It is highly doubtful that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will accept this scheme without resistance. The enforcement of the monthly levy will see many angry internet subscribers, especially those who do not download music at all but who nonetheless have to pay for the service. Furthermore, the proposal requires that the distribution of the collected monies to each musician be based on the amount of downloads of that particular musician. ISPs will thus be required to engage in the costly activity of policing customer downloads closely. If that is not deterrent enough, the possible privacy issues that will result from such policing will likely further discourage ISPs from accepting the SAC proposal.

The proposition seems to be a ‘band-aid’ solution to a complex issue. The main benefit of the scheme would be that those who have been engaging in peer-to-peer downloading will be able to do so without having the stigma of ‘illegality’ attached to their activities. However, the proposal fails to address the after-effects of its implementation. While SAC seems to be speaking on behalf of creator rights, it does not discuss the possibility that songwriters and musicians will have to “give up their long-established right to approve or disapprove of the use and means of dissemination of the work” leaving them only with the “right to be paid for peer-to-peer downloads.”[1] Furthermore, aside from imposing a heavy burden upon ISPs, there is also no indication that levies on CDs will be lifted, resulting in multiple tariffs on consumers.

The efforts by SAC should be commended, since it accepts the reality that peer-to-peer file sharing is here to stay and attempts to balance the phenomenon with creators’ rights. However, while it is refreshing to see some overdue lobbying for creator rights, the proposal seems under-developed at this stage.

��

The post Some Share the Files, All Share the Costs appeared first on IPOsgoode.

While the article will undoubtedly raise issues of national security, it
should give individuals who have an online presence, particularly Facebook
subscribers, another cause for concern. The report is testimony to the
fact that nothing on the Internet is truly and absolutely private,
especially on Facebook. It highlights the ever-growing but under-tackled
tension between technological development, intellectual property, and
privacy rights.

There is an unquestionable relationship between protecting IP and
protecting privacy; both involve a common desire to control distribution
of information. Friction can result if and when the party wishing to
control the IP in a subject matter is separate from the party desiring to
protect his/her privacy rights. In this case, while the border agents may
have wanted to keep their pictures and comments private, their posting of
the material on Facebook licensed to other parties the ability to control
that material – parties who most likely do not have the agents' privacy
interests in mind.

By accepting the mandatory terms and conditions when signing up, millions
have given Facebook a far-reaching license over their IP, including
comments, pictures, phone numbers, addresses, and birthdates. For those
who want to control their information so as to better maintain their
privacy, this is likely not an ideal situation.

The extent of the license is frightening, where users grant Facebook
rights that closely mirrors absolute ownership. To illustrate through its
terms of use, the company has reserved the "irrevocable, non-exclusive,
transferable, fully paid, worldwide license " to share information in any
format with other companies and agencies, and can reveal personal
information if it is in Facebook's interest to do so. Even more terrifying
is that it can also grant and authorize sublicenses of the same rights!
Such licensing illustrates the tension between IP rights and the right to
privacy; the very individual who wants to protect her privacy no longer
has exclusive control in the information she wants kept private.

What can users do to avoid such a situation? More realistically, can users
do anything to avoid it? The unfortunate truth is that unless one
completely avoids social networking sites such as Facebook, one has no
option but to agree to its terms.

The common argument is that users have made the choice to accept all terms
imposed by Facebook, despite having had the option not to. I don't quite
agree. Facebook has carved a niche for itself as the ultimate social
networking tool. And while it is usually associated with personal use,
businesses are also wanting in. For example, corporate recruiters have
"begun to utilize the facebook.com to perform the equivalent of a
" on applicants. Whether or not such monitoring is
ethical, an online presence is becoming increasingly important and
advantageous in a technology-driven society and while joining may be a
choice, choosing not to may be detrimental to one's interest.

One solution would be to do away with standardized terms and allow
individuals to partake in contract negotiation. Currently, individuals
have no say in which rights are licensed, and are involved in a
relationship where the bargaining power between themselves and Facebook is
grossly unequal. The individual can either accept the terms as they are,
or be excluded from the social networking community, while Facebook loses
nothing if the odd individual decides not to join. While ideal, increased
bargaining power and user control over the nature of the license would not
be feasible, taking into consideration the sheer number of users
registered on the site.

Another suggestion is that individuals who wish to use Facebook should be
more aware of the terms and conditions of use before accepting them.
However, the average user cannot be expected to read and understand the
highly technical and legal language found in these terms.

Individuals should keep these issues in mind and be conscious of the fact
that that nothing is truly private in cyberspace; one's online presence is
out there for the world to access. In an era where technological
advancement is blurring the line between public and private, and where
solutions are yet to be found, it is advisable for individuals to be more
responsible with what they divulge online. As the CBC story shows, what
happens on Facebook does not necessarily stay on Facebook.

The post Save Face or Facebook? Why You May Want to Think Twice Before Posting Private Information Online. appeared first on IPOsgoode.