Legal peer-to-peer file-sharing ... for a fee

In December last year, members of the French parliament voted to legalise peer-to-peer file-sharing through scheme that allowed internet users to download as much as they want as long they paid a small monthly fee. The money from the fee would go to artists' royalties. The bill faced heavy opposition from the government, who withdrew the bil and therefore stopped the bill from completing its way through the legislative process. The government reintroduced an amended version which lighten fines for illegal downloading and to allow people to make private copies of DVDs and CDs. Read more about it here.

What do you think of the original French scheme? Is such a scheme a solution to the problem of illegal downloading? Should peer-to-peer file-sharing be legal? Why? Or why not?

IT Today

From today's liftout in The Australian:

• The federal government's committment to e-health, through HealthConnect, has been called into question by Queensland Health. Read about it here. What role can e-healthcare play in our health system? Is government adequately committed to e-health? Is e-health simply a waste of money? What legal issues would inherently surround e-health? (Think about privacy law?)
• Following on from Google's profit projections mentioned in this blog last week, Google's chief executive Eric Schmidt says he sees no limit to the search engine's ability to increase advertising revenue, allaying investor concerns about slowing growth. Read more here.
• Research by Seccom Networks suggests that up to a third of companies are having information taken from their computers by adware or spyware. The research apparently reveals that about only two in every 100 companies in Australia are able to identify any threat, mitigate it and collect forensic evidence so legal action can be taken. Read more here. What does this mean for Australian businesses? And what does it tell us about the difficulty in collecting forensic evidence in an electronic and digital environment?

Money and the internet

Last week in this blog, we considered whether email will one day cease to be free and the potential consequences that this may have on internet use. This week the New York Times weighs is, posing the question ""Are consumers going to start having to spend a lot more to surf the Web? (free subscription required).

Can blogs replace the mainstream media?

In a column titled "Those Busted Blogs", William Power looks at the role and status of the blog now that the "hype-fueled blog mania" has eased. He believes that the three main functions of the media can be serviced by the bloggers. These three main functions are: "1) convenience (organization of news and information in user-friendly formats); 2) truth-telling (digging up important stories and holding powerful people accountable); and 3) pleasure (the sheer fun of reading, listening, or watching)."

What do you think? Can bloggers better fulfil these functions? Could the blog hasten the end of traditional media sources?

Inquiry into music downloading

The BBC reports that the US Department of Justice has launched an inquiry into allegations of price fixing by top music labels on their charges for digital downloading. The background to these allegations stems from the major record labels being at loggerheads with Apple over what it charges for tracks sold through its iTunes online service. The article observes that "The digital music market has really taken off in the past couple of years, with revenues from digital sales topping the $1bn mark last year. Its growth has come at a time when sales of CDs and other traditional music formats are falling."

For further discussion see the Tech Law Prof Blog.

How should the major music labels respond to this trend?

Some of the difficulties inherent in content regulation

SmartFilter is a system used by corporations, schools, libraries and governments that allows system administrators to monitor and filter their users' access to web sites. Their website states that "By controlling inappropriate Internet use with SmartFilter, organizations can reduce legal liability, enhance Web security, increase productivity, and preserve bandwidth for business-related activities. SmartFilter puts you in control."

However, the New York Times reports (free subscription required) that the relatively innocent site Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things had been blocked by SmartFilter on the basis that a site reviewer from SmartFilter had "spotted something fleshy" and incorrectly (or at the least unfairly) labelled the site with the Nudity characterisation.

As is noted in the article, "There is far too much content on the Internet for one company to review manually, so they have to cut corners. And they're going to fall further behind as the Web gets bigger."

Is there a solution to this problem? Should we just accept that it is impossible to provide effective content regulation for the internet? Should we even go so far to say that there should be no regulation of the internet?

Who should profit from a blog?

If you have a popular blog, should you have the write to sell advertising space on that blog? Or should any advertising space be controlled by the web portal that places the blog online? This is the dilemma being faced by Xu Jinglei, a Chinese actress, who is China's most popular blogger. Read more from the New York Times website (free subscription required).

What do you think? Who should profit?

Microsoft v Google

The president of Microsoft Europe, Middle East and Africa, Neil Holloway, has declared that Microsoft will have a better search engine than google in 6 months. The new search engine will be introduced in the US and Britain first, before being introduced into Europe, and will be put into Microsoft's widely used communications tools Windows Messenger and Hotmail. Read more here.

Backspace: 26 February to 5 March

The blog began 2006 with a welcome and some news about an exciting new research project hosted by the Queensland University of Technology, OAK Law. Other issues canvassed in the last seven days have included:

• The big copyright story was the release of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs handing down its report on the inquiry into technological protection measures.
• The other copyright story was that Apple iTunes Music Store stated that it would not be releasing local download figures.
• Moving away from copyright, the blog considered whether email on the Internet should be free. Would charging for email be just like a road toll? When will email cease to be free? And would charging for email introduce a two-tiered system? Would a charging for email reduce our dependence on email?
• Phishing continues to be a threat to Australia, while some US states, like Virginia, are fighting back.
• Internet usage continues to grow, as does the google juggernaut.
• Despite the promises of Bill Gates, spam continues to be a problem, forcing companies and law firms to find ways of limiting spam.
• Threats, hackers and cyberviolence continue to provoke further regulation of the internet.
• Content regulation of the internet in China. This is a major legal, technological and political issue that will be considered throughout the semester and warrants more comment and attention.

I hope you found some of these links and issues interesting. Please post your comments to encourage more debate and discussion.

South Korea and "cyberviolence"

CNN has posted this report on cyberviolence in South Korea. The report is interesting for these aspects:

• South Korea is the world's most wired country, boasting the highest per capita rate of broadband Internet connections.
• The term cyberviolence encompasses anything from online insults to sexual harassment and cyberstalking.
• Prosecutors are beginning to respond to the threat posed by cyberviolence.
• Also responding is the government, who plans to introduce a bill that real-name authentication.
• Websites too are responding by actively seeking to filter comments.

There are four questions worthing considering here. First, is given the nature of the virtual environment of the internet is cyberviolence really a threat or danger? Second, are the respective responses of prosecutors, the government and individual websites warranted and proportionate to whatever threat or danger is posed? Will real-name authentication, which would have the effect of removing anonymous online speech in South Korea, be a threat to free speech? Do we, and should we, have a right to anonymous speech?