since it had been lurking in the case law for years—the so-called “machine or transformation” test for method patents. Under this test, the method must be tied to a particular machine (whatever that means) or transform some article into a different state or thing in order to qualify as patentable subject matter. According to the Federal Circuit, Bilski’s patent failed both branches of the test.
By contrast, in its 2009 decision in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Federal Circuit upheld a patent on “a method of optimizing therapeutic efficiency for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder.” The method comprises “administering” a specified drug to a patient and then “determining” the level of the drug in the patient. The remainder of the claim specifies threshold levels of the drug’s metabolites (the chemical products of metabolism in the body) in the patient’s blood below which the dose should be increased (because of lack of efficacy) and above which it should be decreased (because of potential toxicity). The court found that both administering the drug and determining the metabolite levels (by withdrawing and testing blood) worked a sufficient physical transformation of the body.
Greed, greed, greed.
Those lawyers are always greedy for more and more patents. They don’t care about the consequences as long as they enrich themselves through filing and litigation.
Obviously, lawyers in Europe want software patents. They don’t actually develop any software, but it’s not software they care about. It’s all about money and Free software supporters stand in their way in Europe*. So what do they do? They have just set up yet another event whose overall message is something along the lines of, “why can’t Free software and software patents just get along?”
Read the following new message (it’s always posed as a series of suggestive questions. as in push polling):
From: Cristina Palomares
Subject: REMINDER: Intellectual Property, Open Source, and Standards: Friends or Foes?
To: [redacted]
Intellectual Property, Open Source, and Standards:
Friends or Foes?
Date: Tuesday, 1st June 2010
Time: 9:30-12:30
Venue: Maastricht University Campus Brussels, Avenue de l’Armée / Legerlaan 10, 1040, Brussels
The Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation at Maastricht University Faculty of Law and the Stockholm Network Intellectual Property & Competition Programme are delighted to invite you to a forum and debate on “Intellectual Property, Open Source and Standards: Friends or Foes?
The importance of standards to our societies is growing as technology moves into increasingly complex territories, and competing companies are inclined to establish common ground. This common ground helps to ensure that the assortment of technological possibilities is kept to a necessary minimum, whilst also establishing a widespread level of compatibility and quality. Standards offer a shared language that technologies use to communicate with one another, allowing for greater interaction between products or components. This can mean improved interoperability, interconnectivity, and commoditisation – all buzzwords for a more beneficial market.
“How should we consider the relationship between patents and standards, and what are the implications of not allowing standards to be protected by IPRs?”In the discussion on standards, a distinction (and at times even a dichotomy) is often made between standards based on proprietary efforts – which are to be protected by intellectual property rights – and standards that are based on collaborative or open efforts – such as via an open source. Indeed, there is a heated Europe-wide debate on the nature and characteristics of future technological standards, not least in the context of government procurement and policies in this area (such as the Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardization System).
This event aims to address some of the burning issues in the standards debate. Key questions to be discussed include: Should standards be based on open-efforts or on proprietary models? Should countries in Europe opt for a more specific model of standardisation? How should we consider the relationship between patents and standards, and what are the implications of not allowing standards to be protected by IPRs? Is the dichotomy between open and proprietary standards at all justified, or are these types of standards in fact complementary?
Speakers include (in alphabetical order):
Ms Helen Disney, Chief Executive, Stockholm Network;
Malcolm Harbour MEP, Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer
Protection Committee, European Parliament;
Prof Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Director Masters Intellectual Property
Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University Faculty of Law;
Dr Meir Perez Pugatch, Director of Research, Stockholm Network & Senior Lecturer, University of Haifa;
Dr Dalindyebo Shabalala, Assistant Professor, Maastricht University Faculty of Law;
Prof Alain Strowel, Universitaires Saint-Louis et Université de Liège;
Prof Damien Geradin, Partner at Howrey LLP and Professor of Competition Law and Economics at Tilburg University.
***************
To RSVP please contact Dr Cristina Palomares, Chief Operating Officer, Stockholm Network on T +44 20 7354 8888, F: +44 20 7359 8888 or via e-mail on: cristina@stockholm-network.org
Speakers who are software developers are conspicuously missing. Whose agenda is being served here? See what we wrote about Europe’s Digital Agenda in recent days [1, 2, 3]. The agenda above jives the same way.
People should boycott this event. It’s apparently just a ploy to push for software patents in Europe, quelling those who oppose. A fair event would not be stacked by its attendees. █
____ * Small- and medium-sized businesses generally suffer from software patents, but they can tolerate patent encumbrances if they are proprietary software companies.
Summary: The BSA continues to make life a lot harder for Free/libre software; message about the situation in Finland is reproduced
THE BSA is up to old tricks again. It is trying to marginalise Free software either by declaring it illegal, making it inconvenient to get hold of, nearly impossible to pass through the authorities, or more expensive to deploy due to artificial limitations imposed by the BSA and those whom its lobbyists can reach.
The Czech Ministry of Finance along with the BSA threaten to disallow deducting hardware from base tax if purchased without software. This idea stems from their joint proclamation that for software to be used legally, it must be bought – thus completely ignoring the existence of free and open source software which can be obtained legally without any purchase whatsoever. The Ministry and the BSA have issued a press release which basically labels all users of ‘free software’ pirates. Many public organizations and companies (including Red Hat and Novell) have expressed their dismay at such actions of the Ministry.
There are similar stories here in the UK, as covered in our previous posts on the BSA (back in 2007 and later). Other agencies subservient to Microsoft’s interests (and proprietary software at large) include BECTA, but fortunately the British government is killing it (what took so long?). “Good Riddance,” says the headline from Glyn Moody who explains and provides some background:
Not quite on the scale of cancelling the ID cards project, the news that Becta would be shut down was nonetheless further evidence of the coalition government’s new broom whooshing into action.
Although there seems to be a wide range of views on whether this is a good or bad thing – see this post and its comments for a representative selection – for me Becta was pretty much an unmitigated disaster for free software in this country, and I’m glad to see it go.
I write not just as someone who has followed free software for 15 years, but as a parent. Never mind that schools almost without exception are stuffed to the gunwales with Microsoft’s technology – including, unbelievably, Internet Explorer when it was still totally insecure.
What I find particularly outrageous is the fact that even today, some of the educational websites used by schools don’t even work with Firefox, and that there is a presumption that parents have a copy of Microsoft Office at home (whether it was bought or “borrowed” from work doesn’t seem to matter to IT departments much.) Most of the responsibility for this parlous state of affairs can be laid at the door of Becta.
1. http://yle.fi/uutiset/viihde/2010/05/nettipiratismi_aiheuttaa_suomessa_jattitappiot_1708634.html
(URL title: Internet piracy causes huge losses in Finland)
This is where this all started now on May 25th, once again. I haven’t seen it on *ANY* english pages of any outlet yet.
LYHTY (registered association, just like most of the IP alley dogs barking here in .fi, but for some reason they’re allowed to have lots of publicity AND influence when making the laws)
ordered a questionnaire from “Taloustutkimus” about intellectual property, who then asked 3000 people, from 15 to 79 years.
This was posted verbatim on most, if not all newspapers and www news outlets in the country.
Their main site is at http://www.antipiracy.fi/inenglish/ , with participants listed at http://www.antipiracy.fi/lisatietoa/toimijat/
Same bunch of puppets behind the widenation.fi campaign which got mentioned on http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/20/finnish-record-indus.html
They now claim that
a) 33% would have bought music from (internet) shops if there wouldn’t have been a free option
b) 16% of all households download “illegal” files
c) average amount of downloaded music per household was 380 tracks, most done by teens and young adults
d) in households of people over 50 years of age, there’s almost no “illegal” downloading
e) 355 million euros lost annually by downloading – but as usual, there are no details at all how this figure was determined
So now lyhty is trying to drive through a two-stop mechanism in Finland, consisting of a warning letter and then suing to court.
2. http://yle.fi/uutiset/talous_ja_politiikka/2010/05/wallin_lupaa_toimia_nettipiratismin_kitkemiseksi_1710113.html
(URL title: Wallin promises actions to curb internet piracy)
Stefan Wallin is the minister of culture in Finland.
Translation:
Stefan Wallin thinks the “new” information about widespread internet piracy is startling.
Says these show that electronic commerce isn’t in shape in Finland.
He promises to propose an amendment in the law already during this year, which is aimed at making “three strikes”-threats possible.
Of course usual BS about letting parents know about their children pirating on the net is included in the reasoning.
3. http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2010/05/nettikommentoijat_purkivat_nettipiratismin_taustoja_1709933.html
(URL title: Selected comments to previous article)
4. http://www.uusisuomi.fi/kulttuuri/93366-nettilataaja-viimeinen-varoitus-tulossa
(URL title: Internet downloader, your last warning is about to arrive)
Additional info to the above ones:
Amendment to the law is already done in ministry of education and culture, about to be sent into parliament handling!
( http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiedotteet/2010/05/wallin_nettipiratismi.html?lang=fi )
5. http://yle.fi/uutiset/kulttuuri/2010/05/tietoliikenneala_hyvaksyy_varoituskirjeet_tietyin_ehdoin_1710867.html
(URL title: FiCom aka Finnish Federation for Communications and Teleinformatics approves warning letters with some conditions)
Reijo Svento from FiCom says: We’re going to live with this new law, in case parliament decides to rubber-stamp on it. He also claims that this is going on worldwide..
It also requires a change into law about electronic privacy, since at the moment ISP’s cannot handle customer records due to piracy suspicions.
FiCom’s conditions:
a) Warning letters must be sent coming from the holder of IP
b) They must also bear the costs
c) ISP’s must not be required to keep records about people who have been suspected for piracy
And a comment from pirate party, see #6.
Suvi Lindén is also mentioned. She’s famous for being minister of communications without a clue how to handle anything regarding to her position.
Read: Whatever IP baddies whisper to her, will happen.
6. http://www.piraattipuolue.fi/ajankohtaista/lehdistoetiedotteet/474-piraattipuolue-ei-halua-uhkailukirjeitae-yhteenkaeaen-kotiin
(URL title: Pirate party doesn’t want threatening letters sent to any homes)
7. http://blog.starwreck.com/2010/05/25/avoin-kirje-ministeri-stefan-wallinille/
(URL title: An open letter to minister Stefan Wallin)
There’s a note in english at the bottom: “This post is in Finnish, an open letter to Finland’s minister of culture, who is ramping up anti-piracy initiatives in a way we find destructive to the media business.”
They are the makers of Star Wreck movie and currently working on Iron Sky.
Very good and thorough points, like why the effort (and money) isn’t spend on making those ecommerce shops available and good enough instead of threatening the buyers?
Another – would Wallin want to have all the mail examined because of financial crimes?
8. http://blog.piraattipuolue.fi/2010/05/piratismi-tuottaa-kansalle-yli-miljardi-euroa-voittoa-vuodessa/
(URL title: Piracy profits the people with over a billion euros annually)
Content is available under CC-BY-SA