Bits & Pieces

As the New York Times is reporting, there is currently an international effort underway to negotiate a new treaty primarily aimed at protecting intellectual property.  And it is being done in secret.

Behind a veil of secrecy, the United States, the European Union, Japan and other countries are forging ahead with plans to coordinate an international crackdown on illegally copied music, movies, designer bags and other goods that change hands in sidewalk souks and Internet bazaars.

Negotiators, under intense pressure from media companies, luxury brands and other corporate victims of piracy, are scrambling to complete a so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by the end of the year.

But the process is running into growing criticism from Internet campaigners, lawmakers and even some people involved in it.

Since when is it good policy to negotiate law in secret and primarily for the benefit of private parties rather than sound policy reasons? One of the possible approaches apparently being considered would mandate some sort of regulations that would require ISPs to disconnect customers who content provider claim have engaged in illegal file sharing. Where is the due process? Why isn’t this just a way for a private industry to get law enforcement for its own protection for free?

More from the EFF, Public Knowledge and James Love.

What the hell is this? It appears that last.fm or their parent, CBS, may have delivered a data dump of last.fm users’ listening data to the RIAA. So much for privacy.

I am member of last.fm (for now). But if this is indeed true, I will be gone in the blink of an eye.

Over the objections of the RIAA, a Federal judge is allowing a file-copying case to be streamed to the Internet.

A federal judge has agreed to a novel request: streaming parts of an upcoming file-sharing trial over the Internet. Judge Nancy Gertner has granted the request of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson and students to put the gavel-to-gavel footage on the Internet for any non-commercial use, over the RIAA’s objections. But only on a one-time basis.

Update: The RIAA is so afraid of widespread public disclosure of their litigation tactics that they have appealed the judge’s ruling to stream the trial to the Internet.