[JackSpratts]

Music Industry: A Finger In The Dike And A Head In The Sand
Chris Abood

Recently, Justice Murray Wilcox brought down his judgment on the Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holding Ltd, owners of the Kazaa peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing system, court action. The judgment was not good for Sharman. Neither was the judgment good news for the music industry. Justice Wilcox dismissed several claims brought against Sharman including the dubious claim of conspiracy. Sharman are appealing.

Justice Wilcox stuck to the letter of the law as specified in the Copyright Act of 1968. He found Sharman had authorised users to infringe the applicant’s copyright. The most interesting statement from Justice Wilcox is that he did not consider the fact the Kazaa website warning against sharing copyright material, and an end user licence agreement under which users are made to agree not to infringe copyright, sufficient defence because Sharman had long known that the Kazaa system was used to distribute copyrighted material.

In his judgment, Justice Wilcox displayed an extraordinary understanding of the technical issues involved: a level of understanding that is appallingly lacking in our federal politicians. He ordered Sharman to incorporate into Kazaa filtering technologies. He also stated that he was reluctant to shut down file sharing completely without unnecessarily intruding on others’ freedom of speech and communication.

This case however, has done nothing to bring the Copyright Act into the digital age. This is a job for federal government, which has been musing about introducing fair use into the Act since May this year. But given federal governments’ previous attempts to legislate for the digital age, they are unlikely to get it right.

Even though the music industry has won a battle and is likely to win many more battles, it is locked in a war that it cannot possibly win. The P2P community has moved on from the likes of central server-shared swapping systems such as Kazaa. The BitTorrent protocol used by popular P2P software such as Limewire and eDonkey has all but replaced Kazaa. These P2P systems incorporate a distributed model, which is hard to track.

However, even these BitTorrent systems are being left behind as users move to private P2P networks such as Waste, which incorporates encryption, making it virtually impossible to track. The P2P developer community is busily working on bringing this encryption out into the public. As you can see, the music industry will never be able to catch up and eradicate P2P networks.

One of the big problems with the Australian Copyright Act is that it does not contain the concept of time shifting which is common in most copyright acts in other countries. So when you go home tonight and record your favourite TV show or record your favourite radio program, know this, you are breaking the law that is punishable by heavy fines and or imprisonment.

The entertainment industry has been very vocal in its opposition to P2P networks and the distribution of copyrighted material. But it has been very silent on why it is illegal to tape a TV show or radio program. It has been silent on why it is illegal to transfer songs from a legitimately bought CD to a portable music player such as an iPod. It has also been silent on why it is illegal to convert your old vinyl records to digital format.

The entertainment industry needs to explain why we are forced to buy our favourite albums again and again because of changing technology. How many of you have repurchased your favourite album on CD because you can no longer buy a needle for your record player. Even now, DVDs are replacing CDs and it won’t be long before HD DVDs, such as the Blu-Ray disk replaces DVDs. Within 10 years, the CD player will go the way of the record player and you will find it difficult to find CD parts as it is difficult to find record player parts today.

The entertainment industry also needs to explain why every time you go to the supermarket and you hear a song being played, a song that you already own on CD, you have to pay to listen to that song again through higher prices on the goods in the supermarket. Why, when you hear a song on the radio, a song that you already have bought on CD, you are paying a higher price on goods and services to cover the cost of advertising. This is one of the few industries where you are required to pay for the same product over and over again.

The concept of copyright is to protect the rights of the creator of content. So the entertainment industry needs to explain why the copyright of content usually ends up in possession of the corporations and not the creators. Copyright has become a tradeable commodity. Can the entertainment industry explain to me why I am obliged to pay AOL Time Warner a royalty every time I sing "Happy birthday", a song composed in the 19th century?

In the long term, I believe that P2P will help most creators of content, as they will be able to directly engage with their consumers without having to deal with the gatekeepers. This will allow them to retain and control their copyright. Even now, there are many artists whose works are widely available to the public that would not normally be available because they do not meet the gatekeeper’s requirements. In fact many artists are now directly dealing with online distributors such as iTunes. As New York musician Moby asks, “Why is a record company any more qualified to send an MP3 to iTunes than I am”?

Instead of the record industry continually fighting against the P2P world, they should see this as an opportunity. I believe the future for the record industry lies in subscription services. For subscription services to work, you must first ask why you need to own an album. After all, how many times have you played that CD before it gathers dust at the back of a cupboard?

Upon signing up to a subscription-based service, you will be issued with proprietary software and a portable playback device. You would then be able to download a certain number of songs based on your subscription fee. When you want to listen to more songs, you will have to return a song for each song booked out, just like borrowing a book from your library. You would not have to worry about continuity. As technology changes, so does the software and portable playback device. As with your current mobile phone plan, at the end of your mobile phone contract, you sign up for another one and get a new mobile phone. The same would apply for subscription services. No more dusty piles of vinyl records sitting in the corner.

A subscription-based service would open up all sorts of possibilities. If you’re in a jazz mood, you can download the most popular jazz songs, or the jazz play list as recommended by leading jazz musicians. You could even download what your favourite celebrity is listening to. The BBC have already begun trials to allow viewers to download TV shows and radio shows seven days after they have aired.

We are at a crossroads. No matter how many lawsuits the entertainment industry initiates, the way we access our entertainment has changed forever. Like all waves, you can either catch it or get dumped by it.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=146





PluggedIn:"Recommendation Engines" Lead Fans To Music
Andy Sullivan

High-school rocker Chris Looney isn't stuck playing music in his parents' garage. The Internet has helped his band has win fans across the United States

and a booking agent who's found gigs around Northern Virginia.

"It's really helped out, because if you're ready to have a CD to put out people in California can buy it," said Looney, who plays guitar and drums.

The Internet has for years been touted as a music lovers' paradise, a "celestial jukebox" where any song ever recorded will eventually be available instantly.

While download services like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes now offer millions of songs, the central challenge of the music industry -- connecting listeners with music they might enjoy -- remains as daunting as ever.

That could change as a new breed of "recommendation engines" aim to duplicate the experience of a trusted friend saying, "Hey, check these guys out."

Some like MySpace (http://www.myspace.com) and Soundflavor (http://www.soundflavor.com) serve as a sort of Friendster with a beat, allowing musicians to build an audience through relentless online socializing.

Moodlogic (http://www.moodlogic.com) and Musicbrainz (http://www.musicbrainz.org) create detailed "tags," or short descriptions, of songs that may unearth hidden connections between material that may not otherwise appear to have much in common.

Mercora (http://www.mercora.com) allows users to listen to playlists set up by other users, a sort of cross between Webcasting and "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa. Grouper (http:// www.grouper.com) works like a limited peer to peer network, allowing groups of up to 30 people to share music, photos and other media stored on their hard drives.

Online music stores like RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody (http://www.rhapsody.com) and iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/), meanwhile, encourage their customers to create "playlists" of their favorite music that might interest those who have similar taste.

These technologies could boost music sales across the board by stimulating interest in lesser-known songs that don't get played on TV or the radio, said Sandy Pearlman, a former record producer who helped develop Moodlogic.

"If a recommendation engine can take you from something you love to something you would love if only you knew about it, that would explode the market for music," Pearlman said at a recent music conference in Washington.

There are signs that the approach works.

In a Gartner survey of 1,500 Internet "early adopters" conducted this spring, one in ten said they often buy music based upon the recommendations of others, a figure Gartner analyst Mike McGuire expects to rise.

One in three said they would be interested in recommendation technologies that are powered by consumer tastes, McGuire said.

"The magic question is, how much is this driving incremental sales? We don't know yet," he said.

Customers of the online store eMusic (http://www.emusic.com) who use its recommendation engines are twice as likely to upgrade to a more expensive subscription plan that allows them to download more music, according to ChoiceStream (http://www.choicestream.com), the company that developed the engine.

They also stay with the service three times as long as those who don't use the recommendation engines, ChoiceStream said.

eMusic can't rely on a handful of well-known hits to drive sales because it only carries music from independent labels, so it must provide visitors with extra guidance, eMusic CEO David Pakman said in an interview.

While music fans might visit iTunes or Napster to look for one song in particular, eMusic users are more likely to browse for material they haven't heard before, he said.

"If you really want to stretch your tastes ... these kinds of users come to eMusic," he said.

While eMusic relies on sophisticated technology to lead its users to new music, MySpace lets users do the work themselves. Originally catering to individuals who set up their own personal pages, the site now hosts more than 350,000 bands, including many major-label acts, that showcase their music through a built-in media player.

MySpace ranked as the 22nd most popular Web site in July, according to comScore Media Metrix, and that month its parent company, Intermix, was bought by News Corp. for $580 million.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...-PLUGGEDIN.xml





This Band Was Your Band, This Band Is My Band
Jeff Leeds

MEMBERS of the British rock band Queen thought they'd never tour again after Freddie Mercury, their flamboyant lead singer, died of an AIDS-related illness in November 1991. Big hits like the camp opera "Bohemian Rhapsody" and the rock-swing "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" seemed uniquely suited to Mercury, who carried them with just the proper mix of kitsch and bluster.

But Queen's fortunes did not die with Mercury after all. The band has been selling out arenas across Europe, and they've been doing it with a singer who sounds nothing like their late star: Paul Rodgers, singer of 1970's hits like "Feel Like Makin' Love" and "Ready for Love" with the rock band Bad Company, who has given Queen's catalog a bluesy tinge.

Queen isn't alone. Today many well-known rock bands are pursuing second acts with new lead singers, raising questions not only about just how far the trend can go, but about where a band's identity truly lies. The Cars are the latest major band reported to be considering a new lead singer (the rocker Todd Rundgren in place of Ric Ocasek, who since leaving the band has built a reputation as a record producer, and Ben Orr, who died five years ago.) Foreigner hired a new frontman, Kelly Hansen, in March after the exit of Lou Gramm, following the examples in recent years of reconstituted bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Van Halen.

And as prime-time television viewers know, the Australian rock band INXS and pop stylists TLC, both of which lost their lead singers some years ago, are going everyone one better. On reality television shows (on CBS and UPN respectively) the surviving members of each outfit turned their loss into an asset, making their auditions with a variety of singers a form of entertainment in their own right. With the exposure, they've increased their chances of turning misfortune into a comeback. (Last Tuesday J. D. Fortune was named on the show as the INXS singer. He will sing on the band's next album, "Switch," which has not been completed yet, but for which music company executives have already selected the first single.)

Music executives say a band's ability to outlive its singer usually depends on which was more influential: the songs or the cult of personality. In the case of Motown ensembles on the oldies circuit, the songs win out every time. The same is true for a relatively faceless band like Styx: on its own and as part of packages with other bands it has generated more than $90 million in box office sales since 1999, when it parted company with Dennis DeYoung, its singer and keyboardist, hiring Lawrence Gowan to fill in. Tommy Shaw, guitarist for the band, notes that anonymity was part of the formula from the start. "All you've got to do," he said "is look at our album covers" - thematic artwork rather than glamorous head shots.

For bands strongly identified with a lead vocalist, things are tougher. Not all Queen fans are happy with the arrival of Mr. Rodgers, who also sang for the bands Free, of which he was a founder in 1968, and the Firm, a short-lived 1980's outfit. On the message board at queenzone.com, one poster who goes by the name KingMercury echoed a common feeling toward Queen + Paul Rodgers, as the act is now known. "I will not complain about the current tour, and if its right to tour under the name of Queen," the message said, "but, Queen, that fabulous and giant band, died with Freddie, in 1991."

Still, for the casual fan, a sound-alike singer belting out a proven hit often is good enough, says John Kalodner, the artist-and-repertory scout who is credited with developing acts like Foreigner and Aerosmith. "If a performer can pull off a song 75, 80 percent, people will have the rest in their head," he said.

Daniel Nester, an English professor at the College of St. Rose in Albany who has written two books about the band - even though he never saw the original Queen - dismisses the purists.

"Legacy, schmegacy," he said, "From my end, it's like, 'Milk it all you want.' I want to see them play."

For bands considering a new lineup, it helps that the hits of the 1970's and early 1980's are still in rotation on classic rock stations, and that the defining works still sell. Queen's 1992 greatest-hits album, for instance, still sells roughly 7,000 copies a week. But that's the old lineup. Soldiering on behind a new singer usually means selling fewer CD's and playing to smaller audiences, in venues like casinos and nightclubs instead of sold-out arenas and stadiums. And no one really thinks that these band's new songs will return them to their commercial peaks. Journey, for one, has been giving its latest album free to fans who bought tickets to its recent tour.

If a band's facelessness can become an asset in preserving its identity, then today's crop of revivalists may be in the right place at the right time - a moment in pop music when the form of the song itself seems to trump any band's imagery or personality. Online, music fans are displaying a preference for individual songs over albums by a ratio of more than a 20 to 1. (It's called iTunes, after all, not iAlbums.) Some say this is also a moment when the rock warhorses of the 1970's and 80's face scant competition.

"We live in a hip-hop nation," said David Goffin, executive producer of "Rock Star: INXS." And the relative dearth of major rock acts, he added, provides an opening for bands like INXS and others to re-emerge.

Still, cautionary tales abound. Van Halen touched off a civil war among its fans when it replaced David Lee Roth with Sammy Hagar, though it continued to crank out commercial hits (and its dynamic lead guitarist Eddie Van Halen gave some continuity to the band's identity). A subsequent decision to hire Gary Cherone to take Mr. Hagar's place proved disastrous at record stores and the box office. Nor did the former Cult singer Ian Astbury do much for the reconstituted Doors, when he toured with them three decades after Jim Morrison's death.

"Jim Morrison wasn't just some yahoo singing for the Doors, he was a personality," said Shane Roeschlein, editor in chief of an online music magazine, themusicedge.com. "Morrison was much like a limb on a body. So in that aspect, if you lost your arm you'd get a prosthetic and it could be a really good and realistic prosthetic arm but it'd never be your arm." For fans familiar with a band's original identity, he added, there would be "a cycle of diminishing returns - always eyeballing that slightly plastic looking appendage."

EVEN INXS has had its troubles with this formula - before agreeing to find a new singer on "Rock Star," it toured with a series of performers poorly matched to the band, including Terence Trent D'Arby, the soul singer.

INXS still must emerge from the shadow of Michael Hutchence, the lead singer who died in an apparent suicide hanging in 1997. Mr. Kalodner said Hutchence had been so integral to the band that it may never record successfully again. Mr. Kalodner recently pulled out of plans to work with the newly formed INXS on its new album, which is scheduled for release on Nov. 29.

"I just didn't fell good about trying to replace Michael," he said. "A band is never the same when they replace a singer, ever. It loses something both in the voice and in the whole dynamic of the band. Obviously it can be done, but the more and more I saw of it the less I felt good about it."

Mr. Goffin of "Rock Star," while careful to pay respect to Mr. Hutchence, said that the band had a lot going for it. "They have eight years between what happened and now. And they have a television show, which is a week-to-week transformation, where everyone can see what the band can be. They lost one of their instruments. You're replacing a significant part of the band. You really have a chance to regenerate a band."

Doc McGhee, who represents the rockers KISS, has another twist on the idea altogether: he has been toying with the idea of recruiting an entire band to replace the original KISS and don the band's famous makeup.

"KISS is more like Doritos or Pepsi, as far as a brand name is concerned," he said. "They're more characters than the individual person. I think they have a legitimate chance to carry the franchise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/ar...ic/25leed.html





Film

Going Deep for Digital
David M. Halbfinger



Last March, executives from the Walt Disney Studios approached the visual-effects wizards at George Lucas's company, Industrial Light & Magic, with an audacious request. Could they convert the forthcoming Disney animated film "Chicken Little" into 3-D?

In less than four months?

"We gave it serious consideration, and we decided they were out of their minds," said Colum Slevin, senior director of computer graphics at Industrial Light. "'Fourteen hundred shots in 14 weeks? You're dreaming.'"

But Disney persisted. And Mr. Slevin's team of techies came through, as audiences will be able to see for themselves beginning Nov. 4, when "Chicken Little" opens across the country - and in at least 85 movie theaters equipped with costly state-of-the-art 3-D projection equipment, silver screens and the latest in goofy-looking 3-D eyewear.

The 3-D technology is more advanced than anything audiences will remember from the 1950's or even from recent hits like "Spy Kids": no red-and-cyan lenses, no eyestrain, no headaches. And no bulky electronic glasses like at Imax theaters. "You've not seen anything quite like this," Richard Cook, Disney's studio chairman, assured hundreds of exhibitors and others before showing them a sample on Thursday.

All but lost in their excitement over the technology is a huge milestone for Hollywood: the 3-D release of "Chicken Little" first requires the conversion of those 85 theaters to digital projection technology.

For years, the movie industry has been struggling to replace its expensive film distribution system with digital technology. For the studios, the change promised huge savings: about $1 billion a year is spent making film prints and shipping them to thousands of theaters.

For theater owners, it meant smaller savings, but improved quality. A movie could run for weeks - or indefinitely - without the scratches and other defects that become noticeable after as few as 10 screenings of a celluloid print.

Last month, the Hollywood studios finally settled on a set of technical standards for the digital cinema introduction. Also recently, the studios, theater owners and equipment vendors have reached consensus on the basic framework to pay for the change to digital, which costs about $85,000 an auditorium.

All that was missing was a catalyst for making the investment. Proponents of digital cinema are hoping it will be provided by 3-D movies like Disney's "Chicken Little" and next summer's "Monster House," from Columbia Pictures and the director Robert Zemeckis. Given that Mr. Zemeckis's "Polar Express," from Warner Brothers, earned roughly 10 times as much in Imax 3-D as it did in 2-D, that is a big catalyst, executives say.

"3-D, at the moment, is driving the bus on this digital rollout," said Michael V. Lewis, chairman of Real D, a Beverly Hills optics company that developed the equipment and eyewear to bring "Chicken Little" to theaters in 3-D.

But there is also a fairly sizable school of thought among studio executives - and influential filmmakers like James Cameron, who has said he will shoot only in 3-D from now on - that 3-D, despite its history as a fad, could this time have a momentous effect on cinema, the way silent movies gave way to talkies and black-and-white to color.

"I honestly don't think it's a novelty," said Charles Viane, president of distribution for Disney, which may release all its future animated movies in 3-D should "Chicken Little" meet expectations at the box office. "I think you'll miss the dimensionalization in movies that don't have it."

"Chicken Little" would not be coming to market in 3-D had Disney not been impatient to break the stalemate between studios and theaters over digital conversion. But it also required significant leaps forward in technology, which the four-year-old Real D and the 25-year-old optics company it acquired in February, StereoGraphics, had been pursuing for some time.

Unlike some old-fashioned 3-D movies, the Real D process uses a single projector, but it merges two data streams, one for each eye. Because the projector is digital, it can project images far faster than 24 frames per second, the film standard. So "Chicken Little" will be shown at 144 frames per second, alternating left- and right-eye images faster than the eye can detect.

The hard part of 3-D is to make sure the left eye sees only the left image, and vice versa. Real D, executives say, does so with an adapter mounted on the projector that polarizes each alternating image so that it can be seen only through the appropriate lens on Real D's cheap disposable glasses.

The system is hardly perfect. It requires installing a special silver screen, which is a disadvantage for showing standard movies; the rapid frame rate slightly diminishes the resolution of the image, from 2,048 pixels to roughly 1,700; and even Real D executives acknowledge the system would be impractical for theaters with more than 300 seats because of screen size constraints.

But executives from some of the 22 theater chains that have signed up so far - among them AMC, Loews and Regal - say they prefer it to a competing system, from In- Three and NuVision, that would use standard screens but require costly electronic eyeglasses, forcing theaters to spend money sanitizing, maintaining and securing them.

The main disadvantage of the Real D system is cost: the company charges at least $50,000 upfront for each theater, and $25,000 a year.

Tom Stephenson, president and chief executive of Dallas-based Rave Motion Pictures, said he had signed up to convert 9 of his 300 screens to Real D and was exploring whether to charge a dollar or two more for tickets, or whether increased ticket sales and concession receipts would ultimately cover his costs.

Real D guarantees at least two 3-D movies will play in those theaters each year, Mr. Stephenson said. "Is that enough? No, but if it turns out people are really drawn to this technology, you'll get more than that."

Among prominent filmmakers, who are eyeing dwindling box-office figures just as uneasily as theater owners, several have seized on 3-D as almost a panacea.

"As the public's home television and sound systems get better and better, what is the reason they have to go to the movies?" said Jon Landau, a partner in Mr. Cameron's company, Lightstorm Entertainment, which is making the action fantasy "Battle Angel" in 3-D. "We believe 3-D is one of those things that people will come out of their homes in droves to see. From the big-scale movies to the small dramas - if you have somebody on their deathbed, and an intimate moment, you are much better off dropping the barrier of the screen, putting the audience in that moment, and putting it in 3-D."

Whether the next "Terms of Endearment," let alone the next "Terminator," will be seen by millions in 3-D is anybody's guess, of course. But the digital introduction, on which 3-D technology will piggyback, is picking up speed. After months of wrangling between the studios and several vendors, the first deals are being signed that could lead theater owners to buy and install digital projectors.

The structure of the deals follows a pattern. Theater owners pay roughly $10,000 toward the $85,000 cost of converting each auditorium. The balance is recovered, typically over 10 years, from the movie studios, which pay "virtual print fees."

These fees, which start at around $1,000 for each copy of a movie delivered to a theater, are intended to approximate the studios' financial savings on film prints and shipping. They have agreed to steer that money to the suppliers of digital cinema equipment.

Under the first major deal announced so far, Disney said on Sept. 15 that it would pay virtual print fees toward the installation of projectors from Christie Digital Systems USA, under a nonexclusive deal financed by Access Integrated Technologies, a start-up that is hoping to carve out a slice of the expected market for digital distribution to theaters.

The gamble for Access, of Morristown, N.J., is that studios will release enough digital movies, and agree to pay the virtual print fees, to cover the cost of the equipment and installations - and to lower the cost of capital for a company with just $12 million in trailing 12-month revenue.

"Somebody's got to be willing to put up what somebody has called brave equity to get something like this going," said A. Dale Mayo, a former theater owner who is chairman and chief executive of Access.

Lurking around the corner, however, are film industry heavyweights like Technicolor, a unit of the Paris-based media services company Thomson, along with its rival Deluxe and the sound company Dolby Laboratories. Dolby has financed the purchase of digital systems for those theaters converting soon, for "Chicken Little" for example, hoping to gain exposure for its own servers and cinema management software.

So goes the competition on the digital frontier. "It's street-fighting right now," said Jack Kline, president and chief operating officer of Christie Digital.

"In order for the market to have confidence in the digital experience, we need real experience," said Michael Karagosian, digital cinema consultant to the National Association of Theater Owners. "We need at least 1,000 systems, with all the vendors delivering content to theaters in a flawless way, so the movie arrives, it's shown, the audience is entertained with the same reliability as today with film."

That's a tall order, he cautioned. "We now have a 99.98 percent availability rate" for film projection, he said, referring to the incidence of equipment malfunction. "That means that 2 out of 10,000 shows fail, where you have to get a voucher. We don't expect to hear, 'The server didn't work.' But there are plenty of stories already about expired encryption keys, the date set wrong, somebody didn't push the right button."

He added, "We're talking about putting desktop technology in the theater. Do you trust your boot-up every time?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/bu...ital.html?8dpc





News in Black, White and Shades of Gray
A. O. SCOTT

SHOT in a black-and-white palette of cigarette smoke, hair tonic, dark suits and pale button-down shirts, "Good Night, and Good Luck" plunges into a half-forgotten world in which television was new, the cold war was at its peak, and the Surgeon General's report on the dangers of tobacco was still a decade in the future. Though it is a meticulously detailed reconstruction of an era, the film, directed by George Clooney from a script he wrote with Grant Heslov, is concerned with more than nostalgia.

Burnishing the legend of Edward R. Murrow, the CBS newsman who in the 1940's and 50's established a standard of journalistic integrity his profession has scrambled to live up to ever since, "Good Night, and Good Luck" is a passionate, thoughtful essay on power, truth-telling and responsibility. It opens the New York Film Festival tonight and will be released nationally on Oct. 7. The title evokes Murrow's trademark sign-off, and I can best sum up my own response by recalling the name of his flagship program: See it now.

And be prepared to pay attention. "Good Night, and Good Luck" is not the kind of historical picture that dumbs down its material, or walks you carefully through events that may be unfamiliar. Instead, it unfolds, cinéma-vérité style, in the fast, sometimes frantic present tense, following Murrow and his colleagues as they deal with the petty annoyances and larger anxieties of news gathering at a moment of political turmoil. The story flashes back from a famous, cautionary speech that Murrow gave at an industry convention in 1958 to one of the most notable episodes in his career - his war of words and images with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

While David Strathairn plays Murrow with sly eloquence and dark wit, Mr. Clooney allows the junior Senator from Wisconsin to play himself (thanks to surviving video clips of his hearings and public appearances), a jolt of documentary truth that highlights some of the movie's themes. Television, it suggests, can be both a potent vehicle for demagoguery and a weapon in the fight against it.

Mr. Clooney, who plays Murrow's producer and partner, Fred Friendly, has clearly thought long and hard about the peculiar, ambiguous nature of the medium. It is a subject that comes naturally to him: his father, Nick, was for many years a local television newscaster in Cincinnati, and the younger Mr. Clooney's own star first rose on the small screen. Like "Good Night, and Good Luck," his first film, "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" (2002), used the biography of a television personality (Chuck Barris of "The Gong Show") as a way of exploring the medium's capacity to show the truth, and also to distort and obscure it.

Indeed, these two movies can almost be seen as companion pieces. "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" suggests that a man with a hard time telling truth from fiction can find a natural home on the tube, while "Good Night, and Good Luck" demonstrates that a furiously honest, ruthlessly rational person may find it less comfortable. Murrow, as conceived by the filmmakers and incarnated by Mr. Strathairn, is a man of strong ideals and few illusions. He knows that McCarthy will smear him (and offers the Senator airtime to do so), and that sponsors and government officials will pressure his boss, William Paley (Frank Langella), to rein him in.

He is aware that his reports are part of a large, capitalist enterprise, and makes some necessary concessions. In addition to his investigative reports - and, in effect, to pay for them - Murrow conducts celebrity interviews, including one with Liberace, which Mr. Clooney has lovingly and mischievously rescued from the archives.

From that odd encounter to the kinescopes of the Army-McCarthy hearings, "Good Night, and Good Luck" brilliantly recreates the milieu of early television. (Robert Elswit's smoky cinematography and Stephen Mirrione's suave, snappy editing are crucial to this accomplishment.) It also captures, better than any recent movie I can think of, the weirdly hermetic atmosphere of a news organization at a time of crisis.

Nearly all the action takes place inside CBS headquarters (or at the bar where its employees drink after hours), which gives the world outside a detached, almost abstract quality. A telephone rings, an image flickers on a screen, a bulldog edition of the newspaper arrives (sometimes it's this one, whose television critic, Jack Gould, was one of Murrow's champions) - this is what it means for information to be mediated.

But its effects are nonetheless real. While the camera never follows Friendly or Murrow home from the office, and the script never delves into psychology, we see how the climate of paranoia and uncertainty seeps into the lives of some of their co-workers. Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise), an anchor for the New York CBS affiliate, is viciously red-baited by a newspaper columnist, and Joe and Shirley Wershba (Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson) skulk around the office like spies (though for reasons that have more to do with office politics than with national security). When Murrow, in March 1954, prepares to broadcast his exposé of McCarthy's methods, the suspense is excruciating, even if we know the outcome.

Because we do, it is possible to view "Good Night, and Good Luck" simply as a reassuring story of triumph. But the film does more than ask us, once again, to admire Edward R. Murrow and revile Joseph R. McCarthy. That layer of the story is, as it should be, in stark black-and-white, but there is a lot of gray as well, and quite a few questions that are not so easily resolved. The free press may be the oxygen of a democratic society, but it is always clouded by particles and pollutants, from the vanity or cowardice of individual journalists to the impersonal pressures of state power and the profit motive.

And while Mr. Clooney is inclined to glorify, he does not simplify. The scenes between Murrow and Paley, taking place in the latter's cryptlike office, have an almost Shakespearean gravity, and not only because Mr. Strathairn and Mr. Langella perform their roles with such easy authority. McCarthy may serve as the hissable villain, but Paley is a more complicated foil for Murrow - at once patron, antagonist and protector. (Addressed by everyone else, in hushed tones, as "Mr. Paley," he is "Bill" only to Murrow.)

Most of the discussion of this movie will turn on its content - on the history it investigates and on its present-day resonance. This is a testament to Mr. Clooney's modesty (as is the fact that, on screen, he makes himself look doughy and pale), but also to his skill. Over the years he has worked with some of the smartest directors around, notably Joel Coen and Steven Soderbergh (who is an executive producer of this film). And while he has clearly learned from them, the cinematic intelligence on display in this film is entirely his own. He has found a cogent subject, an urgent set of ideas and a formally inventive, absolutely convincing way to make them live on screen.

"Good Night, and Good Luck" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). Apart from a little rough language, it is as clean as the television broadcasts it describes.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/09/2...es/23luck.html





Reading From Left to Right
A. O. Scott

AT the beginning of "Just Like Heaven," Elizabeth Masterson, a medical resident played by Reese Witherspoon, leaves work after more than 24 straight hours of emergency-room duty and drives out into darkness and pouring rain, then promptly smashes head-on into a truck. If you haven't already seen the movie, it will spoil nothing to tell you that the accident, discreetly shown as a "Six Feet Under"-style whiteout, is not fatal. After all, what romantic comedy in its right mind would kill off Reese Witherspoon in the first act? And "Just Like Heaven," which opened last weekend to a solid $16.5 million box-office take is, in more than one sense, a movie very much in its right mind. Elizabeth survives, but the film itself provides the latest evidence that the myth of a monolithically liberal Hollywood is dead.

Let's skip, for the moment, yet another argument about whether it was ever really alive. The notion that the American film industry is a hotbed of left-wing propaganda is a venerable one, and some determined demagogues will cling to it no matter what the studios do. But the studios themselves, especially after the stunning success of Mel Gibson's independently financed "The Passion of the Christ," have tried to strengthen their connection with religious and social conservatives, who represent not only a political constituency but a large and powerful segment of the market. As is often the case when it comes to reaching new audiences, the big movie companies have lagged a bit behind other show-business sectors, which is to say behind their own corporate siblings. Christian music has crossed over onto the pop and hip-hop charts, while television has found room on broadcast and cable channels for programming attuned to conservative sensibilities.

One reason for this delay is that movies - big movies, hit movies, movie-star movies - remain one of the few pop-cultural forms that are supposed to appeal to everyone. The oldest and fondest dream in Hollywood has been that it might represent, and thus sell tickets to, a public ruled by harmony and consensus. Those ideals may seem especially hard to come by these days, but we should not let old movies convince us that the old days were that much less contentious than the present. Indeed, the divisive aspects of American life - the half-hidden conflicts of race, class, place and creed - have traditionally been smoothed over on screen.

But there is an equally long tradition of trying to see through the pretty, pandering pictures. Hunting for ideological subtexts in Hollywood movies is a critical parlor game. Many a term paper has been written decoding the varieties of cold war paranoia latent in the westerns and science-fiction movies of the 1950's. Now, thanks to the culture wars and the Internet, the game of ideological unmasking is one that more and more people are playing. With increasing frequency, the ideology they are uncovering is conservative, and it seems to spring less from the cultural unconscious than from careful premeditation.

Last fall, "The Incredibles" celebrated Ayn Randian libertarian individualism and the suburban nuclear family, while the naughty puppets of "Team America" satirized left- wing celebrity activism and defended American global power even as they mocked its excesses. More recently we have learned that flightless Antarctic birds, according to some fans of "March of the Penguins," can be seen as big-screen embodiments of the kind of traditional domestic values that back-sliding humans have all but abandoned, as well as proof that divine intention, rather than blind chance, is the engine of creation. I may be the only person who thought "The Island," this summer's Michael Bay flop about human clones bred for commercial use, indirectly argues the Bush administration's position on stem cell research, but I have not been alone in discerning lessons on intelligent design and other faith-based matters amid the spooky effects of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." That movie, by the way, came in a close second behind "Just Like Heaven" at the box office last week, following an initial weekend in which it earned more than $30 million, one of the strongest September openings ever.

The objection to such message-hunting, whether it seeks hidden agendas of the left or the right, and whether it applauds or scorns those agendas, is always the same: it's only a movie. And what is so fascinating about "Just Like Heaven" is that it is, very emphatically, only a movie, the kind of fluffy diversion that viewers seek out on first dates or after a stressful work week. Its central couple - Ms. Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo - meet cute in a gorgeous apartment to which both lay claim. Their blossoming romance faces the usual obstacles, as well as some that are not so usual. For one thing, they can't stand each other; for another, one of them is a disembodied spirit visible only to her unwilling roommate.

So far, no obvious Republican Party talking points. This is not a movie that, at least at first, wears its politics on its sleeve. It takes place in San Francisco, perhaps the bluest city in one of the bluer states in the union, in a milieu of entitled urban professionals. Mr. Ruffalo, sad, scruffy and sweet as ever, brings a decided alt-culture vibe with him wherever he goes. With his dark, baggy sweaters and his slow, tentative line readings, he represents a new movie type decidedly at odds with the norms of movie masculinity: the shy, passive urban hipster as romantic ideal.

But a movie that looks at first like a soft, supernatural variation on the urban singleton themes of "Sex and the City," by the end comes to seem like a belated brief in the Terri Schiavo case. (If you insist on being surprised by the plot of "Just Like Heaven," it might be best to stop reading now). Elizabeth, as it happens, is not dead, but rather in a coma from which she is given little chance of awakening. To make matters worse - and to set up a madcap climax in which Donal Logue rescues the film's faltering sense of humor - she has signed a living will, which her loving sister, urged on by an unprincipled doctor, is determined to enforce. But Elizabeth's spirit, along with Mr. Ruffalo's character, David, has second thoughts because she is so obviously alive, and the two must race to prevent the plug from being pulled, which means running through hospital corridors pushing a comatose patient on a gurney.

Would I have been happier if Elizabeth died? The very absurdity of the question - what kind of romantic comedy would that be? - is evidence of the film's ingenuity. Who could possibly take the side of medical judgment when love, family, supernatural forces and the very laws of genre are on the other side? And who would bother to notice that the villainous, materialistic doctor, despite having the religiously neutral last name Rushton, is played by Ben Shenkman, a bit of casting that suggests a faint, deniable whiff of anti-Semitism? Similarly, it can't mean much that Elizabeth, the ambitious career woman, is sad and unfulfilled in contrast to her married, stay-at-home- mom sister. Or that the last word you hear (uttered by Jon Heder, first seen in "Napoleon Dynamite") is "righteous."

The ingenuity of "Just Like Heaven" is that it does not insist on its righteousness. Its spiritual conceits are not associated with the doctrines of any particular religion, and its humor, while studiously clean, never feels prim or self-conscious. "Emily Rose," which also casts doctors among its villains and favors supernaturalism over science, is a bit more overt with its message. While "Just Like Heaven" is content with a vague, ecumenical supernaturalism, "Emily Rose" wants to tell you, like the old Louvin Brothers song, that Satan is real. Or, at the very least, that we should be open to the possibility that demonic possession might offer a better explanation for the title character's torments than the diagnoses listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Now, of course, this in itself hardly distinguishes the movie from others of its kind. As Ross Douthat, an astute blogger and journalist, has pointed out online, "the horror movie is the most conservative and religion-friendly genre in Hollywood, and the message of devil-related movies, in particular, is almost always that science is wrong." But the means by which this message is delivered is a bit unusual, not only for its didacticism, but also because the movie's climactic arguments are as much a plea for open-mindedness and pluralism as a fire-and-brimstone sermon on the nature of evil. Rather like the promoters of intelligent design, the filmmakers present a mild, almost relativistic argument, according to which the reluctance of scientific experts to rule anything out makes anything possible, and therefore likely to be true.

Claiming to be based on a true story, it squanders some of its credibility as a horror movie in lengthy courtroom disquisitions on faith and reason, topics that figure prominently on the film's Web site. But it nonetheless holds to the conventions of genre strongly enough to attract thrill-seeking teenagers, and it also attracted some impressive actors, including Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson. Mr. Wilkinson, among other things, underwent a sex change operation in the HBO movie "Normal," while Ms. Linney received an Oscar nomination for her role in "Kinsey." Talk about crossover.

Should movies like "Emily Rose," released by Sony, and "Just Like Heavens," from DreamWorks, be interpreted as peace offerings in the culture wars, or as canny attempts to open a new front in the endless battle for the soul of the American public? Will liberals now have a chance to complain, as conservatives have for so long, that Hollywood is ideologically biased and out of touch with its audience? Will we ever be able to sit back and say, "It's only a movie"? I hope not. The arguments we are having among ourselves are too loud and insistent to be drowned out or silenced in the false comfort of the movie theater.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/mo...es/25scot.html





Magnatune Pushes the File-Sharing Envelope
Jon Sobel

The Internet record label and store Magnatune has announced a new policy whereby uncompressed, CD-quality music purchased from its site can be legally copied and shared up to three times. While Magnatune, which now represents over 200 artists in a variety of genres, offers its music in compressed MP3 and Ogg Vorbis formats, it is unusual among online music- download retailers in that it also provides the sound files in uncompressed formats (such as WAV) for download (or, for an additional charge, a packaged CD complete with artwork).

Even with broadband Internet access, downloading uncompressed music files can be a lengthy procedure because of their large size. Hence the popularity of compressed formats such as MP3 (typically unrestricted) or AAC (Apple iTunes's copy-protected format), which enable users to share and download easily and devices like the iPod to hold thousands of songs. But some listeners object to the loss of sound quality caused by compression, and some consumers object on principle to paying for a product that is of lesser quality than what was originally released by the artist and record company. Although some recordings and some types of music withstand compression better than others, and not all ears are equally discriminating, ultimately a compressed recording will never sound quite as good as the original version such as you find on a commercially packaged CD. Magnatune caters to those who want the option of acquiring the music without compromised sound quality.

Downloading a CD's worth of uncompressed music from Magnatune costs less than what one would typically spend on a packaged CD - $8 is the usual suggested price, and, unlike at iTunes, the new Napster, and other download retailers, Magnatune does not sell sound files burdened with copy protection. However, while Magnatune's MP3 versions are distributed under a Creative Commons license, which allows noncommercial reproduction and distribution, the uncompressed files are not; until now, buying them gave you just the same rights you'd have to the music you'd buy on a commercial CD, which do not (surprise!) include the right to rip and burn copies for your friends.

Now, however, Magnatune customers can legally distribute up to three copies of uncompressed music. Why? Founder John Buckman explains it this way: "People fall in love with new music by being exposed to it by others. It's such an obvious point, and everyone knows the truth of it, yet the music industry has always fought it." Buckman's betting this form of grassroots peer-to-peer marketing will draw more music fans to the site and prompt more sales. Given the relatively small, boutique nature of the label - artists are hand-picked by Buckman and his small staff, with a browsably small quantity in each genre - I wouldn't bet against him. One of the functions of a record label has always been editorial filtering, and the major labels' failure to adapt intelligently to the digital age leaves plenty of room for small, discriminating labels - whether traditional, or entirely Internet-based like Magnatune - to step into the breach.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/26/154038.php





A Pulse On Peer-To-Peer
Tom Sullivan

Does peer-to-peer networking pose security problems, or not?

P2P is seen as a security risk by more than half of companies, according to a survey by Sage Research.

While conducting the research for its Sage Market Pulse the company, in fact, found that 51 percent of respondents consider P2P a 'major' security threat.

Looking to get a handle on security, 44 percent of those surveyed plan to rate-limit use of P2P traffic through deep-packet inspection. That's one way of alleviating some security issues that those 43 percent working to deliver commercial services via P2P just might embrace.

Additionally, 39 percent of respondents plan to facilitate P2P traffic on their networks by caching frequently accessed content.

But back to that first statistic: If 51 percent of companies somewhat or strongly agree that P2P is a major security threat, what about the other 49 percent?

Is IT really split down the middle on whether peer-to-peer has security issues?
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatc...es/004115.html





ioko, Kontiki Develop Peer-to-Peer VOD System

UK-based IT company, ioko (note: among other things, the company manages Sky's Web site and streaming video services), is teaming with Kontiki, a US company that specializes in peer- to-peer video-delivery technologies, on what they say will be a secure, legal, peer-to-peer VOD system, capable of delivering high-definition content. The system, which the companies say will launch shortly, is targeted at European broadband operators. It is powered by peer-to-peer "grid delivery" technology from Kontiki, whose customers include Ernst & Young, Verizon, AOL and the BBC, and which claims that the technology has over 20 million users. The technology is designed to speed up distribution of digital files by allowing users to share unused bandwidth on their computers and servers. It provides digital rights management through support of Microsoft's Windows Rights Manager and allows content providers to specify how many times their content can be viewed and whether it can be copied. Because, unlike most peer-to-peer technologies, Kontiki's allows content to be centrally managed, it will be possible to remove content from the Kontiki-ioko VOD system that violates copyright.

The companies claim that their system will avoid scalability problems and network gridlocks associated with traditional, centralized VOD systems. They say that they will be working together to deliver custom services based on the system to a "broad spectrum" of media companies, including their existing customers, the BBC--which is using Kontiki's grid technology for its soon-to-begin Interactive Media Player trial--and Sky--which plans to launch a PC- based broadband VOD service for Sky Movies and Sky Sports subscribers in the fall. (Note: Kontiki's technology also supports the Open Media Network, a non-profit broadband VOD service that provides an array of programming from US public broadcasters, and offers a measure of interactivity.
http://blog.itvt.com/my_weblog/2005/...ontiki_de.html





P2P Sharing Software Aimini Allows Direct Connect Between Users
Dan Bell

aimini used our news submit to tell us that he has released a newer version of the file sharing software Aimini. According to the author, this is an an all-in- one P2P software, that through the use of PozID, IP, hostname or URL address you can directly connect between users. This enables direct file- transfer, as well as peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing and can make for faster searches and downloads of all types. This direct connect function also allows for collaboration over the Internet and corporate intranets, holding real- time conversations where users can see, hear, and exchange information with each other.

Aimini P2P software supports industry standards and offers rich data transmission, audio transmission, and video transmission capabilities in a seamless, easy-to-use client. They also provide with the software an Address Book and an FTP client.

The company is offering a full functioning, free trial download that they claim contains no adware or spyware. We are not familiar with this software, so if you decide to give it a try, then please let us know your thoughts here or of course you can share your experience in the Music Download, Peer to Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum. If you like the software and decide to register it, they are offering the program for $39.70.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12465





Microgrids As Peer-To-Peer Energy
BBC

Small networks of power generators in "microgrids" could transform the electricity network in the way that the net changed distributed communication.

That is one of the conclusions of a Southampton University project scoping out the feasibility of microgrids for power generation and distribution.

Microgrids are small community networks that supply electricity and heat.

They could make substantial savings, and emissions cuts with no major changes to lifestyles, researchers say.

Electricity suppliers are aiming to meet the UK government's Renewables Obligation, requiring them to generate 15% of electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

Microgrids, say the researchers, could easily integrate alternative energy production, such as wind or solar, into the electricity network.

They could also make substantial savings and cuts to emissions without major changes to lifestyles, according to lead researcher, Dr Tom Markvart.

We wanted to look at what kind of energy system we would ideally construct today, in the 21st Century, in response to current pressures for higher energy use
Dr Tom Markvart, Southampton University

"This would save something like 20 to 30% of our emissions with hardly anyone knowing it," he told the BBC News website.

"A microgrid is a collection of small generators for a collection of users in close proximity," explained Dr Markvart, whose research appears in the Royal Academy of Engineering's Ingenia magazine.

"It supplies heat through the household, but you already have cables in the ground, so it is easy to construct an electricity network. Then you create some sort of control network."

That network could be made into a smart grid using more sophisticated software and grid computing technologies.

As an analogy, the microgrids could work like peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies, such as BitTorrents, where demand is split up and shared around the network of "users".

Microgrids could exist as stand alone power networks within small communities, or be owned and operated by existing power suppliers.

Campaign groups such as the Green Alliance have been pushing for micropower generation technologies, such as micro-CHP (combined heat and power) boilers - a vital part of microgrids - mini-wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays.

Micro-CHP units work by turning heat which would normally escape through flues into electricity. Homeowners then sell any surplus electricity back to the national grid.

The Green Alliance says the government should take micro-generation more seriously.

Putting just six panels of solar PVs on a typical new three-bedroom house would reduce that household's carbon emissions by over 20%, according to the group.

Power pressures

Microgrids are designed for a smallish community - a typical UK housing estate for example. They deal much more efficiently with fluctuating power demands which the national grid is not flexible enough to cope with.

Dr Markvart's project was initiated in recognition that the UK's current electricity distribution system was built around the availability of fossil fuels.

But the 21st Century throws up some pressing questions about the use of fossil fuels.

"We wanted to look at what kind of energy system we would ideally construct today, in the 21st Century, in response to current pressures for higher energy use," Dr Markvart said.

"We looked at something to which the technology energy sector could evolve in response to the need to reduce emissions."

Dr Markvart and his team at Southampton University built a computer model to test out the viability of such small scale networks, combining micro- CHP units with PV solar arrays to convert sunlight into electricity.

"It is a little bit like comparing the old style telephone network with the network today," said Dr Markvart.

Installing a microgrid would not need an entirely new network to be built, as some broadband networks have dictated.

For developing countries, buildings could provide electricity without the need for vast infrastructures to be put in place.

Close to home

As the cost of alternative technologies falls and their efficiencies rise, they become much more of a viable option.

Greenhouse gas emissions could also be reduced if micro generators were powered by hydrogen, sunlight or small wind turbines, said Dr Markvart.

Having generators close to demand also cuts down the cost of getting power from a remote power station to the household.

Generator sizes are similar to loads - which is very different to traditional systems with huge power stations serving lots of small users.

Smaller networks mean ways to store unused power can be introduced, something that does not happen in large networks.

"In a traditional system, you have the power station and electricity flows from power station to users - it is unidirectional. The whole network is constructed around that unidirectional power flow.

"There is also a tremendous amount of heat generated during the process. The heat is just waste and it is disposed of," explained Dr Markvart.

The huge "chimneys" that have become a familiar part of many areas of the UK are the towers that cool down and then expel the heat waste.

"Only about 30 to 40% of the primary energy ends up as electricity; 60 to 70% goes up the chimney. You don't have any use for it because there is no one located around the station that needs heat."

Increasingly, micro-CHP units are being tested out in small communities to potentially replace conventional central-heating boiler units.

According to estimates, eight million micro-CHP units could be in homes by 2020, supplying a third of a household's power.

But renewable power groups have called for clearer government policy targets for alternative power strategies.

"We could have microgrids tomorrow; it can be done now. The technology is there," said Dr Markvart.

The main barriers however, are institutional and regulatory. There are some moves afoot by regulators Ofgem, which is working on a registered power zones concept to convince the electricity companies of their potential.

The cost of renewable energy devices has been recognised by the government, according to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It wants to excite the industry so that the cost of individual units falls.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ch/4245584.stm





eDonkey Converts To 'Legal' File Sharing

The firm's CEO said that pressure from the recording industry prompted the change, and also said that many future peer-to-peer startups will be forced to locate outside the U.S. because of the legal pressures.
Gregg Keizer

A second major peer-to-peer file sharing service waved the white flag Wednesday. In testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the president of the company that distributes the eDonkey P2P software said that under legal pressure from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) he was giving up.

"Because we cannot afford to fight a lawsuit – even one we think we would win – we have instead prepared to convert eDonkey’s user base to an online content retailer operating in a 'closed' P2P environment," said Sam Yagan, the president of MetaMachine, Inc., in a statement before the committee.

"I expect such a transaction to take place as soon as we can reach a settlement with the RIAA. We hope that the RIAA and other rights holders will be happy with our decision to comply with their request and will appreciate our cooperation to convert eDonkey users to a sanctioned P2P environment," added Yagan.

Yagan's decision to take eDonkey to a private P2P model follows the demise of another file-sharing player, WinMX, whose Web site went offline last week.

Both decisions were driven by letters sent Sept. 15 by the RIAA to seven prominent P2P networks, demanding that they either implement technology acceptable to the RIAA or shut down. eDonkey, which is owned by MetaMachine, received one of the letters, as did WinMX, LimeWire, BearShare, and others.

In turn, the RIAA's actions were based on this summer's Supreme Court decision in MGM Studios v. Grokster, when the court ruled that file-sharing services were responsible for copyright violations if they intended customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally.

Yagan also predicted that because of the Grokster decision and the RIAA's legal threats, file-sharing innovation in the U.S. will screech to a stop. What technology advances do come, he said, will come from overseas, where U.S. law can't reach.

"It’s hard to imagine future P2P companies opening shop as American corporations," said Yagan. "That will be unfortunate because some of the benefits of companies operating in the U.S. are that they are easy for entertainment rights holders to access, they can be held to the contracts they sign, and they can be made available to provide input to Congress. I predict that, unfortunately, innovation in this area will come to a halt.

"Perhaps the hottest P2P company (or any technology company for that matter) of the moment is Skype, which eBay recently acquired for more than $2 billion. Where was Skype founded? Not in the United States. That represents hundreds of millions of tax dollars that will not be collected by federal, state, and local governments.

"Where are the Skypes of tomorrow being founded? Your best bet is to look offshore."
http://www.informationweek.com/story...leID=171201851





Illegal File Sharing Is Simply Theft
Central Florida Future - Opinions

The tide is turning in the fight over online file sharing. Two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a company can be held liable for copyright violations that take place on its service.

Several companies have responded by moving toward more legitimate operations. Major players such as EDonkey and Grokster have announced plans to alter their structures, with EDonkey exploring ways to appease the record industry while still making money and Grokster attempting to merge with Mashboxx, a new company that plans to pay copyright owners for their songs.

These developments are a positive step toward curtailing the shameful practice of illegal file sharing. The development of the Internet and the promulgation of broadband technology has provided amazing opportunities for people around the world to explore, learn and communicate in ways previously unimaginable.

Computer technology has made nearly every aspect of life easier, be it business, research, finance, planning, etc. Unfortunately, it has also provided a new medium for illegal behaviors such as harassment, fraud and theft.

And make no mistake, theft is what illegal downloading is. The dictionary defines "theft" as "an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property."

Seems pretty cut and dry. So why is it that so many people can't grasp the fact, or refuse to acknowledge that taking electronic property is stealing?

The reason is cowardice. Illegal downloading removes personal interaction from the process.

Shoplifting from a department store forces an individual to be immersed in the situation. The cameras could be on you, the employees might spot you or the alarm could go off.

It's a risk. It's a much bigger risk, seemingly, than taking what you want from the safety of your bedroom, with the bustling interior components of your PC doing the taking for you. It allows people a sense of removal from the act itself, thereby appeasing any feelings of wrongdoing - and that's cowardly.

Some cite the high price of CDs as justification for illegal downloading. This rationale is flawed on many levels. Since when does a high price - and what exactly defines a high price? - give you license to steal? Welcome to capitalism, Comrade Marx. Producers and retailers set prices and the market dictates their rise and fall. No one has the right to start taking products when they, in their infinite wisdom, decide that they cost too much.

"But there's only one or two good songs on the CD. Why should I pay $15 for that?"

Hey, good point. You shouldn't. You also shouldn't allow your misguided sense of importance to allow you to believe that you have a right to the "good" songs on that disc and should be allowed to take them. Hey, nobody likes that tiny little mutant leg in the bucket of chicken at Publix. Too bad, it's part of the package.

Intellectual property is no different than tangible property. Someone spent years in training for their craft and put in countless hours to create a product that they depend on for their lifeblood.

One is not "sticking it to the man" when you take songs, television or movies that you didn't pay for. These corporations that students thumb their nose at are really just collections of people; and for each mega-millionaire in the group, there are gaffers, best boys, grips and tons of other workers with absolutely essential jobs that I've never understood.

When these companies lose money due to your greed, they make cuts. Someone is going to feel the sting. Do people think the corporate bigwigs are going to cut their own salaries? If one believes that, they're as naïve as the idea that illegal file sharing is harmless.
http://www.ucfnews.com/media/paper17...-1002470.shtml





Bronfman Fires Back at Apple

The duet between Apple and the music industry struck a sour note as the industry takes aim at Steve Jobs.

The gloves are off in the battle between Apple CEO Steve Jobs and the music industry over the price of downloaded songs.

On Thursday, one of the music industry’s highest-profile executives responded publicly to Mr. Jobs’ charges, made earlier in the week, that they were “greedy” when they requested a price hike for downloaded songs.

At an investors’ conference in New York, Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. said the price of downloaded songs should vary depending on the popularity of the songs and the artists. He called Apple’s across-the-board $0.99-per-song charge unfair.

“There’s no content that I know of that does not have variable pricing,” said Mr. Bronfman at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia investor conference. “Not all songs are created equal—not all time periods are created equal. We want, and will insist upon having, variable pricing.”

Mr. Bronfman’s remarks came in response to Mr. Jobs’ statement on Tuesday blasting the music industry for pushing for an increase in the price of downloaded music, saying their demands, if met, would serve to encourage piracy, which has eaten into the industry’s profits.

Shares of Apple were up $0.47 to $52.37 in recent trading, while shares of Warner Music Group were down a penny to $18.03.

“To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer,” said Mr. Bronfman. “Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don’t want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past.”

Songs, Not Albums

Many believe that Apple’s model of picking and buying individual songs is much more consumer-friendly than the traditional retail model of buying an album or CD with seven songs, of which the consumer might be interested in only one or two.

“Instead of spending $15 for a CD, you buy two cuts for two bucks. That’s a lot of money left on the table,” said Joe Nordgaard, managing director of Spectral Advantage, a strategic consulting firm. “The traditional model with premium pricing has been so lucrative for the music industry. When they cut the deal with Apple, they did not realize what they had done. Now they want out.”

Mr. Bronfman said the music industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of digital music devices for Apple or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits.

“We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don’t have a share of iPod’s revenue,” he said. “We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.

“We have to keep thinking how we are going to monetize our product for our shareholders,” added Mr. Bronfman. “We are the arms supplier in the device wars between Samsung, Sony, Apple, and others.”

Jonathan Hurd, vice president of Adventis, a Boston-based consultancy, believes that the music industry is in the throes of a major sea change and it will take more time for it to absorb those changes.

“The music industry is making a transition away from CDs to online music, but that transition is probably going to take five more years,” he said. “Steve Jobs likes the simplicity of a single $0.99-per-song price because simplicity is good in the early stages of a market. Both sides are posturing for their upcoming negotiations.”

Rough Treatment

The satellite radio industry also came in for some rough treatment from Mr. Bronfman, who believes the old contracts the music industry signed with the two major satellite radio outlets have run their course and should be taken before an arbitrator.

“It’s now time for satellite radio to pay. We gave them a seven-year license at vastly below-market rate to allow that business model to occur,” he said. “There is no reason for their content cost to be one-tenth of what everyone else is paying and have this done on the backs of the music industry while they pay market rate to the NFL, Howard Stern, and Major League Baseball.”

Sirius Satellite Radio has paid a reported $500 million to secure the services of the self-styled “king of all media,” Howard Stern. And both XM and Sirius have announced a number of multimillion-dollar sports broadcast contracts.
http://www.redherring.com/Article.as...inmentAndMedia





Local news

Massachusetts Moves Ahead Sans Microsoft
Martin LaMonica

The commonwealth of Massachusetts has finalized its decision to standardize desktop applications on OpenDocument, a format not supported by Microsoft Office.

The state on Wednesday posted the final version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model, which mandates new document formats for office productivity applications.

As it proposed late last month before a comment period, Massachusetts has decided to use only products that conform to the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or OpenDocument, which is developed by the standards body OASIS.

State agencies in the executive branch are now supposed to migrate to OpenDocument-compliant applications by Jan. 1, 2007, a change that will affect about 50,000 desktop PCs. The reference model also confirms that Adobe's PDF format is considered an "open format."

The move to adopt OpenDocument shuts Microsoft out of the state's procurement process because the software giant, which dominates the office application market, has said it does not intend to support the OpenDocument format.

Microsoft's Office 12, which is due in the second half of next year, will store Office documents in an XML format. XML is also the basis of OpenDocument. However, Microsoft executives have consistently said that the company will not support OpenDocument natively and rely instead on "filters" to convert formats.

OpenDocument is used in open-source application products, such as OpenOffice and variants of it from companies including Sun Microsystems, IBM and Novell.

On Friday, a Microsoft manager questioned whether the IT division's technical reference model is really the last word on state policy.

"We understand that this is not a final decision for the commonwealth and that state lawmakers and the secretary of state have raised some of the same questions and concerns about this proposal that many others have raised," Alan Yates, Microsoft general manager of information worker business strategy, said in a statement. "Some in state government have talked about potential hearings to delve into this issue further, and we encourage that additional public review and evaluation."

Even before finalizing its plan, Massachusetts' embrace of OpenDocument has stirred strong reactions, both positive and negative.

Some have praised the state's policies as the best way to break Microsoft's monopolistic control of the PC software market. Others, including Microsoft and software industry groups, have criticized the state, saying its decisions narrow choices to open-source products.

"The commonwealth's decision is a watershed event for the adoption of open standards," Bob Sutor, IBM's vice president of standards, said in an e-mail Friday. "Massachusetts residents, rather than any one vendor, now control their own information."

The OpenDocument format is being considered by some European governments, including Norway, Denmark and Japan, as well as other U.S. state governments, an IBM representative said.

Meanwhile, foes of Massachusetts' policy said the state is acting unfairly.

During a hearing regarding the proposal last week, Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, said that Massachusetts was moving ahead with a policy before it had adequately considered the cost or the potential impact.

He also questioned the state's endorsement of Adobe PDF and the decision to rely on standards organizations.

"You seem to have selectively chosen one format (Adobe's PDF) that has some IP associated with (it) and said, 'That's OK, but this one (Microsoft Office) isn't.' So I'm curious about the consistency," Zuck told Peter Quinn, the state's CIO, and Eric Kriss, the state's secretary of administration and finance. "We all know that standards groups are not hives of innovation by any means."

Massachusetts officials defended their decision, saying the move will save the state money, make sure that state records will be preserved over time, and ensure the state's "sovereignty."

In a FAQ, the state's Information Technology Division said that current users of Microsoft Office in executive-branch agencies do not necessarily need to uninstall Office. "Use of existing MS Office licenses is allowed as long as agencies use a method permitting the saving of documents in Open Document Format," the FAQ said. Third-party products could in theory perform a conversion from Office to OpenDocument formats.

In addition, Microsoft could still become part of the state's procurement policy by meeting its definition of open formats, Kriss said at an open-format meeting, which was held last Friday with the Mass Technology Leadership Council.

Kriss said that Microsoft's Office formats would have to be free of or have minimal legal encumbrances and be a standard that is subject to peer review by organizations outside Microsoft. He added that Microsoft document formats would have to be subject to "joint stewardship" by a standards body not controlled by one company or a small consortium.

"If you were to do (those things), we would be delighted to do a technical comparison of your standards and the OpenDocument standard," Kriss said, addressing a Microsoft representative. He added that the question is a "moving target" because Microsoft has already made some modifications to its patent policy.

On the question of why Adobe's PDF format meets the definition of "open format," state officials said it was a "gray area" but that Adobe's legal and licensing terms were deemed sufficiently open.

During the hearing, Kriss said that the state would save significantly by migrating to OpenDocument-based products rather than going with Office 12--on the order of $5 million for OpenDocument versus $50 million for Office 12, including hardware and operating-system upgrade costs.

But he said that fundamentally the state's policy is based in the notion of sovereignty.

"Here we have a true conflict between the notion of intellectual property and the notion of sovereignty, and I'd say that 100 percent of the time in a democracy, sovereignty trumps intellectual property," Kriss said. "That's the issue we're grappling with."
http://news.com.com/Massachusetts+mo...3-5878869.html





Surveillance

Wiretap Rules For VoIP, Broadband Coming In 2007
Declan McCullagh

Broadband providers and Internet phone services have until spring 2007 to follow a new and complex set of rules designed to make it easier for police to seek wiretaps, federal regulators have ruled.

It's clear from the Federal Communications Commission's 59-page decision (click for PDF), released late Friday evening, that any voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, provider linking with the public telephone network must be wiretap-ready. That list would include companies such as Vonage, SkypeOut and Packet 8.

But what remains uncertain is what the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) ruling means for companies, universities, nonprofits--and even individuals offering wireless or other forms of Internet access.

"Because of that very fundamental difference between the Internet and the public switched network, the commission has had a hard time defining who, exactly, is covered, and they have in this order completely punted on the question of who is responsible for what," Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said Monday.

Terrorism and homeland security concerns make such regulations necessary, the FCC said, echoing the arguments of Bush administration officials who have warned of VoIP services becoming a "haven" for terrorists, criminals and spies. "It is clearly not in the public interest to allow terrorists and criminals to avoid lawful surveillance by law enforcement agencies by using broadband Internet access services," the FCC said.

Even though the FBI has been lobbying on this topic since at least mid-2003, and regulators have been formally considering the request since March 2004, the rules remain fuzzy. The FCC's order says, for instance, that "we reach no conclusions" about whether universities, and small and rural broadband providers, must cease providing Net connectivity until their networks comply with police requirements.

The FCC's 59-page rule applies to any "Internet access service" that offers upstream or downstream speeds of at least 200kbps--which would easily cover Wi-Fi hot spots operated by individuals or businesses. In a footnote, however, the FCC suggests that its regulations "are not intended" to cover hotels, coffee shops and bookstores that provide Wi-Fi service.

Some answers are likely to come in a second regulation that the FCC promises to release by the end of the year. That's also expected to address whether taxpayers will pay for the cost of equipment upgrades and yield more details about deadlines. (The requirements kick in 18 months from the formal publication of the rules in the Federal Register--which has not happened yet--yielding a deadline of about April 2007.)

An FCC representative who did not want to be identified by name said Monday that "whoever operates the system" would be subject to federal wiretap requirements. The representative said someone who "actually has a network"--as opposed to a cafe that just buys Internet service--would be responsible for complying.

Representatives from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Voice On the Net Coalition said they would work with the FCC to ensure that their services complied with the requirements, though they acknowledged that important questions remained unanswered.

"Not without legal risk"
Injecting additional uncertainty is whether the FCC's action is legal. It represents what critics call an unreasonable extension of 1994's CALEA-- which was designed to address telephone features such as three-way calling and call waiting--to the Internet.

A House of Representatives committee report prepared in October 1994 emphatically says CALEA's requirements "do not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."

When Congress was debating CALEA, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh reassured nervous senators that the law would be limited to telephone calls. "So what we are looking for is strictly telephone--what is said over a telephone?" Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., asked during one hearing.

Freeh replied: "That is the way I understand it. Yes, sir."

Two of the four FCC commissioners who voted for the extension on Friday acknowledged that the federal government was on shaky legal ground. The FCC's regulation is based on arguing that the law's definition of "telecommunications carrier" applies to broadband and VoIP providers.

Kathleen Abernathy said: "Because litigation is as inevitable as death and taxes, and because some might not read the statute to permit the extension of CALEA to the broadband Internet access and VoIP services at issue here, I have stated my concern that an approach like the one we adopt today is not without legal risk."

Michael Copps warned that if a court case leads to the rules being struck down, Friday's move may have done "more harm than good." The FCC's logic, he said, was "built on very complicated legal ground."

The FCC is no stranger to having its decisions rejected by a federal appeals court that can be hostile to what it views as regulatory overreaching. In May, for instance, the FCC's "broadcast flag" was unceremoniously tossed out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"They basically rewrote the statute," said Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, referring to the application of CALEA to the Internet. "After a year or more of studying this question, the commission has failed to answer some basic questions. I'm afraid that the FBI will step into the vacuum and start claiming that it needs this or that."
http://news.com.com/Wiretap+rules+fo...3-5883032.html





EU Data Protection Chief Warns Against Anti-Terrorism Plans
AP

The European Union's data protection supervisor Monday criticized EU plans to retain phone and e-mail data for use in anti-terrorism investigations, saying they failed to protect civil liberties and gave a free hand to national intelligence services.

Peter Hustinx said the proposals -- one drafted by EU governments, the other by the European Commission -- did not prove the need for EU-wide data retention rules.

He added that the rush to push through the bills following the London bombings in July would come at the cost of civil liberties. He highlighted the proposal drafted by EU governments which could see data like times of phone calls retained for up to three years.

``For too long this subject has been discussed under circumstances which were far from adequate,'' Hustinx said. ``Any proposal at this time should ensure respect for the European Convention on Human Rights. ... If that is not the case, then it's not just unacceptable but illegal.''

He warned that ``a time limit (on keeping data) beyond one year would be disproportionate.''

British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who is chairing the EU negotiations, has called for the 25 governments to look at curbing some civil liberties to allow for improved police investigations into suspected terror groups.

EU governments have been working hard to agree on data retention rules, in particular how long such data should be retained and who should pay for the added cost of keeping the records.

Telecommunications companies are opposed to being left with the costs.

Clarke wants to get a deal by the end of the year, arguing quick adoption of EU-wide rules are key to catching crime gangs and terrorists.

Hustinx said the separate Commission plan, which would force phone networks across the European Union to keep data for one year -- and Internet access providers for six months -- needed clarification, warning it had loopholes exempting intelligence agencies.

Hustinx said the plans should include ``strictly limited retention periods,'' and should state clearly that data after a certain time is destroyed. He added that the proposal should make clear that the content of the phone calls and e-mails was not recorded, saying that violated EU privacy rules.

He also said that a list of ``serious crimes,'' where gaining access to phone and e-mail records would be justified, should be more precise.

Hustinx said national judicial authorities and national parliaments should have oversight to ensure human rights were not being violated, and said telecommunications companies should have the right to compensation for their investment in the technical infrastructure.

Hustinx's report which was handed to EU governments and the Commission Monday, puts more pressure on the EU to yield to civil liberties groups that have for months criticized the plans as going too far.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...y/12746814.htm





Will the File-Sharing Networks Perish?

It's highly unlikely
Alexandru Macovschi

RIAA’s and IPI’s efforts to stop the file-sharing networks from spreading copyright infringing files seem to pay off. Mashboxx will acquire Grokster, Kazaa has a few months to become a legal activity and eDonkey is not doing very well either.

IPI has recently launched a software application that allows concerned parents to control their reckless children from becoming pirates, so we may conclude that 2005 was a very bad year for P2P networks.

But will they actually die? Probably not, because there are a lot of users who don’t realize that at some point they could be sentenced for copyright infringement. And as long as there will be a developer with some experience who needs only a few days to create a P2P client, there will also be some thousands of users illegally sharing files.

So far, the organizations concerned with defending copyrights have succeeded to reduce the phenomenon. These organizations should stop hunting down those involved in P2P networks and start inventing some affordable commercial alternatives.

The iTunes model has proven that a lot of people are willing to pay 99 cents for a song and surely there will be others who would pay even more to see a movie.

So, until we see other similar solutions, the illegal file-sharing networks will continue to have followers.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Will-...ish-9197.shtml





The Internet Library: Rip, Mix Or Burn?
Miriam Clinton

The powerful distribution mechanisms of the networked world, particularly peer-to-peer file sharing, present a unique challenge to the rule of law. But at present no one will meet that challenge. While filesharers will not compromise on ultimate freedom, corporations cannot see past the bottom line. The result is bad news for posterity, writes Miriam Clinton

Readers of my earlier essays will be somewhat shocked to hear me say that peer-to-peer data distribution systems and their users need to be held to account. While a valuable piece of technology in their own right, they are often used in a manner which is clearly in breach of current copyright law. One could argue, and even lobby as I do myself, that these laws themselves are in breach of freedom of speech and civil liberties, yet we are at present bound by them, sometimes literally in chains. Even the Free Software system adheres completely to US law in its unique licensing of releases. In fact, Free Software, Open Source and Creative Commons advocates such as myself have built our licensing systems, out of necessity if not belief, directly upon current legislation.

By contrast, peer-to-peer (p2p) software is used for both legal and illegal sharing of materials. Some files distributed are .pdf copies of out of print books, or digital copies of early, out of copyright wax and '78 record archives. Others are .mp3 files of the latest chart hits.

The rise of p2p, and of other systems of distribution between human peers (the peer in p2p refers to machines, not humans, and their position of equality in a network) enabled by the disintermediary powers of the internet, has been matched by an unprecedented strengthening in copyright law. In each phenomenon, there is an accountability deficit.

Copyright extension

Take the extensions of copyright terms first in the US, and now proposed in the EU. The motivation for both these changes in legislation is clearly greed – in the US, the Sonny Bono Copyright Act was termed the “Mickey Mouse Act” as it was in fact proposed out of fear that the copyright of Mickey Mouse and any derivative materials, merchandising and the like, might fall into the public domain. Likewise, the revision to EU law has been proposed due to potential public domain licensing of the Beatles’ and Elvis’ works.

What has gone unconsidered is the educational value of public domain archiving. Distribution systems that house illegal material, unfortunately, also harbour the greatest archive of out-of-catalogue material – that which the major companies no longer consider commercially viable to press. To extend the period of time a work remains under copyright means that, unless one turns to illegal distribution models, great losses are occurring in our library of world music.

Some .mp3s being distributed on p2p networks are rare recordings of live concerts or folk music – again illegal, but the only reference available to such an event. Even song lyrics and books are being lost due to crackdowns – owners of websites have been issued with takedown orders via the publishers, even if the book is no longer in print. Ateaseweb, a Radiohead fan site with possibly the most extensive collection of B-side, unreleased and rare lyrics, was also given a takedown order by the band's publishers. Fortunately it seems Radiohead themselves, supporters of Adriaan Pels' website, intervened and the archive remains as a resource to the public of lead singer Thom Yorke's poetry.

This week even Google has been issued a lawsuit for “taking snapshots” of illegally published material on the internet via its automated technology. Yet many of these texts are no longer available in print, the publisher considering it not viable to make a run of books which perhaps only a handful of people may buy. One book is burned, and then another, and another. Our archives are being dumped into the worldwide bit- bucket.

Digital rights management

At present, anyone can legally download works from organisations who are working with Free, Open Source or Creative Commons licences and material in the public domain to distribute artistic materials legally. But even these projects encounter strange barriers.

Brewster Kahle is attempting one such project in the Internet Archive. Kahle has fought and won legislative rights to extract software code from dated technology, hardware from perhaps only a decade ago which is quickly becoming unreadable either due to material decay or technological obsolescence.

As yet he is not permitted to publish such material, but was granted the rights to archive the software on contemporary hard disks provided that he adhered to conventional copyright law. Distribution may be made possible in the future via a lawsuit (Kahle v. Gonzales) which is currently in process. Yet the lengths which he has had to go to stay within the law when his desire is to archive a piece of software which would be valued at less than a few dollars in today's money, seem ridiculous.

Kahle’s concern, like mine, is that through new Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems – software being used to “copy-protect” CDs and digital files, which, further, is banned from circumvention under present legislation – valuable archives may be lost to future generations. The effects of DRM technology could be disastrous – Brewster Kahle describes the lengths to which he had to go simply to archive a piece of programming made only one decade ago using a now obsolete piece of software. The acceleration in technological developments described by Moore's Law suggests that the DRM systems of today will also very quickly become obsolete, leading to an inability under law to even access materials less than a decade old. This ill-considered lockdown will cause what Alan Cox of Red Hat Software has christened a “digital dark age”. Nothing will remain of the works composed during this century if such technology is used without accountability to the needs of the general public, and to future generations. It will in effect be a great burning of books in the internet Library.

Accountability: who makes the rules?

New technologies, with DRM systems are being rolled out for the next release of Microsoft Windows and Apple's OS X, which will not only prevent cracked software from being installed, but will at start-up check for infringements even in documents themselves. Consumers are being held accountable to business, but the collaboration of business with the law-makers has placed government and business high on a pedestal, unaccountable to their end-users.

Further, it appears that business has overtaken the responsibilities of government in terms of enforcing the law. Take, for example, last year's series of RIAA lawsuits. Their bully-boy tactics were evident by the prosecution of the most vulnerable – minors and the elderly – who could not afford a lawsuit and therefore agreed to pay high sums in out-of-court settlements. This is “presumed guilty before proven innocent”.

The situation at present has been termed “information feudalism” by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite in their book of the same title. The feudal lords of today are those of big business, the RIAA and major software companies, whose power extends beyond government, allowing them the freedom to prosecute at will – or more frequently, threaten until an out-of-court settlement is made. Business has set itself above the law, and in fact is now in a position of writing the law to suit itself.

That government did not intervene in the RIAA lawduits is a shocking example of the lack of accountability between business and government under our existing system.

But in law-breaking consumers must also be held to account. There are legitimate reasons for the sharing of materials, and for the ripping and use of those materials for compositional, creative and archiving purposes, and these rights should be protected. P2p systems such as LimeWire and KaZaA, use technology simply to permit the sharing of files – it is up to the end- user to comply with the law. P2p systems can be used for good or bad means.

A composer has to eat, after all, in order to compose. And while, in a utopian world, people may choose to donate or purchase hard copies of a work to support the composer, a fully free system is in my belief not sufficiently viable, nor accountable, as it relies on the goodwill of the people. And people, whether in business, government, or the general public, are not by nature benevolent.

Commercial solutions

Attempts have been made to “legalise” p2p, although the popularity of these systems has not been of great success, other than iTunes, which, it could be argued, was bought into as a fashion statement by “Apple People” (those who, rather like other label-conscious consumers, will buy any product with an Apple logo on it). Another problem is that, unlike LimeWire, KaZaA, Morpheus et al, “legalised” p2p again only contains a catalogue which the publisher deems commercially saleable, and even iTunes, although extensive, only promotes the most popular of files. This means that those rare collections of live recordings, B-sides and unreleased material from years past will still get lost.

Ironically, systems such as BigChampagne are used by the “big five” major record companies to monitor files being shared across illegal p2p programs, and to adjust their own “legitimate” (ie pay-per-use) products accordingly. Surely, if BigChampagne were to take the step to work together with KaZaA and LimeWire in releasing the artistic works which, clearly, the people want, it might result in a system whereby consumers, business and government might all be satisfied.

A conference of accountability between business and p2p programmers has been attempted, yet both are currently at an impasse – p2p will not compromise on its desire for ultimate freedom, and business will not compromise on its clampdown.

Legal Solutions

It is clear from the impact of new legislation that copyright law itself needs to be reviewed and held accountable. This could be achieved via motions from the people, via the legal system, or from government itself. For example, Professor Lawrence Lessig has argued in the Supreme Court that breaching of freedom of expression due to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is contrary to the First Amendment.

I and many others have chosen to turn to Lessig’s Creative Commons system, where a creator may choose to publish a work permitting reproduction either without fee, or for a fee but allowing non-commercial reproduction across p2p and other distribution systems.

The political solution

The only example I can see of a viable political solution in present times is Germany – coincidentally the European centre of commercial success in Free and Open Source software distribution as home to KDE. Germany was one of few countries in the EU to implement a more lenient form of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) – the very law by which the UK has locked down p2p file sharing in far harsher terms even than the US (under UK law “making available” illegal files is now a criminal, not a civil, offence).

In Germany, citizens pay taxes when purchasing CD and DVD writers, taxes distributed directly back to the creators of the music itself. The Netherlands has a similiar tax on blank media, and its efficacy can be seen in the amount of money which even smaller, obscure composers such as my former tutor Ed de Boer has been able to receive.

German citizens are then permitted under their government's implementation of the EUCD to make copies of music and other works for their personal use. It is of no coincidence that Germany is the centre of the internationalisation project of Creative Commons – the translation of the Creative Commons licences into international languages and checking their viability against an individual countries' law.

Until very recently, at least, Germany had a socialist government. Perhaps adding a little socialism into the mix may create a successful system in copyright law whereby government, business and consumers are accountable to one another. This is socialism in its purest form – not that tainted by Marxism which evolved into the failed Communist systems of the 20th century. To quote Wikipedia's definition of socialism (with my emphasis):

"Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "socialist" ideologies tend to emphasise economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favour central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production – and at least some of the distribution of goods and services – into collective or cooperative ownership."

Instead of permitting any actions whatsoever by the free market without intervention; a situation which at present has lead full circle to the current “information feudalism” of business over the people, that which is not healthy for society would be called to review. No longer would we be subject to the whims of the RIAA and its overwriting of the law via bully-boy tactics out of court. Of course, this does indeed require action on the part of the people, and here Bill Thompson's suggestion of a peer review system is most appropriate.

A dash of socialism may perhaps lead to an answer to our current problems with archiving, as it has partly in Germany with the permission to copy CDs for personal use. Yet we must go further and tear down the walls of worldwide dictatorship which have lead to the restrictive DMCA and EUCD legislation, until research and archiving are once again permitted, until such systems are held up to review or even outlawed due to their clear and direct obstruction of the recording of the events of this century. Projects such as the Internet Archive are essential, but accountability must extend further until a library is permitted to be built and referenced by the general public in order to prevent the coming of a digital dark age.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globali...y/p2p_2877.jsp





BitTorrent Gets First Round of Financing

The popular, yet controversial peer-to-peer developer BitTorrent receives their first round of financing worth $8.75 million dollars.

If Kazaa and Napster can become a viable business, so can BitTorrent right? The popular peer-to-peer (P2P) developer has stated they will partner up with Doll Capital Management to lead a Series A venture funding initiative worth $8.75 million dollars. The investment will help to globally commercialize their technology to turn it into a legitimate business.

"While BitTorrent already has become the de facto protocol for cooperative distribution on the Internet, DCM shares our belief that BitTorrent will become the ideal platform for both independent publishers and the world's leading media companies alike," said Bram Cohen, founder and CEO of BitTorrent. "We are committed to working with content creators and distributors to shape the future of media distribution, and to provide our users with a great product that brings their favorite videos, audio and software to their door-step."

BitTorrent has more than 45 million users making it one of the largest P2P networks in the world. BitTorrent’s size has made the company a target for the RIAA and other industry organizations, but due to legalities, BitTorrent has dodged the bullet so to speak.

In related news, look for Microsoft to enter the P2P market using a DRM-based technology.
http://news.designtechnica.com/article8404.html





eDonkey Chief Blasts Litigators In Senate Testimony
ExtremeTech Staff

Following the Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary has asked an additional two panels of speakers to testify on "Protecting Copyright and Innovation in a Post-Grokster World" Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C.

The speakers will include Mary Beth Peters, head of the U.S. Register of Copyrights; Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA; Debra Wong Yang, chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the Cyber/Intellectual Property Subcommittee; and Ali Aydar, president of SNOCAP, among others. Also scheduled to speak is Sam Yaga, president of MetaMachine, which developed the eDonkey and Overnet network.

A copy of Yagan's testimony was provided to ExtremeDRM before Yagan is scheduled to speak this morning. Below is the text of Yagan's speech, in full.

Sam Yagan's testimony:

Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, Senators, and staff: thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on this issue that will undoubtedly have broad and lasting ramifications for both the content and technology industries.

For the last three years, I have served as president of MetaMachine, the developer and distributor of the peer-to-peer file-sharing application eDonkey. From my vantage point I have witnessed and participated on the front lines of the confrontation between technology and content. I hope my experience on this cutting edge will be valuable to the Committee.

You might be curious about what kind of person would run a peer-to-peer company, so I'd like to tell you a little about my background. Prior to joining MetaMachine I co-founded and served as CEO of an educational publishing company called SparkNotes. In that role, I was a rights owner and my job was to sell physical content – not so different from the goals of the record labels and movie studios. I share this background with you to give you comfort that I am not an anarchist and I have no ax to grind with owners of intellectual property. I hold a bachelor's degree in Applied Mathematics from Harvard and an MBA from Stanford.

Before I get to the core of my opening statement, I'd like to make it clear to the Committee that we have replied to the RIAA's cease-and-desist letter and I have personally committed to Mr. Sherman – which I reiterate today – that we are in the process of complying with their request.

Therefore I am not here as an active participant in the future of P2P, but rather as one who has thrown in his towel and with no interest in replaying past issues. I hope that as a result of my pending retirement from the P2P industry, I can speak with more candor and that you will accept my testimony not as pushing any self-serving agenda but merely as sharing with you my views on this Post-Grokster world.

I'd like to comment on three elements of the Grokster case that I find most important.

First: Because the Grokster standard requires divining a company's "intent," the decision was essentially a call to litigate. This is critical because most startup companies just don't have very much money. Whereas I could have managed to pay for a summary judgment hearing under Betamax, I simply couldn't afford the protracted litigation needed to prove my case in court under Grokster. Without that financial ability, exiting the business was our only option despite my confidence that we never induced infringement and that we would have prevailed under the Grokster standard.

Second: The court specifically cites that Grokster's marketing to "former Napster users indicates a principal, if not exclusive intent to bring about infringement." Is this really proof of intent to induce infringement? Does this mean that every advertiser that has advertised in the eDonkey software also has a similar intent? I should hope not, because last summer the campaigns of both President Bush and Senator Kerry ran advertisements on eDonkey. Were they really both courting the "swing infringement vote" or could they have had some other "intent?"

My final point on Grokster is that its inducement standard cannot serve as a long-term equilibrium. Imagine if since eDonkey's inception not only had we not made any statements inducing infringement – but also that we made no statements at all – and instead simply put up a website that read "eDonkey is a peer-to-peer file-sharing application." It seems to me that would not qualify as "affirmatively and actively inducing infringement." If we had never made any other statements would we be in the clear now? If so, new P2P applications will inevitably spring up and easily satisfy Grokster in this way. If we would not be in the clear than the effect of Grokster will go far beyond merely chilling innovation – it will almost certainly freeze it in its tracks.

I'd like to wrap-up by humbly stepping beyond my area of expertise and making four observations that may be beneficial as you continue your oversight:

First, encourage a market solution. I don't think anyone knows which specific outcome would be best to mandate, but I have limitless trust in our free market system to generate numerous new business models to take advantage of the tens of millions of Americans who use P2P to quench their thirst for content and other data. Imagine if for the last ten years we had been able to convert just 1% of the estimated tens of billions of shared files into paid downloads. There is a market solution to be found – it may well be one that fits in to the business model of the incumbent entertainment industry, but it also may not. It's not for anyone in this room to decide; only the market can.

Second, on this issue be especially aware of unintended consequences. With many P2P applications offshore or simply open sourced, the entities that will end up being most devastated by Grokster will be those – like us – that set up shop in the US, abided by American laws, paid taxes, and, at least in eDonkey's case, tried to license content from the entertainment industry. I fear that the winners in Grokster will not be the labels and the studios, but rather the offshore, underground, rogue P2P developers who will have just lost half a dozen of their biggest competitors.

Third, clarify the Court's decision in Grokster. As it is, many companies and would-be entrepreneurs simply cannot be sure of where they will stand with respect to the law. As you know, eBay recently acquired the P2P company Skype for more than two billion dollars. Note that Skype was founded offshore; it would be a real tragedy and a blow to our economy should all technology entrepreneurs take their innovations offshore.

And finally, I've started a few companies in my career and if I have one overriding passion it is for entrepreneurship – the driving force of our economy. I urge you to try to empathize with entrepreneurs trying to innovate in nascent industries. I hope you will do all that you can to nurture and encourage entrepreneurs and provide them with a legal environment in which they can face the myriad challenges that startups do without the additional burden of having to wonder how a judge many years in the future will construe their every email, every phone call, and indeed every thought.
http://www.extremedrm.com/article/eD.../161190_1.aspx

















Until next week,

- js.


















Current Week In Review






Recent WiRs -

September 24th, September 17th, September 10th, September 3rd.

Jack Spratt's Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black