After the Australian government announced its plan to filter the online media, the US ambassador in the country said the move can infringe the freedom of speech, adding that there are more effective ways to deal with child pornography and other insidious materials.

Some countries and organizations, including Internet giants Yahoo and Google, have also criticized Australia over its plan to use online filters.

US ambassador Jeff Bleich said he is discussing with the Australian government to come up with a “better way to deal with the problems brought by the media”.

According to a previous interview, Bleich said the Internet media should be free as this is shared by people around the world.

“The online media needs to be shared as it serves as a source for all the people.  This means that it should be free, the way the skies have to be free…the way the oceans have to be free”, the ambassador added.

Meanwhile, search engine giant Google has criticized the plan to filter the online media saying that this move is “too wide and well beyond” compared to the rules that are used by some countries including UK, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Canada.

According to reports, the Australian government is drafting a legislation that would block online materials related to bestiality, sex abuse with children, rape, and drug use.  If passed into law, the Internet service providers will administer the rules.

Because of the government’s stance in the digital media, Reporters Without Borders, an international group of journalists, has included Australia in the lists of countries considered as “Internet Enemies”.  Russia, Turkey, and South Korea were also included in the list.

United Kingdom: A watchdog said that copyright holders should seek a court order first before conducting activities to obtain the personal information of illegal file-sharers.  This warning came after several indie filmmakers have filed copyright infringement lawsuit against thousands of people who allegedly downloaded illegal files.

Ofcom, an independent regulator for communication industries, said the legal proceeding should be followed to address the Internet piracy.

“The transfer of personal information and details should come from a court order.  This is to protect the rights of online users when it comes to privacy laws”, the group said in a statement.

Last week, the government has passed a law called the Digital Economy Act which prohibits online activities that can breach the copyrights and punish companies and individuals who will commit Internet piracy.

Under the new law, Internet service providers (ISPs) are also required to immediately inform users about the allegations of illegal file-sharing, allowing them to challenge the accusation or settle the case with the copyright holders.

In a statement, the group said that “people should be provided with sufficient notification to challenge the accusation linking them to copyright infringement and should enjoy an access to effective appeal mechanism.”

The measure, which is implemented by Ofcom, also requires the group to produce a quarterly report showing the rate of illegal file-sharing activities in UK.

If the measure will fail to reduce the Internet piracy in the country by at least 75 percent this year, the government will allow ISPs to implement technical measures such as throttling Bittorrent data, slowing down the connection speeds, and impose Internet bans against illegal file-sharers.

Several BitTorrent users complained of receiving a new malware scam that has accused them of copyright infringement, forcing them to settle the case by paying $400 through their online bank account.

According to reports, the malware has posed a message “Warning! Pirated content was detected on your PC.  You are seriously violating copyright” before opening a web page which was purportedly managed by a Swiss company.

The message also included the phrase “Copyright fund has received report and has started an investigation.  You’ll receive subpoena in a week”.  Meanwhile, the scam has posted names of some government agencies and private groups including RIAA, MPAA, Copyright Alliance, and FBI Anti-Piracy Warning.

According to reports, the website was ran by a fake company which called itself ICCP Foundation claiming that it was backed by groups fighting for the copyrights of the recording industry and producers.

In a report by TorrentFreak, the “malware works by scanning a user’s hard drive for any torrent files and displays these as an evidence of copyright infringement.”

To force users in paying the “settlement” for the infringement, the scam threatens them of possible imprisonment if they will not able to settle the one-time payment of $400 through their credit card.

Some analysts said the new malware scam has been designed to capitalize on the issues involving the record industry and its lawsuits against thousands of downloaders who allegedly committed copyright infringement.

The analysts also said the scam works like a money-making malware and the Koobface worm, a computer virus which attacked countless of Facebook accounts last year.  They also warned online users from any threats that ask them to reveal their credit card numbers and ask for certain payments.

Columbia, South Carolina: An appellate court said the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no authority to order cable operator Comcast to stop throttling Bittorrent, a program that allows fast transfer of movie and music files.

With the new court decision, FCC’s ruling in 2008 which forced Comcast to stop its network management efforts against Bittorrent and other peer-to-peer applications users is considered illegal.

According to the ruling, Judge David Tatel said that FCC has no “mandated responsibility to enforce rules regarding the issue of network neutrality in the country.”

When asked about the issue, FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard said the agency “will still move forward to create net neutrality regulations and other new efforts that will address the problems brought by the digital era.”

In a statement, Howard said the “court has invalidated the agency’s approach in preserving an open and free Internet.”

In 2008, FCC has enforced a set of net neutrality rules that will prevent Comcast from slowing and throttling Bittorrent traffic for users.  According to reports, the agency’s action was based on the complaint filed by digital rights group Public Knowledge against Comcast’s Bittorrent throttling.

The cable company first denied the reports saying that it was throttling the peer-to-peer traffic but later admitted it citing reasons that such program creates network congestion.

Comcast also claimed that it wanted to protect its customers from web traffic congestion allegedly created by Bittorrent.

Meanwhile, some digital rights groups believe that the appellate court ruling will have an impact on how FCC manages and deals issues involving consumer privacy and broadband deployment.

“Because of the court decision, there are no laws that will protect consumers on broadband services”, Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn said.

A group of independent film makers has recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against thousands of Bittorrent users who have allegedly downloaded movie files from unlicensed websites.

In an interview, Thomas Dunlap, the legal representative of the group, said that everybody with Bittorrent, a computer program that allows users to easily download large files from the Internet, is liable for patent infringement because he or she is uploader and downloader of illegal files.

Thomas, who brought the case before the US Copyright Group, said that about 10,000 people are cited in the patent infringement suit.  Meanwhile, another 30,000 individuals are going to be included in the lawsuit within the next few months.

If all these litigations will take place, it will become the largest suit against file-sharers, even surpassing the number of lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) which has charged about 30,000 downloaders during the six-year litigation campaign.

Meanwhile, Dunlap said that at least 15 individuals have settled the suit by paying an undisclosed sum of money.

According to previous reports, majority of the patent suits filed by RIAA has been settled out of court.

“I hope we will be successful just like what happened with the suits filed by RIAA”, Dunlap added.

Just recently, several courts have ordered the Internet service providers to give the identities of the alleged illegal file-sharers who have been identified by a peer-to-peer surveillance program.

When asked about the viability of the indie film makers’ legal action, Dunlap said that countless of people have already called them to settle the case out of court.

United Kingdom: The Teeside Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has recently junked the copyright lawsuit involving a teenager accused of illegally uploading music files to a file-sharing website, according to a media report.

With this decision, the recording industry has expressed disappointment and said that illegal file-sharing, especially those involving pre-release music, has a negative impact on the industry as it costs billions of dollars every year.

However, the recording industry said the CPS decision will not “hamper its action that aims to address the looming problem of illegal file-sharing activities.”

According to previous reports, Matthew Wyatt, 17, was charged with copyright infringement for allegedly downloading illegal music files online.

In September 2007, Wyatt claimed that six people, including police officers and members of the International Federal of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), conducted a raid in his family’s home.

The teenager was then accused of copyright infringement, a criminal offense that could put him behind bars up to 10 years if proven guilty.

In a previous statement, David Cook, Wyatt’s attorney, said that his client was not the “original uploader of any music files.”

“He [Wyatt] had found four music files in a publicly accessible online music site and moved these to Oink which is a popular file-sharing site”, Cook said during an interview.

In January, a copyright and fraud lawsuit against Oink founder Alan Ellis has been junked by a court.

Over the past several years, the music industry in UK has been lobbying a bill called Digital Economy that would throttle or cut off the Internet connection of users who download music files from unlicensed online sites.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said on Wednesday that they will file copyright violation charges against 20 Columbian nationals and hundreds of individuals nationwide over alleged illegal file-sharing activities over peer-to-peer networks.

In a letter sent by the RIAA on February 28 and March 21, some 805 file-sharers and 35 universities and colleges were asked to pay settlement amounting to the number of copyrighted materials and music files they have downloaded or shared using P2P file-sharing networks.
 
RIAA, which has been quiet for the past 15 months or so, said that the move was part of the campaign strategy to discourage university and college students from doing illegal activities on the Internet.

“This is a new process that we have put in place whereby students have the opportunity to settle the claims against them at substantially discounted sums before a lawsuit is ever filed,” RIAA spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen said in a statement over the agency’s website.

Based on a obtained copy of the letter, RIAA is informing the users that they must settle the amount immediately with the record labels they have neglected or they will be sued for copyright infringement. The letter also said that the amount being charged against the users were at “a substantial discount” and “timely fashion”.
 
She also said that some 116 out of the first 400 letter receivers have already settled the amount.

Meanwhile, Engebretsen refused to further comment on how much it will cost the students if they settle online.  But reports earlier told that the settlement amount could reach $3, 500 to $5, 000.

Verizon Communications on Monday said that they would continue to push for an Internet not being controlled by the Federal Communications Commission, saying that the online world would be better controlled by the companies providing the connection.

With the FCC Broadband Plan now in publication, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs Tom Tauke said that the publication of the Broadband Policy has sparked a new debate on whether the government agency should dictate how the Internet is being offered to the users.

He also questioned whether companies should be allowed to control the Internet, citing several privacy issues of the users.

“We thank the FCC for the National Broadband Plan, which they said that would lay out all the important vision of the government for a vibrant Internet marketplace. But in my own view, it is badly outdated and it is now time for us to focus on upgrading the law that affects all concerned stakeholders online,” Tuake said.

During his talk with Washington think tank New Democrat Network, he also highlighted the fact that the full potential of the broadband Internet could only be achieved if the Congress would take a look into new perspective in the communications policy of the country.

Verizon is now carefully and slowly connecting to audiences to make their efforts for a free Internet realized. Now, they are sending messages to their customers about their opposition for the bill.

Last week, Tauke has discussed the issue with several supporters of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying that if they rewrite the new telecoms law, the FCC would be taken out of the picture.

“We don’t want that to happen. What we want is for all the major players and other Internet stakeholders to have common ground on the issues of Internet neutrality in cases of behavioral advertising, privacy protection and policies that concerns millions of users,” he added.

The United States House of Representatives proposed a new bill seeking the ban for government employee’s use of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks at work or even accessing sensitive government documents at home.

Known as the Secure Federal File-Sharing Act, Democratic Representative Edolphus Towns of New York said that there is a growing sentiment among members of the House for the Office of Management and Budget to immediately enact the new legislation that would ban the use of P2P networks like Limewire and BitTorrent on government owned computers.

“We can not tolerate such actions by our employees and we can no longer ignore the massive threat to the sensitive government data and business establishments. Securing these data is critical to our national security,” Towns said.

The new bill would also require the OMB to make new guidelines and policies for thousands of federal employees, who telecommute or access government data on their personal PCs, to refrain from using file-sharing websites.

Rep. Towns, who is also the chairperson of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, said that the bill has already passed Congress with a landslide vote of 408 to 18.

The new bill has been pending decision in the House for quite some time now following hurdles requiring approvals and definitions of new policies by concerned government agencies.

The US Senate is also seen not that serious in passing the Secure Federal File Sharing Act since it is considering its own version of the bill called P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act.

The P2P Cyber Protection aims to protect people by requiring all Internet users to install sharing software that would alert them every time a P2P program is being introduced to their computers.

The new Digital Economy Bill, a law that would govern all the contents being shared over the Internet, is expected to push through the House of Lords in the coming days as general elections in the UK closes in.

With less than two months before the May 2010 general elections, the House of Lords is now expected to approve the version of the bill that would govern internet security, digital property, and files being shared over the World Wide Web.

After the expected approval, the bill will go over the House of Commons were it is expected to go to a final amendment under a six-stage process.

The bill aims to put tighter control over files being shared by online users through peer-to-peer networks. One of the provisions of the new legislation is to immediately cut Internet access of people identified as copyright infringers.

One of the lords, in an interview, said that they are expecting a debate over the said bill, saying that it was always been considered by many as a “bad bill.”

“It is a bad bill. It is bad for the rights holder as well as other people working in the industry for their rights to be press this way. There are always alternatives and it is a bad move for the government to risk alienation of a very significant part of the population by enforcing these measures,” the lord said.

He also cited that more than 75 percent of the UK population does not understand what is lawful and unlawful when it comes to file-sharing and copyright. He added that when they were told that these laws exist, most of the people immediately express opposition against the legislation.

It will be recalled that various human-rights organizations openly expressed disagreement over the new law, saying that it will also violate the rights of innocent people who were just using the Internet.

They said that hackers can easily use other people’s Internet access point to put the blame into unwitting victims. They also said that the Law does not identify whether it is the person or the entire family who will be cut off from the web if someone was found guilty of the violation.