I didn't mention in my earlier post on the Patent Troll Tracker, but its author(s) remain(s) anonymous link here. A well-known patent attorney on the other side of the troll issue has offered a $5000 reward for the Tracker's identity and recently raised it to $10,000. The Tracker is clearly having some success in getting under the Troll's skin. But legally, as Techdirt's Mike Masnick points out, the Tracker has a legal right to remain anonymous. It undoubtedly makes his research easier.

NYTimes writer ERIC PFANNER reviews the growth of restrictions to protect copyrighted material in several European countries link here. He starts with the involvement of French President Sarkozy.

"Last month Mr. Sarkozy outlined an aggressive proposal to crack down on Internet piracy of music and movies. Under the plan drawn up by a government-commissioned panel, Internet service providers have put aside their objections to cooperating with copyright owners in the fight against illegal file sharing."

"If legislation to enact the plan is approved, the service providers will work with a new, independent authority to identify pirates and warn them to stop. People who ignore the warnings can face suspension, and eventually termination, of their Internet accounts."

"In return for persuading the service providers to crack down, French media owners agreed to remove some of the digital strings they have typically attached to their works. That could allow service providers to enhance their digital music stores and other online content offerings, generating more revenue from them."

Pretty clearly, the ISP's are going to be under growing pressure to fight piracy, including perhaps the use of filters and the monitoring of heavy traffic. France is not alone, as similar pressure has been growing in Britain, Sweden, and Belgium, according the Pfanner.

As far as I can see, there seems to be no disposition to question the whole basis of copyright as inhibiting innovation rather than promoting it. Or to realize that performers and companies can change their business model to prosper without depending on copyright.

Chen Shoufu, an innovative Chinese computer scientist, was jailed August 16 in Beijing for violating the copyright of China's leading instant-messenging service, Tencent Holdings Ltd., owner of the popular QQ program. Mr. Chen's program Coral QQ made QQ more user friendly by blocking ads, resolving internet addresses, and identifying the computer from which a message is sent at no charge. (Tencent charges for the ID service.) He had previously paid a 100,000 yuan fine, about $13,600. Here is the article in the Wall Street Journal.

He has become a hero in China, the second largest internet market. One blogger decried Tencent for "bullying Chinese users by monopolizing the market."

This is yet another chilling example in a long list of violations of the liberty of people to use their property in non-invasive and very often innovative ways that ironically could improve the lives of their prosecutors, as well as countless other people.

Historians and analysts of the monopoly formerly known as intellectual property, who are critical of patent and copyright, usually emphasize the drag on innovation caused by these monopolies. Here is another reminder that the assault on liberty and property, rightly understood, is every bit as detrimental to the progress of society.

It's vitally important that critics of intellectual monopoly make this case in their briefs and remonstrations.

While this story is by no means over, it seems to suggest a bit of blue sky is about to open for those opposing the RIAA demands for rich compensation from those convicted of music piracy. In the case of UMG v. Lindor, the defendant argues that the penalty allowed under the law is excessive, $750 a song, unconstitutionally far exceeds the actual value of what was stolen which she argues is about 70 cents a song. The judge has ordered the plaintiffs to report their actual expenses incurred and they have responded that they can't except at great expense. Eric Bangeman offers a good discussion of the legal issues involved link here.

I suppose that if the per-song penalty is set low enough, the RIAA and its members will not have much of an incentive to sue it would cost too much. But that is probably why the final outcome will depend on the result of appeals.

Iain Thomson at IENews tells us that Canadian ISP Hushmail has been giving the private keys to the DEA when their clients think they are sending PGP encrypted messages link here (hat tip to Zonk at Slashdot). The revelation occurred in a court case involving drug smuggling.

One must assume that other ISP's are doing the same thing and the idea that BitTorrent messages, often used in the exchange of copyrighted videos and music can be made secure is simply wrong. I had suggested otherwise link here. Mea culpa.

RANDALL STROSS at the NYTimes reports big retailers like Wal-Mart are claiming that their pricing is trade marked, although the courts have already ruled that it is not link here. Still Wal-Mart has threatened to sue a small blogger who posts Black Friday prices to help consumers make rational choices ahead of the big pre-Christmas sale-day. He has removed the store's data from his site as he doesn't have the money to fight in court. But there are plenty of other sites that will post them. And some retailers like Best Buy apparently think the site is valuable free advertising.

Can we find a way to stop the use of illegal charges to start suits designed only to intimidate?

School children and the Los Angeles-area Boy Scouts are now being indoctrinated (or maybe brainwashed is a better term) in the ABCs of copyright law.

Here is the article, which appears in the Nov. 26 issue of Forbes. Wendy Seltzer, a law professor, charges that they are being taught an overly broad system of copyright. Well, would you expect anything else?

Of course, it might be moot if they don't learn to read and write, which is a real possibility in this day and age.

kdawson link here sends you to Declan McCullagh for the details of a draft law that would take federal financial aid away from universities if they fail to adopt a "technological solution to stop illegal file sharing." Behind the law is the Motion Picture Association of America which is mainly concerned with the loss of revenue from copies of motion pictures link here.

This is the second case in which offended industries have sought to make the government responsible for enforcing their intellectual property rights. We reported only yesterday that the RIAA was promoting to make the Justice Department responsible for finding and punishing internet violators of copyright.

This measure is buried in a 747-page spending and financial aid bill which you can peruse on line link here.

Peter Edidin at the New York Times writes that J K Rowling sued the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark, causing it to suspend printing while a court determines whether her copyright has been violated link here. The copyright is now apparently held by Warner Brothers, the Potter film maker, so it is not clear to me who is suing whom. In any case, the lexicon (a collection of words that make up the vocabulary of the books) started as a user-contributed website. Grounds asserted are that it "borrows too heavily" from the books and interferes with Rowling's plan to publish her "encyclopedia on the wizarding world." Rowling apparently said on her website that she took "no pleasure" in preventing publication.

But she will profit. This isn't going to end soon because there are fair use questions galore. And two beneficiaries, if we count Warner. Well, the court may decide in time for next year's Christmas sales.

In the meantime, Potter lexicon seekers will have to be content with online version link here.

Nate Anderson tells us that the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act, also known more colloquially as the Pirate Act, is back under consideration in the Senate link here. At its base is the attempt to get the Feds at the Justice Department to enforce intellectual property law, taking the onus and the cost off the business owning the IP. For example, the RIAA has been having trouble identifying the culprit who transfers copyrighted material on P2P links, much less getting evidence sufficient to convict. Given the power of the FBI, the Feds will no doubt do better, particularly since the government is already reading all our email. In addition, the law gives Justice the power to pursue cases as either criminal or civil, an advantage to IP owners as civil law requires a lower level of evidence to convict.

Consider writing your Senators.