Mass. Pair Aids Targets Of Music Industry Lawsuits
AP
Some of the people sued by the recording industry for downloading online music are again turning to the Web — this time for help raising money to defend themselves or finance settlements.
Two Worcester men have set up an online system called Downhill Battle that allows donors to contribute directly to those targeted in the suits.
On Sept. 8, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 people — including 20 Colorado residents — claiming they illegally distributed song files on the Internet.
The organizers of
www.downhillbattle.org, have so far contacted about 50 of the defendants, said Nicholas Reville, a co-founder of the site along with Holmes Wilson.
Seven have requested help and are listed as recipients on the site. Janet Bebell of Aurora, Colo., is one of them.
Bebell told The Denver Post that her 22-year-old son downloaded the music that led to the lawsuit against her. She originally planned to fight but had second thoughts after talking to a lawyer who told her a court could level a $500,000 judgment. By Tuesday night, visitors to Downhill Battle had pledged $126 toward her campaign.
Dan Bartlett, a Sacramento-based attorney representing several other RIAA defendants, estimated that a court fight could cost between $75,000 and $100,000.
"We are telling them that it is best to open up settlement negotiations," he told The Post.
To be listed as a recipient on the site, defendants must provide the cover sheet from the lawsuit listing them as a defendant and a copy of a photo ID.
The recipient also must open an account with PayPal, the service used by eBay buyers and sellers for secure online payments. Donations go directly to the account, Reville said.
Each new donation goes to the person on the list who has collected the least. Downhill Battle set caps on the amount recipients can collect — $15,000 for those who plan to fight, $5,000 for those who will settle.
The RIAA so far has reached settlements with 64 people. Most settlements have been between $3,000 and $4,000, Bartlett said.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguid...l-battle_x.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compulsory Licensing - What is Music?
Ernest Miller
John Cage composed the once (and still) scandalous 4'33". Yoko Ono recorded the sound of a toilet flushing as a track (Toilet piece/Unknown 0:30) on her album Fly. A number of geneticists have created music from DNA sequences (Genetic Music: An Annotated Source List). Long time readers of LawMeme are probably familiar with the DeCSS Song, which puts the source code of the infamous program to music and sort of reminds me of Philip Glass' Einstein on the Beach.
What the heck does all this have to do with compulsory licensing? Presumably, all of the above sound recordings would be compensated under most compulsory license schemes (many of which only cover "music"). No problem, no one would argue with this, right? But what about this [.WAV] [32K] file?
Ka-Blamo Baudio
The .wav file above is the sound rendition of a .bmp file that normally represents a picture of Scott Matthews, author of the smart MP3 server Andromeda. Scott has written a small program called Ka-Blamo Baudio which:
adds a 44 byte header that transforms any type of file into a WAV file, saving it with a ".wav" extension appended to the end of the file name. So, for example, hello.exe would become hello.exe.wav.
Conversely, the Baudio decorder takes a file and removes that 44 byte header and the trailing ".wav" extension, reverting it back to its original state.
What Scott's program means, is that any digital content can easily be transformed into a sound file, or in technical copyright lingo, a "sound recording," which when fixed becomes a "phonorecord." Many compulsory license schemes only apply to "music" but since they don't define the term, or discuss changes in how audio works are categorized, one must assume that they are using the current definitions of "sound recording" and "phonorecord." Consequently, any creator of digital content can benefit from a music-only compulsory license scheme.
A Boon for Shareware Authors and Pornographers?
Such a system works for any digital content, since anything digital can easily be transformed. You can transform video, images or even software into an audio file. However, we can look at two likely users of such a capability - shareware authors and pornographers.
Generally, a shareware author relies on the kindness of strangers to receive recompense for their programs. Unfortunately, the rate of return can be pretty lousy. Many people who use shareware never compensate the author, despite requests, and even annoying reminders. Ka-Blamo can provide a solution.
Under most compulsory license schemes, a shareware author can turn their program into sound file, encourage others to download it, and receive money through the allocation fund. Users of the program can easily compensate the author, not by sending him/her money directly, but simply by downloading the version of the program with a sound file extension. Given the ease of use with which Ka-Blamo Baudio and Not-Ka- Blamo Baudio decoder work, many users would be happy to use such a system.
This even works with "voting" systems, such as Aaron Swartz's system, previously discussed on LawMeme (Aaron Swartz Invents Proto Whuffie). Instead of sending Aaron's gift certificates to musicians, you can send your gift certificate to your favorite shareware author(s).
The same works for pornography as well. As anyone who watches what is being searched for on P2P networks knows, there is an awful lot of interest in pornography on P2P systems. Unfortunately, many compulsory license schemes do not discuss how pornographers are to be compensated when their work is shared. Even if the compulsory license scheme addresses all media, there isn't any discussion devoted to the fact that politically controlled schemes will likely slight pornographers and they won't get fair compensation. Through this means, however, pornographers can freely share their works and be assured of reasonable compensation. This would be especially attractive to amateurs, I think, since they wouldn't have to run websites with passwords or worry about e-commerce issues. Their audience would also love it. No more mysterious credit card charges to explain ... your porno collection is disguised to look like part of your music collection ... there are a lot of benefits.
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...ticle&sid=1241
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freenet Developer “Recommending” Earth Station Five
Jack Spratts
Ian Clarke, developer of the anonymizing file sharing program Freenet has responded to critics claiming the program's unstable and devoid of content by saying it’s only "in development" and if they want something finished and easy to use they should "try Earth Station Five” instead. He goes on to say that he hears ES5 is “great." While his comments appear sarcastic and not meant literally (I presume) they do indicate a growing sense of frustration on his part and a departure from earlier comments where he claimed Freenet was "not just theoretical" but was being used effectively by dissidents to communicate without fear of attacks by authorities. Those same dissidents may be unnerved to discover that the developer of the program they depend on is now saying it may not be up to the task.
For more on the controversy there’s
a thread at Slashdot.
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17684
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taxing Questions: Are Compulsory Licenses a Solution to the P2P Debate?
Miriam Rainsford
The concept of compulsory licenses, first proposed by Professor Lawrence Lessig as a solution to the peer-to-peer debate, has since been hailed by fair-use lobbyists as the savior of persecuted file-sharers, establishing a common ground with the major music labels and offering the possibility that both parties might, at last, be able to reach an agreement.
The idea in itself is simple: users would pay a little more for Internet access, and their ISPs would forward this contribution as a flat-rate license to a collection agency, functioning in a similar way to ASCAP or the Mechanical Copyright Protection Agency (MCPS) and distributing the levies to artists as royalties. But is the compulsory license model too good to be true? Lobby groups such as the EFF are keen to use "compulsories" as a means to get all parties seated at the discussion table. And it is indeed exciting to think that there may be a simple solution that might permit users to swap the songs that they enjoy in freedom, without fear of legal action.
In effect, the compulsory license would form an effective compromise between the music industry and the "pirates" upon whom they wage war: the users of KaZaA and Grokster, and the recipients of the RIAA's recent subpoenas. Extreme caution, then, should be taken in negotiating the inner workings of this new model. It would be all too easy to leap forward and roll out a basic infrastructure for a "compulsory" system, but in light of the power wielded in court by the major record labels, we must ensure at all times that such a system remains impartial and directed to the benefit of the artists. Even this cannot be taken for granted -- major labels have frequently been found to have withheld artists' earnings under the guise of obfuscated accounting.
The RIAA have demonstrated in recent months their great fear of losing out to P2P users, and the resources upon which they can draw if necessary. What is to stop such giants from ensuring a compulsory system is biased towards their own interests? This is technologically not so difficult to achieve, and is a situation that P2P and fair-use advocates must retain in the backs of their minds during any negotiations.
Cory Doctorow of the EFF is an enthusiastic supporter of compulsory music levies, yet is not blind to the difficulties of negotiating between such opposing parties, or to the potential problems in setting up a "compulsory" infrastructure. But he does maintain that our civil liberties will continue to be infringed unless some form of discussion takes place:
"The two answers we see before us are not: 1) have a compulsory license or 2) don't have a compulsory license, and P2P continues to go on and we continue to have an Internet and we continue to enjoy our basic freedoms. The way we see the division breaking down right now is that we can either have an Internet with compulsory licenses on it, and some of the imperfections that may accompany that, or we can continue to have things like the loss of academic freedom, where the University of Wyoming is wiretapping all of its students to find infringement, and these crazy subpoenas that are being issued by the RIAA."
The EFF themselves take no particular position in regards to the actual design of a compulsory system, but instead feel that this must be brought to debate by a panel of experts in order to arrive at the best option. For a new system such as this to work, Doctorow says:
"We need to answer three really hard questions:
· Who do you collect from?
· What do you collect?
· Who you give it to?"
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/p2p/...2/license.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Between the stringent provisions of the cable law and the relatively wide-open provisions of the digital copyright act, a crazy quilt of laws - a product of decades of ad hoc legislation - govern what your phone company, cable company, Internet service provider or video store may be compelled to tell about you.
Your Own Affair, More (VCR) or Less (MP3)
Seth Schiesel
THE Internal Revenue Service is not used to hearing "no."
In 1998, it was investigating Kent Hovind, an evangelist and Internet radio host in Pensacola, Fla., and his wife, Jo Delia. Mr. Hovind said he had not filed a federal tax return since the early 1970's. Naturally, that got the agency's attention.
The I.R.S. was trying to figure out how much money the Hovinds were making by figuring out how much they were spending. The Hovinds were customers of Cox Cable, so the agency asked Cox to turn over the family's account records.
Federal law gives the I.R.S. extremely broad powers to obtain financial information when it is investigating a suspected tax dodge. That is why it rarely hears "no."
Cox said no.
It turns out that consumers' cable-television records enjoy more legal protection than just about any other sort of electronic media or communications records: more than satellite-television records, more than Internet logs, more than telephone records. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 said that before the government could obtain cable television records, it had to go to court to show "clear and convincing evidence" that the subject of the request was reasonably suspected of criminal activity. Moreover, the customer was entitled to a hearing to contest the disclosure.
The I.R.S. took Cox to court, arguing that it was exempt from those requirements. A federal judge disagreed. The I.R.S. ultimately got the information it was after, but only because the judge ruled that it had satisfied the cable act's requirements.
This year, the recording industry has had things a lot easier than the I.R.S. Since July, the music industry's lobbying wing, the Recording Industry Association of America, has obtained the names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of more than 1,000 people around the nation whom the group suspects of Internet music piracy. The group has sued 261 of them so far, and promises that more suits are to come.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 says that copyright holders may issue subpoenas signed only by a court clerk - not a judge - that require Internet providers to turn over personal information about their subscribers. The law does not require the subscribers to be notified. Every major Internet provider except SBC has complied with the record industry's requests.
Between the stringent provisions of the cable law and the relatively wide-open provisions of the digital copyright act, a crazy quilt of laws - a product of decades of ad hoc legislation - govern what your phone company, cable company, Internet service provider or video store may be compelled to tell about you.
"Consumers are almost totally unaware that different modes of communication carry with them different expectations of privacy and have different rules," said Paul Glist, a communications lawyer with Cole, Raywid & Braverman in Washington who has represented major cable-television companies. "Every line of business has a different set of regulations, and it really is a maze. There are many times when a company comes to me and they just want to do the right thing and they can't figure it out. You might have one law saying you have to disclose certain information to law enforcement and another law saying you can't disclose the information unless other conditions are met."
For instance, federal law says law enforcement agencies may monitor the phone numbers a citizen is dialing, as they are being dialed, after certifying only that the information is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Under that provision, the person under surveillance need not even be the person suspected of breaking the law. Generally the subject of that surveillance is not notified of the government's action.
By contrast, a separate law says that even when law enforcement agencies obtain a court order to gain access to a consumer's video rental records, the consumer must be notified before those records are turned over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/te...ne r=USERLAND
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Altnet Signs Distribution Pact with Leading Peer-to-Peer Network Overnet
Press Release
Altnet, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment (AMEX:BDE), the leading provider of secure digital media via Internet peer-to-peer technologies, announced today that it has entered into a commercial distribution agreement with MetaMachine, Inc., developer of Overnet and eDonkey 2000, two leading peer-to-peer networks. Marking a major step forward for commercializing p2p, the agreement calls for Altnet to distribute secure music, video, software and games, on behalf of artists and rights holders, to Overnet users. MetaMachine is Altnet's latest affiliate in a growing list of distribution partners that include the Kazaa Media Desktop and Excite's My Search Toolbar.
Under the terms of the agreement, MetaMachine will integrate Altnet's TopSearch Gold Icon technology, placing licensed files aggregated by Altnet into preferential placement in the search results on MetaMachine programs. MetaMachine will also incorporate Altnet's payment gateway, which allows their users to simply and securely purchase every TopSearch file they download.
"With TopSearch, Altnet ensures that artists, musicians, and copyright holders are paid when users share and play their files. Altnet also ensures that users who download Gold Icon files they find in TopSearch are guaranteed that the file is high-quality and legal for them to download and share," said Derek Broes, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Operations of Altnet. "We're thrilled to be working with MetaMachine. Our distribution agreement underscores our mutual commitment to commercializing peer-to-peer networks and making them a place where users and copyright owners can both win," stated Kevin Bermeister, CEO of Altnet.
Added Jed McCaleb, Founder and CTO of MetaMachine, Inc, "We are dedicated to making peer-to-peer a viable and profitable marketing channel for content owners. We hope more content owners will work with us to effectively reach the immense user base in a simple and secure way."
http://www.primezone.com/pages/news_....mhtml?d=46170
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
File-Sharing Group Proposes Crypto Pay Plan
Will Knight
Technical measures designed to turn free online file-sharing services into a major source of revenue for the record industry have been proposed by an industry group representing the most popular trading service, Kazaa.
The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA), which represents Kazaa's parent companies Sharman Networks and Altnet, suggests that music files traded through such networks could be encrypted so that only users who pay a fee will be supplied with the software needed to unlock them.
Peer-to-peer file-sharing networks make use of smart communications and routing protocols that let users scour each other's hard drives for music or other files that may then be directly downloaded. They provide highly efficient distribution networks, but have also lead to an explosion in online music piracy, according to record industry groups.
The file-sharing companies have good reason to search for a new business model system that would generate some revenue for the music business. Record industry bodies have waged a relentless legal battle against those they alleged to be involved in illegal file-sharing, including Kazaa.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is also currently suing hundreds of Kazaa users in the US for alleged copyright infringement. Since this legal action was announced in June 2003, music file trading on Kazaa has declined. According to web monitoring company Nielsen NetRatings, activity dropped by 41 per cent from July to mid-September.
'Rampant infringement'
But the record industry has not welcomed the new proposal. RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy told The
Washington Post: "It is hard to take seriously proposals to turn [peer-to-peer] systems into legitimate businesses when they continue to induce users to violate the law and willfully refuse to use available technologies to stop the rampant infringement."
The DCIA reckons the scheme could generate around $900 million a year for the music industry. But it acknowledges that it would only work if competing file-sharing networks agree to cooperate.
The DCIA also suggests that internet service providers might need to track the numbers of files being downloaded by users, something that would prove both costly and controversial.
A range of paid-for online music services already exist, though none use peer-to-peer networks. Apple's iTunes has been the most successful so far, having sold around 10 million songs since launching in April 2003. The system lets users download individual songs for 99 cents and encodes files in a format that prevents customers sharing them.
Downloads currently account for one percent of music sales worldwide. But Jupiter Research predicts this figure will leap to 12 per cent, or $1.5 billion, by 2008.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/pri...?id=ns99994251
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sold thousands of files.
Web-Based Music Pirate Gets Jail Time
Matt Hines
A New York man was sentenced to six months in jail after being convicted of using the Internet to sell hundreds of CDs that were loaded with unauthorized copies of songs.
Alvin A. Davis, 42, of Brooklyn, was also ordered to pay $3,329.50 for selling pirated music via his Web site. Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., last week sentenced Davis to one year of supervised parole, to be served upon his release from jail, and barred him from using a computer for one year.
Earlier this year, Davis admitted in court to using his site, EmpireRecords.com, to market more than 100 different CDs and cassette tapes featuring compilations of copyrighted materials from various musical artists. Davis was arrested by an undercover FBI agent who purchased more than 200 of the illegal CDs and had them shipped from New York to Washington. The Web site has since been shut down.
U.S. Attorney Roscoe C. Howard Jr. said the verdict should serve as a warning to others who might attempt similar schemes.
"Today's sentence sends a strong message to anyone involved in piracy that there is a significant price to pay for this kind of illegal behavior," Howard said in a statement issued after the sentencing.
According to government evidence, Davis operated the site from July 2000 to October 2002 and featured compilations of rap and rhythm and blues music.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has been actively pursuing people who use file sharing software to illegally trade music over the Web, on Wednesday issued a statement lauding the jail sentence. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, thanked law enforcement officials for holding people responsible for Web-based copyright infringement.
"These cases should put music pirates everywhere on notice," Sherman said. "Trafficking in pirated CDs and other forms of copyrighted music is illegal and can come with stiff penalties.
The RIAA also highlighted a recent case in which four individuals pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement charges the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut brought against them. The four men involved in the case were members of the so-called "warez scene," a Web-based community that illegally distributed thousands of copyrighted music files, including tracks not yet released, to the public.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5089218.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Subversive' Code Could Kill Off Software Piracy
Barry Fox
Software pirates who make illegal copies of a particular computer game are finding the games companies are coming up with a radical new anti-copying strategy.
Illegally copied games protected by the system work properly at first, but start to fall apart after the player has had just enough time to get hooked. As a result, the pirated discs actually encourage people to buy the genuine software, the developers say.
The new protection system, called Fade, is being introduced by Macrovision, a company in Santa Clara, California, that specialises in digital rights management, and the British games developer Codemasters, based in Leamington Spa. It makes unauthorised copies of games slowly degrade, so that cars no long steer, guns cannot be aimed and footballs fly away into space. But by that time the player has become addicted to the game.
Fade exploits the systems for error correction that computers use to cope with CD-ROMs or DVDs that have become scratched. Software protected by Fade contains fragments of "subversive" code designed to seem like scratches. The bogus scratches are arranged on the disc in a subtle pattern that the game's master program looks for. If it finds them, the game plays as usual.
When someone tries to copy the disc on a PC, however, the error-correcting routines built into the computer attempt to fix the bogus scratches. When the copied disc is played, the master program then cannot find the pattern it is looking for, so it knows the disc is a copy.
What happens next turns the usual rules of software protection on their head. Instead of switching off the game and preventing it from playing at all, the master program begins to disable it. In the game Operation Flashpoint, which has been the proving ground for Fade, players soon find that their guns shoot off target and run out of bullets.
"The beauty of this is that the degrading copy becomes a sales promotion tool. People go out and buy an original version," claims Bruce Everiss of Codemasters.
The idea intrigues Alistair Kelman, an independent lawyer who specialises in copyright: "Fade is entirely in keeping with the spirit and great traditions of copyright." He points out that books tend to deteriorate with use and this prevents the secondhand market from competing with the market for new books. Why not the same for software?
Following its success with Operation Flashpoint, Codemasters is also using Fade with a new snooker game. Copies play normally for a while, but after a predetermined number of potshots, gravity is progressively turned off so the balls start behaving oddly and end up floating over the table.
Fade was devised by Richard Darling, who founded Codemasters 16 years ago, and has now been included in Macrovision's SafeDisc anti-piracy system. Next year, Macrovision plans to release a DVD movie protection system called SafeDVD, which will use a similar technique to make copied discs stop playing at a key point in the movie's plot.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/pri...?id=ns99994248
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMusic Acquired, Halting Unlimited Downloads
michael
wallabywatson writes "EMusic.com have announced that they are cancelling their $9.99 a month unlimited download service after being acquired by Dimensional Associates LLC. Instead, subscribers will be limited to 40 downloads (ie 3ish albums) per month. A new premium $50 a month service will allow 300 tracks (~25 albums). The service details have been released as have new terms and conditions. If, like me, you think this sucks and want to cancel your subscription go here before November 8, 2003."
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/0...&tid=98&tid=99
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Close The Net To Keep Media Companies Rich? You Bet!
The New York Times examines all sides of this one sided argument.
ON THE CONTRARY
Where Nobody Knows You're a Music Thief
Daniel Akst
IMAGINE that you sell newspapers on the honor system. You put some papers out on a table, along with a can for the money. It would surprise hardly anyone if, at the end of the day, more papers were taken than were paid for.
But Dan Ariely, a professor of media and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied people's online behavior, says that when experimenters who actually tried this mounted a mirror above the newspapers, more people left money when they took a paper. Apparently, many of us can be shamed into honesty.
That's the trouble with the Internet. If it's a place where nobody knows you're a dog, as a New Yorker cartoon once said, then it's also a place where nobody knows you're a crook, either. Even you may not know. Anonymity allows honest people to sustain a higher level of dishonesty without guilt, as is obvious to many people who have tried online dating.
Nothing captures this phenomenon better than Internet music sharing. What's remarkable about the controversy over music sharing is not how many people are involved - although the number is certainly large - but rather their fervent rationalizing. Internet music sharers, and their defenders, have variously argued that the music industry is evil, that CD's are too expensive and that record companies have brought this upon themselves by failing to offer their wares online.
Even stranger than these tortured justifications is the willingness of parents and others in polite society to acquiesce. After all, Internet music sharing is "pretty clearly a copyright violation," says Joseph P. Liu, an assistant professor at Boston College Law School and an intellectual property specialist. It does not matter if the music business is tasteless, oligopolistic or foolish, as some of its critics contend. Even the greedy and the oafish enjoy the protection of the law.
How is it that otherwise law-abiding citizens do not seem to mind? One reason, Professor Ariely says, is self-deception: "People tell themselves stories they like to hear to justify what they're doing, so they can get something for nothing." That's why the mirror was so effective in the experiment; it impaired the self-deception of those who would steal a newspaper. Moreover, he says, people's willingness to pay is strongly tied to their sense of fairness about price. Consumers know that the cost of producing a CD is low, and because the music shared online is incorporeal, why should anyone mind if they don't pay?
The reason we should all mind is that Internet music sharing represents a profound assault on the very idea of intellectual property. Today it's music, but tomorrow it will be movies and then books, and the justifications will be the same. The implications should be obvious to producers of intellectual property, but the outcry has been muffled in part because universities have come to own and operate so much of the nation's intellectual life.
Many academic intellectuals, who do not seem to like business much anyway, derive relatively little income directly from their writings. Instead, they hope to profit from their intellectual output by attaining tenure and renown. If you live on an academic paycheck - instead of royalties - then the free electronic distribution of your scholarly works is probably preferable to having a university press print 500 copies bound directly for the deepest library stacks.
The absurd Robin Hood narrative that has sprung up around music sharing only obscures what is happening: that a large group of mainly middle-class individuals are not just breaking the law, but also attacking the legal concept that is essential to freedom and prosperity in the information age.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, what's the fairest thing of all? The answer is probably authentication. Sooner or later we will need to know who everyone on the Internet is, and who confirmed their identities. Internet access providers who admit unauthenticated users will have to be shut out, even if that means shutting out whole countries.
In such a world, there would be no doubt about who was violating copyright laws or otherwise misusing the electronic commons. It's sad, I know. The ability to shed one's identity online seemed a dream for a while, but as the poet Delmore Schwartz reminds us, "in dreams begin responsibilities."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/bu...ne r=USERLAND
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trying to Sell CD's by Adding Extras
Chris Nelson
For a glimpse into the troubled nature of the music industry in the 21st century, just conduct the following experiment: Ask five people who buy the new P.O.D. album, "Payable on Death," what persuaded them to make the purchase. Chances are, you will get five different answers.
There is the person who buys it for the hard-rock music P.O.D. performs. But then there is the consumer who picks it up for the PlayStation 2 game that comes included on a DVD. Or the one who wants it for the trading cards packed in the cover. Another P.O.D. fan is after the documentary about the band, also on the DVD. And the last wants the CD because it offers access to unreleased P.O.D. music online.
Bundling a album with a raft of value-added extras - while charging just a dollar more than the standard price for a CD - may sound like a costly move for P.O.D.'s label, Atlantic Records, part of AOL Time Warner. But it is a testament to just how desperate music companies are to stoke consumer interest and reverse a three-year sales slump by pulling fans away from making free downloads of music from Internet file-trading sites.
While the P.O.D. album, scheduled for release Nov. 4, is unusual in the amount of extra material it will carry, it is just one album in a flood of new CD's promising extras. Recent discs from artists representing a broad cross section of genres - from R.& B. diva Mary J. Blige to singer-songwriter Elvis Costello to punk band Pennywise - have come with extra material.
At the same time, retailers - who have not been nearly as vocal about the downturn as labels - are struggling to entice store traffic. Some shops, particularly independents, now invite their customers to lounge as if they were at a Barnes & Noble or Starbucks, and promise employees who know more than just the difference between the White Stripes and Whitesnake.
The newfound zeal to include extras on music CD's might just be working. On the latest weekly Billboard 200 album chart, the top six spots are held by albums making their first appearance on the chart. All of those artists - OutKast, Dave Matthews, Limp Bizkit, R. Kelly, Obie Trice and Nickelback - include some type of bonus with their albums: an EP of extra songs, access to online content, a chance to meet the musician or two CD's for the price of one.
Total sales for the week ending Sept. 28, reached 12.48 million units, according to Nielsen SoundScan, besting sales for the same week in 2002 by nearly 1.75 million. That is a rare bright post for the industry, which experienced a 17.3 percent drop in album sales from 2000 to 2002, down to 650 million units.
They have fallen another 7.4 percent in the first nine months of 2003, compared with the same period last year. The industry points to illegal downloading, competition from other entertainment and the weak economy to explain the decline. Critics of the industry say high CD prices and mediocre music are also a reason.
Despite labels' new emphasis on value-adds, no one is predicting that the record industry will go the way of bubble-gum makers, who once offered trading cards as an added value to gum only to have the cards become their primary business.
"In this extraordinary week, when you really tear it apart and look at it, the music is what wins," said Jordan Katz, the senior vice president for sales at Bertelsmann's Arista Records label. Arista discounted OutKast's two-CD set "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below," to $18.98 to compete with single albums. It sold 510,000 copies and landed at No. 1 on Billboard's chart.
The bevy of bonuses continues even as Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, put into effect plans to slash CD prices up to 30 percent on coming releases.
Labels will survive the downturn better by emphasizing value with add-ons rather than stressing price as consumers' main consideration, said Peter Fader, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
But some music industry executives say price cuts are necessary. "We would not be reducing the price of music if we were not fighting'' free music, that is, popular file- sharing services like Kazaa and Morpheus, said Jim Urie, the president of Universal Music and Video Distribution.
The onus for drawing customers into stores falls equally on retailers, said Jerry Goolsby, a marketing professor who studies the music industry at Loyola University in New Orleans. Music stores must reinvent themselves, just as bookstores have recast themselves as coffeehouses and meeting places, he said.
Beyond switching from selling vinyl albums to CD's and outfitting their stores with listening stations, national retail chains have done little to revamp the way listeners experience music in stores.
"The record merchant is caught in an absolutely horrible place," said Paco Underhill, the chief executive of Envirosell, a market research and consulting firm. "There are few other industries where the merchant has so little leverage over the form and content, much less the packaging, of what arrives at his place of business."
With little control over their wares, some music stores are attempting to change the nature of the record-buying experience.
Seattle's independent new and used music chain Sonic Boom Records has succeeded during the slump by appealing to locals with, among other things, a staff that loves to discuss music with customers, said Julie Butterfield, general manager of the store in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Several times a year, the company is the host of Sonic Boom Band Night at a nearby tavern, showcasing employees who perform their own music.
"It's community and the spirit of community that I think brings people back in," Ms. Butterfield said.
In the past year, Sonic Boom has had some of its biggest sales months since opening in 1995, and last March it opened a third store.
Labels, meanwhile, are trying to put music in front of as many customers as possible. Warner Music Group has beefed up TV advertising for albums by baby-boomer favorites like Cher and the Eagles. At the same time, the company is selling products at unconventional markets. It has offered Josh Groban CD's in Hallmark stores and Frank Sinatra discs in Ritz-Carlton hotels.
Enticing customers is even more difficult when the music industry's main physical product, the CD, has become increasingly unimportant, particularly to young people who have grown up with music as digital computer files. "My 17-year-old daughter loses the jewel boxes as fast as she can," said John Esposito, president of WEA, AOL Time Warner's music distribution arm, referring to the plastic cases that hold CD's.
While value-added material is intended in part to lure people away from free file-sharing services, extra songs available through bonus CD's or password-protected Web sites are often made available through file-sharing programs nearly simultaneous to an album's release.
Nonetheless, the experimentation with add-ons will continue. "Our job is not to perpetuate history," Mr. Esposito said. "It's to find out what the new history is."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/bu...ne r=USERLAND
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Pay Version of Napster Service Debuts
AP
Nearly a year after software maker Roxio Inc. scooped up the Napster brand from the ashes of the pioneer file-swapping service, a revamped online music store bearing the familiar brand name debuted Thursday in limited release.
The company shelved its former online music service, pressplay, and began moving subscribers to a beta, or test version, of Napster 2.0. The service will be available to all in the United States beginning Oct. 29, officials said Thursday.
Napster 2.0 users will have access to more than a half-million songs from all the major music labels. They can download individual songs for 99 cents and albums for $9.95. The service also offers access to unlimited downloads and streaming for $9.95 per month.
That's comparable with prices charged by other online music retailers like MusicMatch and Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store, which is expected to be available for Windows-run PCs next week, sources familiar with the company's plans said.
Pressplay, which went offline Tuesday, only offered access to songs for a monthly fee.
The service allows users to burn or copy single songs onto CDs an unlimited number of times, but, like other services, users can't burn more than five CDs with the same playlist.
``Our company's passion for what we're doing will really be felt by consumers and I think it's also very consistent with the original vision for Napster,'' Chris Gorog, Roxio's chairman and chief executive, told The Associated Press.
The recording industry had successfully shuttered the original Napster, which established a peer-to-peer network for users to swap music with one another without paying copyright holders. The company went bankrupt and dissolved last year, and Roxio bought the company's name in November.
Napster 2.0 will allow song-sharing between users who hold subscription accounts and the ability to browse other users' music lists, among other features.
The company also hopes users will buy a new Samsung Electronics portable digital music player co-designed by Napster to work with its program and which can hold 20 gigabytes worth of songs. Any digital music device that plays Windows Media Audio files can also be used, however.
Santa Clara, Calif.-based Roxio is betting the Napster brand will help set its service apart from a bevy of other digital music retailers that have launched since Apple introduced iTunes in April.
Last week, MusicMatch Inc. launched a Web site that sells song and album downloads and boasts record label licensing agreements that offered the fewest copying restrictions yet outside of iTunes.
Others, including Buy.com's BuyMusic.com, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, MusicNow and MusicNet, are also vying for a piece of the market.
The new Napster will also have to contend with iTunes, which has sold more than 10 million songs and is expected to be available on the Windows platform by year's end.
``The space has become crowded because there's a recognition of this is going to be a very substantial business,'' Gorog said. ``It validates Roxio's strategy to enter this business.''
The music industry has seen CD sales plummet over the last three years as illegal music file-sharing exploded, beginning with the original Napster, which was forced to shut down in 2001 after a protracted legal battle with recording companies.
Meanwhile, file-sharing over the most popular peer-to-peer networks has declined in recent weeks, coinciding with a lawsuit campaign launched against downloaders by the recording industry.
Traffic on Kazaa's network, the most popular, dropped 41 percent between the last week of June and mid-September, according to Nielsen NetRatings, which monitors Internet usage.
At the same time, online music sales are expected to grow from 1 percent of the total music market to 12 percent in 2008, generating about $1.5 billion in sales, according to Jupiter Research.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/tech...er-Reborn.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oscar Voters May Get DVD's After All
Laura M. Holson
Jack Valenti, the chief lobbyist for the movie industry's trade group, is considering revising the recent edict that bans DVD's or videotapes from being sent to Academy Award voters, two people who have talked to him say.
Mr. Valenti, the chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has been under considerable pressure this week from art-house distributors, actors and directors who say that the ban would hurt their chances of winning Oscars. As a result, Mr. Valenti is expected go back to the studio executives who agreed to the ban and propose a compromise.
That would include marking videotapes electronically before they are sent to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who vote for Oscar contenders, these people said. The videotapes, which could be traced easily, would be delivered by certified mail. But the compromise would not include the distribution of easily copied DVD's, and not every videotape would be marked.
Discussions with the heads of all the major studios are expected over the next few days, these people said, as a result of a meeting Mr. Valenti held with several art-house film and independent film distributors, including James Schamus, co-president of Focus Features, and Harvey Weinstein, a co-founder of Miramax Films.
Mr. Valenti, who was traveling Wednesday, could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Valenti said he did not know of any proposed changes to the ban.
Mr. Valenti has said all the major studios agreed to the edict, fearing that the DVD's, called screeners, would either end up on the black market or be distributed online. But the ban has effectively pitted small distributors, which rely on Oscar nominations to promote their movies, against large studios, which have bigger marketing budgets. Most recently, the American Film Marketing Association, whose membership includes studio-affiliated independents, sent a letter to Mr. Valenti objecting to the recent action.
Scores of other groups have loudly criticized Mr. Valenti's stand, too. In an interview this week, Frank Pierson, president of the academy, said not sending out screeners "is distressing to our members." Several academy voters, many of them older, have said they will not be able to see all the films. Other members have said they may not vote for big studio pictures as a protest.
"The fact of the matter is I don't know anyone who doesn't want to see these movies on the big screen," Mr. Pierson said. "But it's difficult."
Mr. Valenti has said the decision was made as little as four weeks ago and he did not consult any of the art-house distributors.
Hollywood has been reacting. More film studios have sought and are renting movie theaters and screening rooms for showing Oscar contenders.
Further complicating matters is that the edict comes on the heels of the academy's stricter guidelines governing how studios vie for Oscars. For one thing, the academy has urged that social engagements be curtailed during Oscar season. But some studio executives say they may be forced to show Academy Award contenders in their private screening rooms if no theaters are available.
"Does this constitute a violation?" one executive asked. "Who knows. Somebody should have thought this through."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/bu...ia/09FILM.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shift-Key Case Rouses DMCA Foes
Katie Dean
The recent flap about a Princeton University student who found a way to beat music CD copy protection reignited calls to change a controversial copyright law.
John "Alex" Halderman discovered that by simply pressing the Shift key when loading a copy-protected music CD into a computer's hard drive, he could disable SunnComm Technologies' MediaMax CD-3 software, which is supposed to prevent CDs from being ripped.
He published his finding on his website. On Wednesday, shortly after the disclosure, SunnComm's stock plummeted 25 percent. The company then threatened to sue the student, charging him with violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.
Under the law, it is illegal to bypass any technology measure in place that protects copyright material -- perhaps even by pressing the Shift key.
Critics say it's the absurdity of the unforeseen consequences of the DMCA, as in Halderman's case, that necessitates a change in the law. The DMCA goes too far and sends a chilling effect through the academic community, they say.
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, though intended to stop digital piracy, is being used to squelch legitimate research," said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "If no one is allowed to examine and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these technologies, then these technologies will not improve."
Halderman, who is pursuing a Ph.D. in computer science, said he was interested in checking out SunnComm's product because it claimed to have strong copy protection. He tested a copy-protected album called Comin' From Where I'm From by Anthony Hamilton.
"I wanted to see how these CDs differed from the earlier technology, but I was surprised at how easily it could be bypassed," Halderman said. "You can tell someone in a sentence how to get around the copy protection: Press the Shift key every time you insert the CD, and that's it."
SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs charged that Halderman's report was inaccurate. He said the Shift key was not a workaround and called it a "design element" of the system. And the issue isn't the Shift key. Instead, he explained that the company was upset that Halderman disclosed the copy-management file names and directions on how to remove them.
"I don't think researchers have a right to publish a 'how-to' on how to perform illegal activities under the guise of research," Jacobs said. "I think the DMCA says pretty clearly that one shouldn't publish circumvention solutions that protect people's digital property."
Jacobs said SunnComm Technologies lost $10 million in market value this week after the research paper was published.
SunnComm said Thursday it would sue Halderman under the DMCA, inciting ridicule on forums like Politech. Gadflies suggested keyboard makers also should be sued for creating the offending circumvention device -- the Shift key.
On Friday, SunnComm decided not to take legal action.
"I don't want to represent a company that would do anything to cause any kind of chilling effect to research," Jacobs said. "Clearly the kind of emotional issues that surround this whole thing made it more prudent for us to take a step back and concentrate on making the next version better."
Von Lohmann said researchers have a right to publish what they learn and that the free exchange of ideas is critical.
"I think this really underscores the importance of DMCA reform," he said, adding that this type of situation is what Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) hopes to address with the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003 (HR107).
Boucher's bill would permit circumvention for fair-use purposes, including scientific research. He submitted the bill in January.
"First of all, the mere fact that the company would threaten to sue underscores more than ever the urgent need for the passage of my bill," Boucher said. "It would not be a violation of federal law to circumvent a technological protection measure if the purpose of the circumvention is itself lawful.
"This is a classic fair-use right protected under the copyright act, but it is a right that is extinguishable under the DMCA," he said. "I anticipate in the not-too-distant future we will be successful in changing the law."
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60780,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizens Strike Back In Intelligence War
Celeste Biever
WITH the demise last week of the Bush administration's controversial Terrorist Information Awareness (TIA) programme to monitor everyone in the US, citizens now have a chance to get their own back. A website to be launched later this year will allow people to post information about the activities of government organisations, officials and the judiciary.
The two MIT researchers behind the project face one serious problem: how to protect themselves against legal action should any of the postings prove false. The answer, they say, is to borrow a technique from the underground music-swapping community. Instead of storing the data in one place, they plan to distribute it around the internet in a similar way to the notorious Napster software that got music file-sharing under way.
Just like TIA, the new website, called Government Information Awareness (GIA), is designed to collect snippets of information to build a database that can later be searched to reveal patterns of suspicious behaviour. It is based on a site that Chris Csikszentmihályi and Ryan McKinley of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Laboratory set up in July. That site (
http://opengov.media.mit.edu) encourages members of the public to post information about organisations, officials and politicians, such as their business links and the source of their campaign donations. The original site was hosted on one of MIT's servers. But soon after the site was launched it had to be dramatically scaled back after being overwhelmed with traffic and because of legal worries. The researchers do not edit the content, and became worried that if any of the postings were malicious or untrue MIT could be held responsible.
They hope that following the Napster approach will get them round this problem. Instead of storing the data on a single server, so-called peer-to-peer networks hold data in a number of locations around the internet, from where it can be downloaded directly. This strategy thwarted the music industry's attempts to sue some of the groups that organise the swapping of digital music files.
For the relaunched site, MIT will simply provide the facilities to post data and search for it. "It will be a sort of citizens' intelligence agency," says Csikszentmihályi. "It's an interesting tactic in the battle for civil liberties," says Lee Tien, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. He believes the site has value, even if it appears to be stooping to the government's level. "A lot of people do know bits and pieces- we are handicapped in not being able to connect them."
But whether MIT will be immune from legal action remains unclear. Some lawyers say that as long as the organisers do not edit the content, they cannot be held responsible for any libellous material. Others are more cautious. "Whoever hosts something that is defamatory and untrue takes a risk," says Mike Godwin, technology adviser for the public interest group Public Knowledge in Washington DC. The researchers' strategy may minimise that risk, he says. "Peer-to-peer is probably the best way."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-csb100803.php
http://www.newscientist.com/
Until next week,
-
js.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current Week In Review.
Recent WIRs -
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17666 October 4th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17605 September 29th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17552 September 20th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17495 September 13th
Jack Spratts Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts at lycos.com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.