In network theory, there is a concept called centrality which measures the importance of a node in any given network. This is calculated by the number of links a node has to neighbouring nodes, the shortest number of paths to other nodes in the network, and the average shortest path. A node is said to be central in a network if it is linked to a large number of other nodes, if it can be connected to other nodes quickly (the six degrees of separation phenomenon), and if the average distance to other nodes is short. When plotting charts describing networks, central nodes can be sometimes easily identified like in this chart, where blue indicates more central nodes:

Node and hub centrality is an important indication that there is a power law at work in a network, as high concentration of centrality in some nodes may give rise to a scale-free network, where some nodes are more important than others. The Internet is a scale-free network (here is where I plug my book if you want to read more about the subject, wink, wink), so centrality comes into play in two ways. There is the physical network, the wires, routers and hubs that make up its physical architecture, and then there is also a logical level of centrality. I would class the DNS system and Internet governance to be important aspects of the logical Internet. It should be no surprise to anyone to learn that any way you look at the Internet, the U.S. is extremely central. Take for example this picture of the global submarine cable network (from this excellent website):

This is just one aspect of the large dominance that the U.S. has in the Internet’s infrastructure. Things get even more interesting when you look at the logical architecture, where the U.S. has managed to remain considerably ahead of other countries. While anyone can become an Internet server by just installing web server software into any computer connected to the Web, you need a registrar if you want a domain name that resolves in the system (such as technollama.co.uk). Most top level domains are registered in the United States (.com, .org, .net, .biz), and statistics show that the U.S. is the country with the most domain names registered under its jurisdiction, with 78,453,258 as of last week.

Country-wise Domains Distribution: Domain Names by Country of Purchase

The closest second country is Germany with over six million. In fact, not even combining the rest of the countries can you reach the total of domains registered in the U.S. A similar picture emerges with regards to hosting, that is, where content is actually placed in a server. For example, while this blog’s domain name was registered by a UK provider, it is hosted by a U.S. company (and I assume that the content is actually held there). 9 out of the top 10 hosting companies are American, and  of these, the largest host in the world is GoDaddy (WildWestDomains in the chart). The end result is a skewed map of the world, where whatever happens in the United States affects the Internet disproportionately. Take what happened to Megaupload, while the company was registered in Hong Kong, and most of its operations ran from New Zealand, its .com domain was registered to an American company named DotRegistrar, based in Washington state. Similarly, the site had also hired some of its hosting services in the States, where at some point it had leased more than 1,000 servers to companies like Carpathia Hosting and Cogent Communications. This state of affairs opened up Megaupload to enforcement by American authorities, which is precisely what took place.

One does not need to know anything about networks to know that DNS registration and hosting are the Achilles heel of both pirating and legitimate sites. However, centrality has an important lesson to teach us with regards to the dangers of SOPA and PIPA in other ways. Imagine that most digital lockers, torrent trackers and other sites operating in the shadier side of the Web were to move shop and get out of the U.S. as fast as you can say “Conspiracy to Commit Racketeering“, but that the North American country retains its centrality in the Web’s architecture. This is precisely where SOPA wants to step in, as it would create several dispositions that would try to get to websites that are currently outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, namely, are registered and hosted elsewhere in the world. The most controversial norm in SOPA (of which there is talk of being removed), was contained in s102, which stated that:

“A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.”

This would have established a filtering responsibility for ISPs and other intermediaries against alleged copyright infringers. The problem with such a feature when introduced in such a central country is that it could perfectly trickle downstream to other physical and logical clients elsewhere, which would mean that SOPA would be used to filter content to all of us. There are already lots of national filtering systems enacted in countries around the world, but none of these is as central to the workings of the Net as the Land of the Free™. Seen from an architectural perspective, countries like China are large Intranets, which is why it was so easy for Egyptian authorities to shut down all Web access during that country’s revolution. The U.S has an entirely different role to the network, so anything that is filtered there could end up being filtered in places that have never heard of SOPA, be it justified or not. I cannot imagine that this is a bug and not a feature, some in the copyright industries seem determined to export this draconian model.

The optimist in me wants to believe that we have seen the last of SOPA and PIPA. Unfortunately, Megaupload proved that things are about to get bumpier. “Squad leaders, we’ve picked up a new group of signals. Enemy fighters coming your way.”

I am looking for superlatives to use in the case of Megaupload and I keep coming short. The site was huge, it accounted for 4% of Internet traffic and received an estimated 50 million visitors per day. It is said that it used up more bandwidth than Dropbox, the very popular and acceptable digital locker. Megaupload operated a free service, but what really seems to have played a big part in its demise is the fact that it was a mega business (be prepared for excessive use of the word Mega in these paragraphs), with income estimated at $150 million USD in subscription fees and $25 million USD from advertising. I will truly never understand people who pay subscription fees to services such as Megaupload, but do not pay for content, but I digress.

I do have to admit that with figures like these, it is very difficult to feel sympathy for Megaupload, or to think of its owners as some sort of anti-establishment heroes. In most occasions I have a large cache of sympathy and understanding towards other points of view, but in this occasion it has been shut tightly by reading that the owners of Megaupload collectively owned 14 Mercedes-Benz “with license plates such as “POLICE,” “MAFIA,” “V,” “STONED,” “CEO,” “HACKER,” GOOD,” “EVIL,” and—perhaps presciently—”GUILTY.”", according to Ars Tecnica. Reading through the indictment, the picture that emerges is of a bunch of hackers that knew fully well that the site’s main business was infringement, evidenced by several internal emails and the existence of a reward program for mega-uploaders.

So, what will be the result of the mega bust of Megaupload? In the short-term we will witness some angry Anonymous activity against U.S. interests, which is already taking place, but as xkcd once commented, attacks on websites are akin to the removal of a public poster (already World War Web is trending on Twitter). Funnily enough, I also think that the action against Megaupload may end up killing SOPA and PIPA for good. Why do you need new legislation when your domain name seizure strategy is proving effective?

In the medium-term, if the information in the indictment is accurate, and if extradition is granted, it seems possible that those arrested will be found guilty of criminal infringement charges and will receive mega sentences (OK, enough already). It is also possible that there will be lawsuits from legitimate users of Megaupload.

In the long-term, I do not think that much will change. Megaupload was a one-off, a vastly centralised and popular system whose actions will mean that proving direct copyright infringement and even secondary infringement following the Grokster incitement doctrine will be easy to achieve. While it was big, MU did not command the market dominance of a Napster in its heyday, but like that service, it suffered from its decision to provide a very direct involvement with what its customers were doing. What we can really expect is that we will see more domain name seizures.

The piracy wars will now be fought in the domain name system.

How bad is it? This is a law which has as its main objective the complete and utter obliteration from the Internet of any foreign site suspected of infringing intellectual property. The Bill defines a foreign site subject to the law like this:

“(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.”

I have highlighted the part that I find the most problematic. The site assumes criminal violations without any court decision to that effect. That alone should serve to disqualify the agreement for reasons of due process grounds alone. But things get worse after that. The Attorney General can initiate court proceedings against the site’s registrar, or the site directly. Assuming the site does not have any representative in the U.S., this means that websites will be subjected to extraterritorial enforcement that they will not be able to defend against without incurring in great expense. Not only that, this will turn Internet domain registrars into enforcers of IP, and if we have learned anything from the DMCA, intermediaries will simply comply to orders of disconnection with little evidence. One need only be accused to have his/her domain seized. As David Post comments in the Volokh Conspiracy:

“Here’s the Internet we get after this becomes law. The prosecutor walks into a courtroom with evidence that a website — or, more likely, 1000 websites — are “dedicated to infringing activities.” If he/she can persuade the judge of that, those websites vanish from the Net (through a complex wave of judicially-mandated action that has to be obeyed by ISPs, domain name registrars, etc.). No need for messy “adversary proceedings,” “due process,” or similar niceties. No need to bother with details like “is there a defense to the charge?” No need even for the prosecutor, under the statutory terms, to prove what a copyright plaintiff would have to prove if this were an ordinary infringement suit: i.e., that the website operator in question had “actual knowledge of specific infringing files” on the site in question. None of that.”

There are no redeeming features to this proposed piece of legislation. The word “chilling effect” is very clear when reading this proposal, as EFF has stated, finally Hollywood gets a chance to destroy the Internet as we know it. Hopefully, this law will meet the fate of similar misguided efforts.

Now sit around and listen, if you may, the curious case of the Costa Rican ACAM (Asociación de Compositores y Autores Musicales ). This is your typical collective copyright management society, it gathers national artists and collects royalties from the usual channels, such as radio, commercial establishments, and live performances (chivos, as they’re popularly known here). ACAM is part of an international network of collecting agencies, so it can collect money from artists and then send it to their international associates, who will then distribute them to the composers and musicians in other parts of the world. So far so good.

However, performance rights are a tricky part of copyright enforcement. We tend to think of copyright as a monolithic right, but nothing is further from the truth. Singer-songwriters are easy, they write, compose and perform their own creations, so copyright management in those cases is also less complicated because there is only one owner. But potentially, any given song has several copyright owners, the composer, the lyricist, the performer, the producer, and let’s not even go into other areas such as sound recordings. This is where rights can get Byzantine rather quickly, and it is one of the reasons why music licensing in general is a very specialised area of the law.

I was reminded of this complexity when I read that a concert in Costa Rica by the famous Mexican singer José José is in danger of being cancelled because of copyright issues. ACAM has requested to the authorities that they should not allow the concert to go ahead because the organisers have not paid royalties to the society. Yes, you heard correctly, ACAM argues that a singer cannot perform his own songs because they must pay copyright fees to the Costa Rican collecting society. They base their legal argument on article 50 of the Costa Rican copyright law (Ley 6683), which reads (my translation):

“ARTICLE 50 .-  Authorities shall not allow public performances or hearings without the user displaying the program in advance, indicating the works to be performed and the names of the authors. Also, it must display the receipt attesting payment of the remuneration of copyright holders where applicable. If the show is a reproduction of phonograms, the program must also contain the names of the performers.
Where appropriate, the user shall also produce the receipts for related rights.”

The article is proportionate and consistent with international practice with regards to performance rights. However, ACAM seems to be asking something more than the law requires. The law simply states that artists must show receipt to copyright owners “where applicable”. My own thinking of the reason behind this is that it applies to artists performing covers. But what about an artist who performs his own songs? Must the organisers pay royalties as well? This is not only blatantly unfair, but reeks of a copyright racket.

The only reason I can think of for this behaviour is if José José didn’t compose his own songs and the money collected by ACAM would eventually make its way to the composer, but I would be very surprised if there was not an agreement allowing him to perform these songs. Moreover, ACAM’s own FAQs appear to be rather confusing in this respect. Answering the question “Where does the money collected go?”, they answer:

“The money goes to the income of each author, based on the use made ​​of his work in different ways. Of the total raised, up to 30% is left as an administrative expense to SGAE and 7% goes to fund social and cultural solidarity.”

Wait a second… SGAE? (insert multiple exclamation marks). I can only see two reasons for the mention of SGAE here, either it is the international representative for ACAM, or whoever wrote the FAQ simply lifted the entry from SGAE’s own FAQ and forgot to replace the name of the collecting agency. Either explanation does not look good, to put it mildly.

I believe in collecting management. Artists have a right to earn a living, and these are one manner of organisation which makes it easier to collect money around the world. But irrational money-grabbing like the example cited above does not help the cause of legitimate copyright owners, and when their actions threaten an event that benefits a legendary figure of Latin American music and his loyal fans, one has to wonder who really profits from these practices. Copyright owners have to improve their image, this does not seem to be the best way of doing it.

Update: ACAM continues to state that it requires payment in advance before the concert takes place, while the organisers are saying that they will make the payment afterwards. The news article in La Nación doesn’t ask the most important question here, is ACAM legitimised to ask for money in this case?

Update 2: After making a big show of force, ACAM allowed the concert to go ahead. I still do not think that the fundamental question has been answered here.