Last Friday, TechCrunch posted an article provocatively titled, Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?. Based on a friend-of-a-friend tip, the piece alleged that Last.fm had “handed over” user data to facilitate the identification of U2 fans with leaked copies of the band’s forthcoming album, No Line on the Horizon. (This was before Universal Music Group copped to leaking the album and U2 started streaming it voluntarily.)

Within an hour and a half – midnight for the London-based Last.fm – the allegations were debunked. Employees responded to concerned readers directly,

“[Last.fm would] never personally identify our users to a third party.”

Last.fm’s reputation is saved, TechCrunch are lying liars, the RIAA still sucks, and then I found five dollars. Right?

Not quite. Last.fm, purchased by CBS Interactive in 2007, represents the tension driving this era in computing culture, a constant negotiation of value and privacy. I’ll enrich your database by telling you how many times I’ve rewound Las Mulas De Moreno today (five and counting) and you tell me about similar artists to obsess over tomorrow.

Billboard and Soundscan look like halfblind guesswork in comparison with the charts made possible by this kind of deep data collection. Last.fm’s revenue may draw largely from advertising but if they were to start selling custom data packages to interested corporations, would anyone stop scrobbling?

Like many FCers, I was initially so alarmed at the notion that Last.fm would “hand over” user data that I ignored the fact that Last.fm’s core operations are basically in a constant state of dry snitching on its users. Want to know who is listening to “Las Mulas”? Click the Listeners tab, and start crawling profiles for identifying information.

For some of us, this is reason enough to cease participation. In fact, several FC members have already begun brainstorming a non-commercial, decentralized alternative. Others propose ruining the data reported to Last.fm by deliberately spoofing the scrobbler software with falsified metadata.

But what about those FCers who use Last.fm, enjoy the services it provides, and accept its exchange of privacy for value? Do we demand they sacrifice this pleasure? To what end?

Rather than struggle against enjoyment of Last.fm, what if we were to maximize it? What would an enthusiastic embrace and exploration of a service like Last.fm reveal? Would we find its boundaries and be inspired to develop a successor with even greater capacity? Would it reveal new entrepreneurial opportunities that better protect user privacy without sacrificing the potential benefits of an enormous dataset?

Is this a positive, proactive, fanatic activism? Or surrender to an uncritical consumption?

BOOMBOX from Ely Kim on Vimeo.

Consider the case of YouTube, where thousands of people have been recently burned by spurious copyright claims. Every day YouTube users create and upload videos like the one above that incidentally infringe one or more copyrights. Quite often the videos – again, like the one above – are disabled because of a DMCA takedown notice. If the email we receive at YouTomb is any indication, these users rarely intended to flaunt the law or make a stand for free culture. Rather, they come to us confused at being disciplined for behaving in a way that felt ethically appropriate.

When large copyright holding organizations attempt to withdraw from popular web services, as Warner Music Group has done with both Last.fm and YouTube, they can no longer paint the users of those services as pirates, outsiders, or radicals as they once did with Napster and now do with the Pirate Bay. Instead, their withdrawal brands them perverse, confused, and out of step with widely accepted social practice.

What implications might this reversal have for the free culture activist?

Do we want those YouTube users to familiarize themselves with the arcane constraints of copyright law and the numerous variations we’ve made available? Or should the users be left alone and the regulatory institutions be compelled to struggle with a set of laws and expectations ill-suited to contemporary media ethics?

Imagine a free culture pro-activism that consistently supports, encourages, defends, and extends the everyday practices of users of services like Last.fm and YouTube. What might we gain through such radical participation?

From the good folks at Public Knowledge:

Hollywood’s lobbyists are running all over the Hill to sneak in a copyright filtering provision into the stimulus package. The amendment allow ISPs to “deter” child pornography and copyright infringement through network management techniques. The amendment is very, very controversial for a couple of reasons:

1. First, infringement can’t be found through “network management” techniques. There are legal uses for copyrighted works even without permission of the owner.
2. Second, it would require Internet companies to examine every bit of information everyone puts on the Web in order to find those allegedly infringing works, without a hint of probable cause. That would be a massive invasion of privacy, done at the request of one industry, violating the rights of everyone who is online.

You don’t need me to explain how bad this is. What we need is for everyone to contact Congress and voice your dissent. Head over to Public Knowledge and help now!

I’ve been listening to the new Girl Talk album, and I must say that it is effing brilliant. For the uninitiated, Girl Talk is an engineer-turned-artist named Gregg Gillis who creates music by remixing samples of others’ songs without getting permission first. If you haven’t heard his stuff, stop what you’re doing right now and visit his MySpace page for a listen.

Girl Talk is claiming his creations fall under fair use, which defines exceptions to the exclusivity of copyright. If he didn’t invoke fair use, creating his album would have been prohibitively expensive at the very least. More likely, the barriers to entry would have kept him from ever creating it in the first place. And let me tell you, that would be a damn shame. As I probably don’t have to remind everyone, there’s something wrong when this kind of creativity could be illegal.

Fair use needs to protect creative artists, and it needs to protect transformative works.  Law should take into account social norms and the public interest; if people find this type of art to be valuable, then that should factor into related legal deliberations. Likewise, Students for Free Culture should take a strong stand on fair use. We should discuss what areas of fair use are important to advocate for. We should think about raising hell if Girl Talk gets hit with a lawsuit.

UPDATE: Parker Higgins notes that Girl Talk was in the NY Times on Wednesday.

Well, crap, guys. How did we let this one slip by?

HR 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act just passed Congress and is expected to be signed into law very soon.

Inside the bill is the Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention act, a provision which requires colleges to subscribe to RIAA-approved services like the new Napster and to install software on the network which monitors and interrupt transfers which they decide they don’t like. This is a mandate for a non-neutral internet on college campuses. Students are being targeted by a cooperation between the government and the intellectual property industry to spy on us, filter our internet and the resources of our schools by spending our tuition costs on their DRM’d service. And unfortunately, we let this slip under the radar.

For the full story about the passing is available on Ars Technica, who have done a better write up than I could do. I also wrote about this on my personal site just over one year ago. It seems the bill has been watered down slightly from the original amendment, but the effect is the same.

But where was the opposition from Free Culture? I’m not trying to blame anyone but myself, but I think that we must develop a way to constantly monitor and publicly oppose this type of legislation. Otherwise, what is the point of our organization if we continue to allow things like this to happen?! We’re going to be an absolute laughing stock if we have silly events which celebrate the death of DRM when we don’t make a sound about federal legislation which requires all of our schools to purchase products which use it. There was only one blog post about the bill, 8 months ago. Not a peep since then, no page on the front page about pending legislation. So I can’t say that we missed this entirely, but a single blog post doesn’t affect anything outside of our own community, which is where the problem lies. It isn’t working because it isn’t enough.

So what are we supposed to do in the meantime?

First, I think we should develop a page (perhaps on the wiki?) and a squad to monitor the progress of legislation which could be a threat to us.

Second, we should be supporting Lawrence Lessig’s Change-Congress Movement which will stop corporations from having so much influence over Congressmen. Particularly Democratic congressmen from California.

Third, I would personally recommend that any student should be using secure protocols for all of their data transfers to prevent their being snooped on and tampered with. One such upcoming protocol is Anomos, a secure and anonymous multi-peer-to-peer file distribution platform. I’m a lead developer on this project and I will write a post on this blog about it once our alpha release candidate is announced.

Does anybody else have any ideas about steps we can take from things like this going unnoticed again? Let’s gets some discussion going in the comments.

Rich, Boston University Free Culture

Students for Free Culture is co-sponsoring the 2008 Sparky Awards, which asks people to make a short video to illustrate the value of information sharing. The first place winner will get a Sparky statuette and $1,000, and there will be some nifty prizes for the runners-up as well. The official list of judges isn’t up yet, but Rich Jones from our Boston University chapter will be one of the judges, and hopefully our chapter members will create some fabulous entries! The winners from last year were pretty excellent (personally I’m partial to “Pri Vetai: Private Eye”), and I’m looking forward to seeing more creative videos about the importance of open access to information Just make sure to get your entry in by the deadline of November 30th, 2008!

If you want to help promote the video contest, you can find some useful materials in the downloads section on the Sparky Awards site, or you could share this promotional video that I threw together:

If you want to download the promo video, you can try grabbing the Ogg Theora version or mp4. Enjoy!

The House passed H.R. 4279 (PRO-IP Act) yesterday, which, among other things, would create the “Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative” under the Executive Office of the President.  It also increases the amount of resources and personnel related to CHIP (Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property) enforcement.

Read a summary here

See the full text here (PDF)

The EFF has this to say about the legislation (House Passes Controversial PRO IP Act):

“The most outrageous provisions would create new and unnecessary federal bureaucracies devoted to intellectual property enforcement. None seems more ridiculous than language creating a Cabinet-level “IP enforcement czar” that would report to the President and coordinate enforcement efforts across government, a proposal that has been loudly opposed by the Department of Justice.”

In a time when many public University systems are facing huge budget deficits (for example, the University of California faces a $400 million deficit), is creating a new layer of federal IP enforcement a useful allocation of funds?  Especially when the proposed legislation has been criticized by the very people it directs.  Rather than using funds to relieve financial stress in education, or any other strained public service, the 110th Congress has chosen to help organizations like the RIAA and MPAA fortify their own warped IP ideologies.

Stay tuned for more updates and analyses.

I read a Slashdot article a few moments ago that links to an NYTimes blog post by David Pogue discussing in stark terms a gap in how college students see copyright law when compared to the author. The discussion on the post is marvelous; one commenter brings up John Tehranian’s recent paper, “Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap” (PDF). This paper assesses the daily legal liability of everyday actions of a hypothetical law professor:

All told, he has committed at least eighty-three acts of infringement and faces liability in the amount of $12.45 million (to say nothing of potential criminal charges). There is nothing particularly extraordinary about John’s activities.

The sharp commenter continues:

The point is that copyright law is way behind what is the norm in actual day-to-day life, and part of it is that “fair use” is not part of the law, it’s part of case law, which is far behind practice.

Pogue at the New York Times illustrates what we have long hoped: Many students already believe in some of the things Students for Free Culture does. We want a culture “where all members are free to participate in its transmission and evolution, without artificial limits on who can participate or in what way.” I personally think that the best way to pull people into the future of a culture based on sharing is not to simply take without asking, as in the “download a DVD without permission” example, but to both (1) make people understand the value of sharing their work, and (2) supporting those that do, like the growing numbers of people sharing their creative work under permissive licenses; many of our chapters agree.

We have dozens of active chapters today. Somehow the work we have done has often seemed distant or academic, perhaps deservedly so. But sometimes we’ve made our points in brutally obvious ways, from classic projects like Barbie in a Blender or Cereal Solidarity to newer projects like the Day of Action for Open Access to scholarly literature. Unified by a vision of sharing and openness, our students fight for their own rights to share their own work, argue that their universities and colleges could share more with the world, and explain why more access to knowledge and culture would be good public policy.

On more personal notes:

To all who have participated in chapters of Students for Free Culture, or worked with us on events, or helped organize other chapters (like me, our humble web team leader): Thanks. It’s refreshing to see our active members range from the pre-historic Nelson, whose first Free Culture chapter was founded before the name “Free Culture” described us, all the way to people like Tim who started his chapter this calendar year. I’m personally proud that we’re continuing the tradition of drawing from a broad group of students: filmmakers, technologists, law students, and artists, just to name a few labels.

To Downhill Battle: I miss your inspiring work and your amazing name.

To Jesus: Happy Birthday today (observed).

Free Culture.org is joining the call for a chain-wide boycott of Regal Cinemas over their draconian punishment of a 19 year-old girl caught taping 20 seconds of the Transformers film. We demand that Regal Cinemas drop all charges against Jhannet Sejas, and that the entertainment group issue a full apology to the teen.

From a recent Washington Post article on Jhannet’s arrest:

“I was terrified,” said Sejas, her voice breaking. “I was crying. I’ve never been in trouble before.” She said the assistant manager of the theater saw her holding up the Canon Power Shot and reported it to the general manager, who called police.

Sejas said she had no intention of selling the 20-second film clip. She just wanted to show it to her 13-year-old brother, who had said he wanted to see the movie. She was shocked when the officers showed up.

Sejas faces up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 when she goes to trial this month in the July 17 incident. Arlington police spokesman John Lisle said it was the decision of Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 to prosecute the case, a first for Arlington police.

While the question of whether or not Jhannet’s Transformers clip counts as fair use (it is our opinion that it does, as it is private, non-commercial use of an unsubstantial portion of the original), there is another question we should be asking, and that is whether or not we should be patronizing a corporation that insists on pressing charges against someone who is clearly not the intended target of anti-piracy laws. Regal Cinemas should be ashamed of itself and its silly zero-tolerance policy.

Click here to Digg the story and help publicize our Boycott!

Click here for a page where you can find Regal Cinemas in your area.

We wish Jhannet the best of luck in defending herself against Regal Cinemas and hope that the chain will soon realize how inappropriate its actions were.

NBC recently filed comments for the FCC recommending that ISPs be required to screen all the traffic passing over their network for copyright infringement. The social and economic costs of such a system would be enormous, and that’s on top of the concerns of technical feasibility!

Last week, FreeCulture.org signed a response statement along with Consumer Federation of America, EDUCAUSE, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Free Press, Knowledge Ecology International, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, Public Knowledge, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

NBC Universal (“NBC”) has asked the Commission to require that broadband providers “use readily available means to prevent the use of their broadband networks to transfer pirated content.” While we agree that there are appropriate ways to discourage copyright infringement on the Internet, NBC’s call to require that broadband providers use “bandwidth management tools” to effect this end is misguided. Any attempt to use this technology to control what may be done on the Internet will have serious unintended consequences. Particularly, these technologies limit First Amendment freedoms, stifle innovation, threaten personal privacy, and do little to address the underlying problem. Additionally, NBC’s proposal invites the FCC to exceed its jurisdiction.

You can read the full comments on Public Knowledge’s site or as a PDF.

Also check out NBC‘s original comments (PDF link) for a good laugh, and Public Knowledge’s coverage and commentary.

Freeculture.org is pleased to announce the contest winners for our Down With DRM video contest. We had a lot of great entries, and want to thank *all* of the participants for their submissions. They’ve all contributed greatly to raising awareness in the fight against DRM.

And the winners are (in no particular order):

The winners will all receive a Neuros OSD digital video recorder. Thanks again to Neuros for providing our wonderful prize and to Defective By Design for the support!

So check out the videos, rate them, and send them to your friends to help put an end to DRM.