Here's an excerpt:

Briefly, Jammie Thomas was the defendant in the first case where an RIAA filesharing infringement suit actually went to a jury—despite RIAA's best efforts to avoid that happening. Thomas seemed like a sympathetic defendant: Single mother, Native American. But her IP address was attached to a KaZaA account offering more than 1,700 recordings with a user name she'd apparently used for years on several different accounts…and shortly after receiving a settlement letter from RIAA, Thomas had Best Buy replace the hard drive in her PC. And, under questioning, said it had been replaced a year earlier. To make a long story short—up to October 2007, at least—the jury found her guilty, not surprising given the evidence in the case. The judgment was for $220,000. She appealed the decision, in part based on a claimed flaw in the jury instructions. That's where things stood at the time of the earlier article.

Court activities can sometimes seem to be in very slow motion. Most of this article brings things up to date on the Thomas case—and, so you're not too surprised, it's not over yet. (There's other stuff about RIAA and copyright at the end of the article—but the Jammie Thomas saga is fascinating.)

Here's an excerpt:

The transfer of scientific data has emerged as a significant challenge, as datasets continue to grow in size and demand for open access sharing increases. Current methods for file transfer do not scale well for large files and can cause long transfer times. In this study we present BioTorrents, a website that allows open access sharing of scientific data and uses the popular BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing technology. BioTorrents allows files to be transferred rapidly due to the sharing of bandwidth across multiple institutions and provides more reliable file transfers due to the built-in error checking of the file sharing technology. BioTorrents contains multiple features, including keyword searching, category browsing, RSS feeds, torrent comments, and a discussion forum. BioTorrents is available at http://www.biotorrents.net.

Here's an excerpt from the ruling:

After long and careful deliberation, the Court grants in part and denies in part Thomas-Rasset's motion and remits the damages award to $2,250 per song—three times the statutory minimum. The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.

The Court has labored to fashion a reasonable limit on statutory damages awards against noncommercial individuals who illegally download and upload music such that the award of statutory damages does not veer into the realm of gross injustice. Finding a precise dollar amount that delineates the border between the jury's wide discretion to calculate its own number to address Thomas-Rasset's willful violations, Plaintiffs' far-reaching, but nebulous damages, and the need to deter online piracy in general and the outrageousness of a $2 million verdict is a considerable task. The Court concludes that setting the limit at three times the minimum statutory damages amount in this case is the most reasoned solution.

This award constitutes the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award to both compensate Plaintiffs and address the deterrence aspect of the Copyright Act. This reduced award is significant and harsh. It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its sole discretion, but the decision was not entrusted to this Court. It was the jury's province to determine the award of statutory damages and this Court has merely reduced that award to the maximum amount that is no longer monstrous and shocking. Plaintiffs have seven days from the date of this Order to decide whether to accept the remittitur or request a new trial on the issue of damages.

The Court denies Thomas-Rasset's motion for a new trial based on the admission of evidence collected by MediaSentry. It further denies her motion for a new trial based on Plaintiffs' failure to produce certified copies of the sound recordings deposited with the Copyright Office.

Finally, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request to amend the Judgment to include a permanent injunction.

Read more about it at "Court Reduces 'Shocking' File Sharing Award" and "Judge Slashes RIAA's $1.92 Million Fine against Minnesota Mom."

Read more about it at "DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 per Song Unconstitutional or Oppressive," "Justice Department Defends Massive File-Swapping Fine," and "US Govt Says $1.92M P2P Damage Award Totally Fair."

Read more about it at "Ireland's Largest ISP to Start 'Throttling' Illegal Downloaders," "Ireland’s Largest ISP Starts Throttling and Disconnections," "Recording Industry Sues More Irish ISPs for Not Implementing 3 Strikes."

Read more about it at "France Ignores EU and Passes Antipiracy Law" and "France Set for Showdown with EU after Passing 3 Strikes Law."

Here's an excerpt from Marc Rotenberg's testimony (Rotenberg is the Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center):

In the consideration of this bill, it is important to understand that P2P programs are used for a wide variety of function from the sharing of music to Internet-based telephony as well as scientific research. Even the military makes use of P2P networks. The technique is also important in countries where Internet censorship is a threat.

In the most generic sense, a P2P network is a technical description, much like saying a telephone network or the Internet. It is no intrinsic application, other than architecture that allows nodes to exchange information equally with other nodes in the network. Some Internet scholars have observed that this architecture reflects the collaboration among individuals that has helped spur the growth of the Internet. Professor Yochai Benkler refers to this as "Commons Based Peer Production."

No doubt part of the bill aims to discourage the use of file sharing techniques that may infringe copyright as well as making users vulnerable to certain types of inadvertent file sharing. But there is some risk that the bill would also discourage the use of file sharing techniques that do not raise such concerns. More generally, it appears to be posting a warning sign on a very wide variety of applications that most likely have little to do with the sponsor’s concern.

Read more about it at "H.R. 1319 Wants You to Know When You're Sharing Files, but Will Drown You in Pop-Ups" and "P2P Bill Could Regulate Web Browsers, FTP Clients."

Read more about it at "Net Service Providers Now Can 'Strike Out' Pirating Surfers" and "Taiwan Boosts Intellectual Property Protection."

New Zealand has recently decided not to enact a "three-strikes" law, and will rewrite it. Recent enactment of a new Swedish law that requires ISPs to reveal the identity of potential violators has resulted in Internet traffic in that country dropping by a third. The EFF has recently debunked reports that some U.S. ISPs, prodded by the RIAA, would disconnect U.S. violators; however, Wired has reported that the MPAA is now in negotiations with ISPs regarding disconnection.

Read more about it at "France Approves Main Section of Tough Anti-P2P Bill," "French Pass 'Three Strikes,' File-Sharing Law: Oh Merde" and "French '3 Strikes' Law Passes 2nd Reading."

Read more about it at "RIAA Gets Tennessee Law to Force Universities to Filter Networks for Copyrighted Content"; "RIAA Wins, Campuses Lose as Tennessee Governor Signs Campus Network Filtering Law"; and "Tennessee Anti-P2P Law to Cost Colleges over $13 Million."

The judge also commented on the disproportionate size of the awarded damages ($222,000 for 24 songs):

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

Read more about it at "Capitol v. Thomas: Judge Orders New Trial, Implores Congress to Lower Statutory Penalties for P2P"; "Judge Declares Mistrial in RIAA-Jammie Thomas Trial"; and "Thomas Verdict Overturned, Making Available Theory Rejected."

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Part of EFF's "Test your ISP" project, Switzerland is an open source, command-line software tool designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data by ISPs. Switzerland detects changes made by software tools believed to be in use by ISPs such as Sandvine and AudibleMagic, advertising systems like FairEagle, and various censorship systems. Although currently intended for use by technically sophisticated Internet users, development plans aim to make the tool increasingly easy to use.

Read more about it at "College Funding Bill Passed with Anti-P2P Provisions Intact" and "Mixed Reviews for Illegal File-Sharing on Campus."

On July 30, 2008, EDUCAUSE issued a letter about the revised copyright provisions of the bill.

Here's an excerpt from that letter:

Section 493 (also below) is the result of much tug-and-pull over the last few months. In the end, it will require every college and university to certify that it "(A) has developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents; and (B) will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution."

The language of (A) represents a weaker requirement on colleges than had been discussed in some previous proposals. In particular, the Report language makes clear (see below) that technological deterrents "include bandwidth shaping, traffic monitoring to identify the largest bandwidth users, a vigorous program of accepting and responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices, and a variety of commercial products designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing." Further, the Report states that the bill is to be considered technology neutral. It should be up to the institution to determine its policy and corresponding technology, which can include policies that prohibit the monitoring of content.

The language of (B) is stronger than in the previous version, in that it requires that institutions certify that they "will . . . offer alternatives" instead of simply requiring plans for them. There is considerable flexibility, however, in that the institutions must interpret the "to the extent practicable" qualifier in the context of their own situation. Moreover, access to legal alternative services may be accomplished in a growing number of ways, including institutionally provided on-campus services, providing links to a variety of commercial services, and other procedures, as indicated in the Report language. "The Conferees recognize that there is a broad range of possibilities that exist for institutions to consider in developing plans for purposes of complying with this Section."

Read more about it at "Congress Tackles the Higher Ed Act" and "EDUCAUSE Comments on the File Sharing Provisions in the HEA."

Here's an excerpt from the BPI press release:

UK record labels' association BPI today reached a groundbreaking agreement with major internet service providers (ISPs) and government on measures to help significantly reduce illegal filesharing.

Following negotiations facilitated by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), BPI on behalf of hundreds of UK record companies big and small has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the UK's six largest internet service providers. The Motion Pictures Association of America and BERR have also signed.

The MOU places joint commitments on the signatories to continue developing consumer education programmes and legal online services. Most importantly, for the first time ISPs will be required to work with music and other rightsholders towards a "significant reduction" in illegal filesharing.

To achieve this, in the first year hundreds of thousands of informative letters will be sent by participating ISPs to customers whose accounts have been identified by BPI as being used illegally. In addition, under the auspices of Ofcom, the signatories will work together to identify effective mechanisms to deal with repeat offenders.

Alongside the MOU, BERR has today published a consultation on proposed new legislation requiring ISPs to deal effectively with illegal filesharing. It is anticipated that the outcome of this consultation will provide a co-regulatory backdrop to the MOU.

Read more about it at: "ISPs to Send 'Hundreds of Thousands' of File-Sharing Warnings"; "ISPs Yet to Decide on File-Sharer Punishment"; "Online Crackdown: What You Need to Know"; "'This Is Not Three Strikes and You're Out. It Is a Letter'"; and "Transcript from BPI Call with Journalists This Morning."