Net Anonymity Service Un-Backdoored
Thomas C Greene
The Java Anonymous Proxy (JAP) service, a collaborative effort of Dresden University of Technology, Free University Berlin and the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein, Germany (ICPP), has been allowed to suspend its monitoring of users' IP traffic pending a decision on the legality of back-dooring it.
Collectively known as the AN.ON Project, the operators appealed a lower court's decision allowing the German Feds to obtain reports on users' access to a particular IP address (no doubt having to do with KP or bomb-making, etc).
The appeals court has allowed the operators to discontinue logging until their appeal has been answered. When a decision has been reached, the JAP team says they will document the whole affair, but cannot do so until the court issues its ruling.
A single record of access to the forbidden IP address has been logged but not yet disclosed to the Feds pending the higher court's decision, the JAP team says.
In a previous article The Register criticised the way the JAP team handled its initial confrontation with the Feds, ie., by waiting quietly until a user discovered the back door before acknowledging the situation.
We believe there were better ways of dealing with the court order, either by posting a prominent warning that the service might be subject to monitoring by the authorities, by leaking the information to the press outside Germany, or by disabling the affected proxies temporarily in protest.
We hope that if the JAP team should lose its appeal and be ordered to resume monitoring, particularly under a gag order, it will find a way of giving the public a proper heads up. Their previous performance hardly inspires confidence, but there is always opportunity for redemption.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32533.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 Hour TV Show On File Sharing
Press Release
TechTV to Present Exclusive Interview With Infamous Music File-Sharing Entrepreneur KaZaA CEO Nikki Hemming in Two-Hour Music Wars Special Airing Friday, September 12 at 8 PM E.D.T.
Monday August 25, 8:05 am ET
'Music Wars' to Feature Interviews with Top Players in the Digital Music Debate, Including Former RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen, Congresswoman Mary Bono, Rocker Tommy Lee, Country Music Star Charlie Daniels, Recording Artists Michelle Branch, Liz Phair, Phish and The Dead
Followed by One-Hour 'Music Wars: Open Mike' Featuring Maverick Records' Jeremy Welt, Public Enemy Rapper Chuck D, and Many More Who Will Answer Live Audience and Call-In Questions
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- TechTV, the cable network available to over 40 million subscribers in the US, will present an in-depth, two-hour special on the debate surrounding music file swapping. TechTV Executive Vice President of Programming and Production Greg Brannan made the announcement today.
Music Wars will air Friday, September 12 at 8 PM E.D.T. and feature an exclusive interview with Nikki Hemming, the CEO of KaZaA, the company that owns and operates the most popular file swapping software, as well as several outspoken politicians, celebrities, music industry executives, technology leaders and consumers. The program will be followed by a live, one-hour Music Wars: Open Mike special, featuring a panel of experts discussing the topic of music file swapping and Q&A with a studio and call- in viewer audience.
"The issue behind peer-to-peer file sharing continues to polarize opinion throughout the entertainment industry and in political circles," said Brannan. "For the first time, however, the consumer is being directly affected. With the RIAA recently launching an aggressive attack on individual song swappers in an effort to expand its legal battle against copyright theft, we felt that now was the time to present a comprehensive view of what's happening, who will be affected and why, and what the future holds for peer to peer technology and file sharing. As one of the first networks to follow the developments in this ongoing debate, TechTV is uniquely qualified to provide viewers with the most informed and accurate presentation of all facets of this issue."
Music Wars hosted by Michael Pereira and Chris Leary of TechTV's "Tech Live" will strive to answer the question: "Where will you get your music?" The special will explore music piracy, and file swapping, the record industry's response, the competition in the growing online music market, the value of a song, as well as the history of file sharing and future innovations.
Issues
With the RIAA seeking legal action against consumers who share copyrighted music files, many viewers want to know what the legal consequences of their uploading and downloading music files may be. Many believe the RIAA's efforts to battle copyright theft are extreme, including Nikki Hemming, CEO of Sharman Networks, the company that owns and operates KaZaA. The elusive Ms. Hemming granted TechTV an exclusive interview to respond to charges the RIAA has leveled against her. Also included in the special will be an in-depth interview with Ms. Hemming's most out-spoken opponent, RIAA's former chairperson Hilary Rosen. On the consumer side, Jesse Jordan, the college student who became one of the first to be hit with a lawsuit by the RIAA, will discuss his case. Jordan recently settled his case after paying $12,000 to the RIAA.
History, Options
TechTV has gathered an impressive group of industry executives and political figures to address this topic, review the history of file swapping and provide their opinions on viable options for consumers. Featured interviews include those with Mary Bono, California Congresswoman; Senator Norm Coleman; Scott Blum, CEO Buymusic.com, Sean Ryan, VP Music Services, RealNetworks; Chris Gorog, CEO Roxio, the owners of the new Napster; Ted Cohen EMI Records Charles Goldstuck, COO RCA Records; Alan McGlade, President & CEO MusicNet; Dennis Mudd, COE MUSICMATCH and many more.
Music Wars will be followed by another special presentation on TechTV hosted by Michaela Pereira and Leo Laporte, the co-host of TechTV's "The Screen Savers." Music Wars: Open Mike, will feature a panel of industry experts engaging each other, as well as a live audience and viewers calling into the program, in further debate on the file swapping issue. Among the panelists will be Maverick Records' Jeremy Welt, Rapper Chuck D and many more. Music Wars: Open Mike will air Friday, September 12 at 9 PM E.D.T.
TechTV's companion website was the first to publish the screen names of those consumers who have been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for illegal music file sharing. For continuing coverage on this topic and more, visit
www.techtv.com.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030825/lam095_1.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music Sharing Debated
Danielle Lagana
The Recording Industry Association of America has brought hundreds of subpoenas to the federal courts for copyright infringement against people downloading music from file sharing programs such as Kazaa and Limewire, and your name could be among them.
“The RIAA’s targeting of downloads is based on several things. An estimated 60 million Americans are now trading music and other files online. That’s more than the number that voted for President Bush in the 2000 election. This means that the problem is, to the RIAA, of significant proportion,” said Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association.
According to the RIAA, it “defends artists and record labels from pirates who sell and distribute fake copies of their music; however, many targets of the subpoenas are file sharers that generally do not redistribute the music files.”
“The content industry is well aware of the damages that can be done even if there is no commercial gain,” McClure said. A case a few years ago, involving a student placing large amounts of software on a university server for downloading, concluded that under the laws at that time he could not be convicted because he did not personally profit from his actions.
“The content industry therefore lobbied for and got a change in the law, dubbed the ‘No Electronic Theft Act,’ which makes it a crime to violate copyrights even if you do not profit from the act,” McClure said.
Cal State-Long Beach students have felt the fire. Copyright infringement has left some students expelled and others under investigation.
“We are actively monitoring and managing our campus Internet bandwidth based on network applications,” said Steve La, director of Network Service. “Our university does have computing user policy to address copyrighted materials. In general, it is illegal under the federal law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
La said many students and peer-to-peer file sharers are not aware of the spy agent, known as spyware that transfers the users’ information to an unknown site without the user being notified.
“These types of activities are more than a simple annoyance; some may consider their privacy is being invaded,” La said.
Several CSULB students refused comment on this issue for fear of the federal law consequences and campus policy.
Buddy Clark, lawyer and drummer of Orange County said he doesn’t think any government agency has the right to come into private homes by way of computer.
However, Clark feels differently about file sharing. “I think it’s great,” he said. “The more the [songs] are played, the more the band is known, the more people show at the live shows and the more people buy all the goodies the band sells. It’s called promotions, and all bands need it no matter how big they are.”
The issues are many and can become confused.
“File sharing itself isn’t illegal,” said Greg Bildson, CTO of file sharing service Limewire. “There is plenty of legitimate content out there. The RIAA tactics are heavy-handed and we have major problems with them. Their use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to access account information from the Internet service providers appears to violate citizens’ right of due process under the law and users’ privacy.”
Because of the DMCA Web site, owners are not liable for providing portals that people use to swap files.
“On Download.com we list software in a way that people can easily find but we neither create, sell, nor host the files,” said Wayne Cunningham, senior editor for Download.com. “We have no legal responsibility about what software does or how it is used because we merely point to it, which is an editorial function.”
The lawsuits targeting file sharers and the means to find these people are problems that have yet to be solved. However, a recent court decision in Massachusetts denied the RIAA information about students from MIT and Boston College. The senate is also investigating the hundreds of subpoenas the RIAA has issued.
“The issue is whether the RIAA should be able to obtain the identity of music downloaders without filing a lawsuit against the downloader for copyright infringement,” McClure said. “The RIAA has gotten a judge in the federal system to approve its use of a shortcut in due process. The same judge heard the appeal of his own decision, but that decision now goes to a higher court for a ruling.”
Web sites like boycott-RIAA.com encourage file sharers to write to their local representatives and provides electronic forms to do so.
Because of the vast number of subpoenas issued to file sharers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a link in which file sharers, past or present, can see if they have been a target of the RIAA.
To see if your name is on the list of subpoenas, visit
www.eff.org.
College students seem to have a large number of file sharers among them.
“We recommend that students speak up about these issues and that they help educate the general public about what is going on,” said Bildson. “Laws are made to enrich citizens’ lives, not to empower permanent monopolies for big media companies.”
“Congress is now facing the fact that is trying to deal with the biggest disconnect between consumers and the law since the days of Prohibition,” McClure said.
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/d.../3f49a16fecbf0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Web Quandary For Regulators
Michael Geist
The issue of Internet regulation has long been tied to the question of Internet service-provider liability. As the gateways to the Internet, ISPs were quickly identified as a potential "choke point" in the system that could effectively be used to regulate Internet activity.
ISPs cringed at the prospect that they might be held responsible for the conduct of their subscribers, arguing that they should be seen as an Internet equivalent to the phone company.
Just as phone companies are not responsible for the conduct of their subscribers or the content of the phone calls carried on their systems, ISPs contended that they should not be held responsible for the conduct of their users nor the content accessed on their networks.
While Canada has not yet developed legislation specific to Internet intermediaries, the U.S. Congress has been particularly responsive to the ISP's argument, enacting a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that granted near complete immunity to Internet intermediaries.
While most envisioned the statute would apply chiefly to ISPs, e-commerce giants such as eBay and Amazon.com have been prime beneficiaries of the law. They successfully invoked the statutory protection when facing claims of liability for allegedly defamatory postings or infringing sales on their sites.
Earlier this month, a U.S. appellate court broadened the statutory protection yet again. The court ruled that an online matchmaking service could not be held liable for an incident of identity theft, relying on the immunity provision as the basis for its decision.
The case involved a false posting on Matchmaker.com purported to be from Christine Carafano, a popular actress. The posting included a photo along with Carafano's e-mail and home address. After the actress began receiving death threats at home, she proceeded to unsuccessfully sue the service.
While U.S. law has provided strong protection for intermediary liability that might arise due to content that appears on their sites and systems, regulators have been busy searching for alternative choke points that can be used to regulate online activity.
For example, financial institutions — the payment intermediary in most online gambling transactions — have been identified as a potential choke point.
Under pressure from authorities such as New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer, some have agreed to stop accrediting online gambling merchant accounts.
Similarly, Google, the Internet's most popular search engine and information intermediary, is regularly asked to remove links to controversial content. While the search for choke points has indeed mushroomed, the true scope of intermediaries in the Internet context is only now being realized. In a global, interconnected network, the question is no longer who is an intermediary, but rather who isn't.
As anti-spam advocates place open servers and others who allow spam to proliferate on "blacklists," they acknowledge that the distribution of spam involves not one, but two intermediaries — the ISP that provides the spammer with Internet access and the party maintaining an e-mail server that enables the distribution of the spam message to millions of in-boxes.
Of even greater interest is the identification of individual Internet users as intermediaries. Consider the hundreds of subpoenas recently filed by the Recording Industry Association of America against ISPs requesting the identification of their subscribers engaged in music file sharing.
As the RIAA prepares to sue individual file sharers, the shift in tactics represents the latest form of intermediary liability — potential liability for the millions of users in peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa and Grokster who are all themselves intermediaries in the circulation of music across the globe.
The intermediary label applies to individuals in a range of other instances as well.
Last year, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly paid a hefty fine to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission after it accidentally revealed the e-mail addresses of hundreds of Prozac users in a single e-mail.
While the fine served as an important reminder to carefully safeguard personal information, most Internet users will recognize the incident as a fairly common occurrence.
Many individuals similarly become privacy infringement intermediaries when they accidentally hit "reply all" to an e-mail and in the process reveal dozens of e-mail addresses to all recipients.
Over the past two weeks, as the MSBlast and SoBig viruses spread across the Internet, millions of individuals became computer crime intermediaries. Most viruses depend upon a simple yet very effective distribution system — propagation through millions of individual users who serve as intermediaries in passing along the virus to friends and colleagues.
With Internet users joining ISPs, e-commerce companies, financial institutions and search engines as intermediaries, we must begin to reconsider what it means to be an intermediary on the Internet.
While the initial reaction was to provide broad legal protection for intermediaries, it may be time to re-evaluate that approach.
The issue has ceased to become whether an intermediary bears responsibility when harmful activity occurs online. The question is now which intermediary bears responsibility.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Symantec's New Norton AntiVirus 2004 Is The World's First Comprehensive Antivirus Solution To Protect Consumers From Spyware
Press Release
Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq:SYMC), the world leader in Internet security, today announced Norton AntiVirus 2004, the newest version of the world's most trusted antivirus solution. Utilizing new, state-of-the-art technology, Norton AntiVirus 2004 will provide consumers with core protection against certain emerging non-virus threats such as spyware and keystroke logging programs. Scheduled for wide availability in early September, Norton AntiVirus 2004 will empower home and small office users to proactively ward off privacy and security breeches that are often caused by the presence of these non-virus threats.
"With the emergence of recent high profile security threats like BugBear and Blaster, which are complicated and blended in nature, traditional antivirus solutions are no longer enough to guarantee trouble-free computing," said Steve Cullen, senior vice president of Consumer and Client Product Delivery at Symantec. "The additional protection provided by Norton AntiVirus 2004 helps combat spyware and keystroke logging programs, which can be left behind by some of these new blended threats. Spyware can also be acquired through everyday Web surfing, installing itself in the computer's background, is also frequently with most users never knowing it is there."
The new expanded threat detection capabilities of Norton AntiVirus 2004 will include scans for programs on the user's computer that can be used with malicious intent to compromise the security of a system, spy on the user's private data, or track users' online behavior. To help ensure maximum protection Norton AntiVirus 2004 will identify and block these threats at the point of entry to the system, detecting the threats during scans of email and instant message attachments, or during scheduled or on-demand system scans.
Norton AntiVirus 2004 will also offer users of Windows 2000/XP added protection from viruses lurking in compressed files -- the type of files commonly exchanged with the use of services such as peer-to-peer networks or instant messaging. This new, real-time compressed-file scanning feature prevents users of file-exchange services from sharing or downloading infected files even if those files are compressed. Additionally, as a measure to protect users from pirated or counterfeit software, Norton AntiVirus 2004 will also now include a product activation component.
Like previous versions of the product, Norton AntiVirus 2004 will continue to help users achieve maximum protection with minimum effort by automatically scanning all files for malicious code, and automatically removing viruses, worms, and Trojan horses without requiring user intervention. Protection is further enhanced by Norton AntiVirus's consistent ability to protect automatically against both inbound and outbound online threats at all points of entry. Unlike many of its competitors, Norton AntiVirus 2004 will also install out of the box with all key protection settings and technologies active by default, including real-time scanning, automatic updating, and sophisticated heuristics.
To ensure Norton AntiVirus 2004 users' protection stays updated against new online threats, Symantec's LiveUpdate will check for new antivirus updates whenever the user is online. LiveUpdate will then automatically and unobtrusively download updates in the background to minimize disruptions, thus allowing users to achieve the continued peace of mind that comes with knowing their antivirus product is working at its best.
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/...m&footer_file=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm. New Peer-To-Peer?
Website Creates A Distributed Library Of People's Books And Videos
From the site
“This is the software distribution page for the Distributed Library Project, a website which creates a distributed library of people's books and videos. The project is an experiment in creating community and sharing information within a town or city.
Unfortunately, the traditional library system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone holding a book you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Library Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the library depends on interaction.
Users create accounts complete with bios and interest enumerations, then list the books and videos that they own. Those users are then free to browse the books that others have listed - sorted by proximity, interest, and book commonality. If a book or video is available, a user can check it out directly from the owner.
There is an ebay-style feedback system for managing trust - users who return books on time get positive feedback, while users who damage books or return them late get negative feedback. These points create an overall "score" that lenders can use to judge the trustworthiness of a borrower.
The system also supports user reviews, ISBN lookups, and collaboritve filtering.”
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/dlp/
“
How does it work?
Create an account, then list the books and videos that you own. You will then have access to the multitude of books and videos available in other people's collections. You can search for specific authors or titles, browse individual collections, find nearby users, or find people who like books in common with yours. You will have access to user-written reviews and have the opportunity to write your own.
If the owner of a book or video you're interested in has time for you to pick it up, you can check out items for a 2, 7, 14, or 30 day period (at the owner's discretion). Returning books late will get you negative feedback, while returning books promptly will get you positive feedback. You are never under any obligation to lend an item if you don't feel comfortable doing so.”
http://www.communitybooks.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVD-Copying Code Loses Free Speech Shield
John Borland
The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Web publisher could be barred from posting DVD-copying code online without infringing on his free speech rights.
The state's high court overturned an earlier decision that said blocking Web publishers from posting the controversial piece of software called DeCSS, which can be used to help decrypt and copy DVDs, would violate their First Amendment rights. An industry technology coalition called the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) had sued dozens of people in California courts, contending that posting the software online violated its trade secrets rights.
Monday's state Supreme Court decision did leave room for another legal about-face, asking a lower court to revisit the question of whether any industry trade secret rights actually were violated.
But judges said that for now, property rights outranked free speech rights in this case, because DVD copy-protection technology was never meant to be public. Nor did the DeCSS code itself contribute significantly to a debate over whether DVDs should be encrypted at all, the judges said.
"Disclosure of this highly technical information adds nothing to the public debate over the use of encryption software or the DVD industry’s efforts to limit unauthorized copying of movies on DVDs," the court wrote. "We do not see how any speech addressing a matter of public concern is inextricably intertwined with and somehow necessitates disclosure of DVD CCA's trade secrets."
The long-running case, originally filed in 1999, has been a closely watched test of how much freedom individuals have to distribute software online that runs against corporate or other powerful interests or even violates a law.
The defendant in the case, software developer Andrew Bunner, was one of hundreds of people to post a piece of software called DeCSS online in 1999. The software, created by Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen partly to allow DVDs to be played on a computer with a Linux operating system, could more broadly be used in the process of decrypting and copying DVDs.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sued many of the Web sites that posted Johansen's code, arguing that under the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it was illegal to create or distribute. A New York federal court agreed and barred 2600 Magazine publisher Eric Corley from posting it on his Web site or even linking to other sites that carried the code.
In California state court, the DVD CCA, which holds intellectual property rights to the copy-protection technology on DVDs, separately sued Bunner and dozens of others, saying they had violated the group's trade secret rights.
Bunner's case is the only one still pending. Most of the defendants did not appeal the trial court's initial preliminary injunction that bars them from publishing the code. One other defendant, Texas resident Matthew Pavlovich, won exemption from the case after the state Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't be sued in California.
The DVD CCA welcomed the ruling as an unambiguous victory.
"The DVD CCA is gratified the California Supreme Court has re-affirmed that trade secrets are protected from theft and illegal publication under California law," Weil, Gotshal and Manges attorney Robert Sugarman, who represents the industry coalition, said in a statement. "The Court's decision confirms that the First Amendment is not a shield to allow thieves to distribute stolen intellectual property."
Not a complete loss
Although the ruling is a loss for Bunner, the programmer's attorneys welcomed parts of the decision, saying it actually opened up promising new avenues for their client.
The ruling did say software code like DeCSS should be afforded some strong First Amendment protection, even if trade secrets rights trumped free speech shields in this particular case. However, the court cautioned that its decision was based on a very narrow reading of the earlier decisions, including the assumption that the original trial court had ruled correctly that the release of DeCSS had violated the industry coalition's trade secrets.
The court ordered the case to be sent back to the appeals court level, where judges would review the trade secrets issue more closely. Bunner's attorneys said they expected to show the appeals court that information such as DeCSS that was widely dispersed on the Net could not qualify for trade secret protection.
"We are pleased that the court has found that a strong level of First Amendment scrutiny applies in trade secrets cases," said Gwen Hinze, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney who has worked on the case. "We don't think that there is a trade secret here."
While the DeCSS cases still set an important precedent, the DVD-copying issue has moved on. Other software that allows DVD copying is widely and freely available online, and retail packages are even sold in stores such as CompUSA.
The leading producer of that retail software, a company called 321 Studios, also has been sued by the MPAA. A decision is expected in that case soon.
Outside attorneys who are looking at the case say the ruling should make the broader software industry breathe a quiet sigh of relief.
The previous appeals court ruling, which had said Bunner could not be blocked from posting the code online due to First Amendment protections, threatened to undermine ordinary software companies' ability to protect their own intellectual property, some attorneys said. Under the previous ruling, a disgruntled employee might be able to post a company's proprietary code online and claim free speech rights, for example.
Monday's Supreme Court ruling will let companies protect their legitimate trade secrets from online distribution while still holding out the possibility that DeCSS might ultimately be deemed too widely distributed to qualify for that protection, some attorneys said.
"The reversal on those narrow grounds is important and helpful to the software industry in order to protect its trade secrets," said Jonathan Band, an intellectual property attorney with Morrison & Foerester. "The earlier decision could have been a problem for software companies."
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5067665.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The BBC's Digitally Televised Revolution
Stefanie Olsen
The British Broadcasting Corp., the United Kingdom's largest broadcaster, plans to digitize its archive and let people download programs for free online, BBC Director-General Greg Dyke said Sunday.
"The BBC probably has the best television library in the world," Dyke said while speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Up until now, this huge resource has remained locked up, inaccessible to the public because there hasn't been an effective mechanism for distribution. But the digital revolution and broadband are changing all that."
"For the first time, there is an easy and affordable way of making this treasure trove of BBC content available to all," Dyke said.
The BBC runs two public TV stations, a 24-hour cable news channel, five national radio networks, an Internet news service and digital cable stations. It also operates BBC Worldwide and BBC Broadcast Limited, which run international TV stations. Dyke said the corporation plans to create the BBC Creative Archive to make select material from BBC properties available for private use in the United Kingdom. A student using a broadband connection from home or the library, for example, could access BBC material to help complete homework or create a multimedia presentation, he said.
Dyke did not say in his speech when such a free service would be available.
The move comes as many media companies transition their holdings from analog to digital, and contemplate ways to benefit from content commercially. Companies such as CNN and Walt Disney are digitizing their media, while others such as National Geographic begin to sell rights to legacy material such as photography.
The BBC's effort will help usher in a "second phase of the digital revolution," in which the government, public institutions and corporations help create public, rather than commercial, value in their holdings, Dyke said. He added that such a movement requires a commitment from all parties and will combine public money with new digital technologies for social good.
"I believe that we are about to move into a second phase of the digital revolution, a phase which will be more about public than private value; about free, not pay services; about inclusivity, not exclusion."
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5067729.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tiny Hitachi Drive Hits 4GB
John G. Spooner
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies is delivering a tiny 4GB hard drive to electronic device manufacturers for testing.
The 4GB Microdrive, a miniaturized version of a hard drive used in PCs, can be used by a wide range of devices to store data files for computers or image files for digital cameras, among other uses, the company said. The San Jose, Calif., hard-drive maker is offering samples now and plans to ship the 1-inch drive in volume in November.
Derived from technology gained when Hitachi purchased IBM's hard drive business and formed a new joint venture, the Microdrive gives Hitachi Global Storage Technologies an avenue to compete with several miniature storage formats used in computers, handhelds, digital cameras and other electronics devices.
The Microdrive will take on flash memory products such as Compact Flash cards or Sony's Memory Stick and will also bolster Hitachi Global Storage Technologies' position against forthcoming storage devices, such as Iomega's 1.5GB Digital Capture Technology removable hard drive.
The Hitachi unit says that the benefits of the new Microdrive over flash and other storage methods are a speedy data transfer rate and a relatively low price.
The company expects the 4GB Microdrive to sell for $499. Lexar Media sells 2GB and 4GB flash memory cards that cost as much as $799 and $1,599, respectively, according to its online store.
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies will also offer a 2GB version of the Microdrive starting later this year. Like past versions, the new Microdrives will fit into a standard, Compact Flash Type II slot, allowing them to be used by devices that can accept memory cards and other add-ons that use the format. The company will continue to sell a 1GB Microdrive as well.
Companies that are evaluating the 4GB drive--some of which already use the 1GB model--include Blaupunkt, Eastman Kodak, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma and Sony.
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5067530.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indie Labels Lure Net Music Stores
John Borland
A new set of services aimed at giving independent music labels online distribution is springing up, hoping to reach companies like Apple's iTunes and the new Napster.
San Francisco-based Independent Online Distribution Alliance (IODA) is the latest to hit the scene. It launched Monday with deals in place to negotiate digital rights on behalf of 50 labels whose music it hopes to place with the growing Net download and subscription services. A few older companies, such as CD Baby and The Orchard, also represent the digital rights of independent artists and labels.
"What we're saying is that this solves problems for both parties, and particularly for the independent labels," said IODA founder Kevin Arnold. "Typically, independents are companies with small staffs that don't have a lot of expertise with digital rights, and don’t have in-house attorneys."
The move towards organization of independent labels could help speed the acceptance of authorized music subscription and download services, most of which have focused so far on acquiring music from the five major music labels.
The "Big Five" labels represent about 80 percent of the music sold in the United States. Independents typically have small but often dedicated fan bases. Some industry reports show that many indies have actually fared better than larger labels through the economic downturn, with sales growing, sometimes substantially, in 2002 while overall industry revenues fell by close to 11 percent.
The digital music services have shown interest in signing and distributing independent label music. EMusic, one of the oldest subscription services, offers a catalogue stocked almost wholly with content from small labels, and has won kudos from its fan base for its eclectic selection. Apple staffers met with representatives from independent labels in June, and are reportedly creating a program to let the labels link up with the company's iTunes service.
IODA and other independent representatives want to give the indie labels more leverage, so they are able to win royalty deals closer to those the major labels get. Arnold said his service is launching with about 10,000 songs in its portfolio, including ones by relatively well-known bands such as Green Day, Cracker, The Donnas and Del tha Funkee Homosapien.
The new services also take care of activities that range from digitizing songs to managing royalty databases.
Some analysts say that the big digital music companies, from iTunes to the retooled Napster, which has not yet launched, need to focus on having strong major-label content deals before worrying about independent music, since their survival will depend on reaching the mass market. But distinguishing themselves with content that appeals to fervent music fans will also be important as the market matures.
Services like IODA "may be a bit ahead of the game," said Jupiter Research digital entertainment analyst Lee Black. "But bringing the independents in is important, because it increases the diversity and breadth of the services, making them more interesting."
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5067907.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music Fans Slowly Come Around To Paying For Downloads
Francine Brevetti
THE LAWSUITS against file-sharing software distributors and threats of legal action against individuals who download music illegally have done little to stem the flow of song swapping, according to a survey by Comscore.
While many music lovers have turned to legal download sites, they remain a fraction of those who continue to download music illegally. The survey found more than 11 million computers downloaded from sites considered illegal by the recording industry, while less than 2 million used legal sites in May.
A recent Forrester Research study indicated that 86 percent of the young people who admitted to illegal file-sharing said they would stop if they thought there was a serious chance of going to jail or paying a fine. But the study was conducted one week after the RIAA announced it would start prosecuting people for illegal file sharing of music, pointed out Forrester analyst Josh Bernoff.
"That (study) doesn't prove lawsuits will stop downloading, and in fact they won't. But the suits have a good chance of slowing downloads," he said.
Some say that the prices of CDs themselves are enough to keep people entrenched in their
file-sharing habits, especially among the young who don't have the money to spend for a CD. Some also like the idea of sharing their music libraries with a community.
Vocalist and instrumentalist Mike Blake stopped downloading music after the RIAA began pursuing file-sharers. Although the Alameda resident might be expected to see artists as protected by RIAA-approved downloading, he has no compunctions about file-sharing.
"It's a digital issue that needs to be worked out, not a moral issue," Blake said.
He's just joined MP3.com, a legal service that he likes for its array of artists and the fact that a listener can sample an artist or a track before buying. A Macintosh user, Blake is currently investigating Apple's iTunes Music Store.
But he misses file-sharing.
"I enjoy cats getting together in a community and sharing it ... these new services get rid of community," he said.
"Say (there are) two cats, one in Georgia and one in California. And I got the music over here. What is wrong with that? Nothing except (the industry) ain't getting a cut," he said.
But Dave Ellis, who is also an artist, feels differently. The saxophonist and music teacher does not use legal services yet. The Hercules resident's reluctance seems to be based on his conflicted feelings toward the recording industry's cold treatment of unknowns.
Ellis strongly favored "free downloads for unknown artists. For them, it's useful to get your music into people's hands," he said.
And he scolds the record industry for taking so long to solve this issue of copying and sharing music that has alienated the labels, the artists and consumers.
While he was studying music production at college, he observed that major entertainment companies were then focused on writing code that would prevent copying rather than adapting the completely new technology for society's best interests.
It was obvious in the early 1990s, when digital technology was being developed, that "it would change everything," he said.
Others, like David Cassel, don't see the depth and breadth of music repertoires that they desire. A technical writer and the creator of Web log Destiny-land (
www.destinyland.blogspot.com, the Oakland resident finds the commercial subscription services too limited. He just bought an out-of-print vinyl copy of The Ventures' "Where the Action Is" for $4.
"The stuff I love is too obscure to make it onto them," he said, like the 1958 novelty act, The Nutty Squirrels.
Cassel said he finds more variety on user-to-user services where he's consistently located multiple copies and "rare and obscure tracks."
Bob Ohlweiler, senior vice president of business development for Musicmatch, acknowledged that the online music download industry is in its infancy and that companies have been struggling to digitize just the most popular music.
Lovers of classical and more arcane selections will have to be patient, he said.
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/S...90778,00.html#
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Solving The Payment Problem For Open Source And P2P File Sharing
Matt Asay
The software and entertainment industries have a problem, but it's not the problem they think it is. Both believe they have intellectual property problems. In the case of software, large software vendors are struggling to figure out how to keep their IP and associated revenues from being cannibalized by open source software. Record labels and movie studios, for their part, believe that peer-to-peer piracy is destroying their ability to charge for the art they produce. Both are wrong. Neither has an intellectual property problem. Instead, both have a payment problem.
In the face of open source and P2P, consumers (be they businesses or individuals) are less and less likely to want to pay for the goods that the software and entertainment industries deliver. Not because consumers are evil, but because the models of access to software or media have outpaced the models for monetizing that access.
Companies like SCO, unable or unwilling to move into the 21st-century software business, cling to their IP and wage lawsuits against competitor and customer alike, trying to frighten the world into believing in their 20th-century business model. On the entertainment side, groups like the RIAA sue end users, write threatening letters to businesses and universities, and generally try to force the P2P genie back into the bottle.
This is folly. Pure folly.
Why? Because these tactics make criminals out of a massive pool of would-be buyers. Such tactics focus so much on the encroachment on their IP (and the ability to monetize it) that they fail to see the expanded world of opportunity now open to them.
Consumers want control
Software companies have charged a premium for their IP for years; who can blame consumers for grabbing a more malleable (and generally cheaper) alternative when it presents itself? Why pay hundreds of dollars to Microsoft for Office when I can download OpenOffice and get all the functionality I need, or nearly all, for free? Why lock myself into a single vendor of an operating system when I can rely on the fluid innovation of Linux?
Of course, open source technology is not truly free of cost, because I must make trade-offs to use an open source product. And no, access to source code is not a panacea to all problems. But given the margins that proprietary software companies have been able to command, and given the strict control over their code that they have maintained, no one should be surprised when consumers look elsewhere, even if the open source alternatives are not yet perfect substitutes for proprietary products.
On the entertainment side, the entertainment industry has been conditioning consumers to not pay for many, many years. Radio and TV have conditioned consumers to expect free entertainment. Under these models, the only thing consumers pay is the slight annoyance of listening to or watching advertising. No money ever changes hands between the content creator and the consumer in these two media.
And, as with software, P2P networks deliver greater control over entertainment to the consumer, so who can blame consumers for flocking to these services? In MP3 music and DIVX movie downloads, the concepts of radio and TV have been perfected. Suddenly, consumers hear or watch what they want, when they want.
In both software and entertainment, the consumer's focus is not really about avoiding payment. Rather, the impetus for using these alternatives to IP is to maximize access and control. The matter of cost is of secondary concern.
Hence, my earlier statement that the software and entertainment industries have a payment problem, and not an IP problem. Both industries need to invest their resources in figuring out how to monetize this rabidly open market.
Solving the payment problem
The solution to a new technological reality is not to try to litigate that reality away. The music industry learned, or should have learned, this with radio in the 1920s. Radio crushed recorded music revenues, and all sorts of dire warnings were issued as to the record labels' ability to survive. But the labels fought back, not by slapping lawsuits on radio, but rather by resolving the payment problem through ASCAP, a licensing regime that permitted radio and the record labels to flourish.
What then, are possible payment models for the software and entertainment industries?
Software
Big IT vendors like IBM, Sun, and HP are already solving the payment problems presented by open source, though they may not recognize that they are doing so. I am referring to "on-demand computing," or, to use the name that I prefer, "utility computing." In this model, IT vendors (mostly hardware companies at present) deliver computing power in a utility fashion: Enterprise Consumer X gets the computing cycles when it needs them, rather than buying all of the hardware/software itself.
Importantly, customers in this model buy IT (including software) as a service, rather than as a standalone product. As such, customers do not really buy software at all -- they buy a solution to their business problem. Whether the "guts" of that solution are open or closed source does not matter anymore. Customers will increasingly pay for value, delivered as a service: SP (service property) rather than IP (intellectual property).
A closely related model is the ASP model. Companies like Salesforce.com are already delivering this model, and doing exceptionally well. As with utility computing, in the ASP model software is delivered to the customer as a service, hosted on a central server by the vendor, and customers pay for the value they access over the network. Whether the software underpinning the service is IP or open source becomes irrelevant.
One additional benefit to customers, in either the utility or ASP models, is that they no longer need to worry about SCO-like lawsuits. Why? Because they would not actually be in possession of code in source or binary format. The vendor might still be in violation of IP infringement, but the customer would not be. Given this benefit, let us hope that the Free Software Foundation does not short-sightedly "close the ASP loophole," as they are reportedly planning to do with version 3.0 of the GPL. Closing this so-called loophole would benefit proprietary interests like SCO; it would not advance the FSF's cause of freedom in code.
These two emerging models for software both enable software companies to continue to deliver value to customers and get paid for it. Many more models are possible, but will not be discovered by fixating on forcing customers into outdated business models.
Entertainment
Interestingly, at least one obvious model for entertainment has already been suggested for software: the utility model. Each month, I pay money to the cable utility (for broadband and CATV access), the phone utility, and the electric utility. Why could I not also pay the entertainment utility?
The easiest way to administer this would be to add a flat rate to the ISP bill, perhaps $5.95 per month. That sum would then be divvied up between the ISP and the entertainment industry, parceled out in a manner similar to the way ASCAP works. If the utility wanted to charge in a more accurate and granular fashion, the ISP could charge according to data usage. (To get really granular, one could also envision a pay-per-file methodology whereby each .mp3 or .mpg would be charged against a user's account. The technology for metering such usage is already available.)
This utility model would completely eliminate the piracy problem, because consumers simply could not evade the fees, absent burning the songs onto physical media and mailing them. To the extent that such an option is politically impossible for ISPs (because they would lose customers to non- compliant ISPs that do not charge the data fees), the ISPs could lobby Congress for legislation that mandates their compliance. My own feeling is that there would not be much customer churn; consumers generally are not going to chafe at the idea of paying (remember: it is the mode of payment that currently keeps most from paying, and not the idea of paying), and will not want to lose an email address simply in the name of piracy.
Another option is to allow users to bill downloads to their cellular phones. Again, the idea is to make payment seamless, so that the consumer is focused on enjoying the art, and not the act of payment. If he's online, the user simply types in his phone number (with some additional added security to prevent unauthorized charging of downloads to a third-party account), and gets the music (with the cell phone company managing payment to the record or movie label on the back end). If he's offline but using his cell phone, I can envision Johnny sending Jane a download of Audioslave's newest "love song," routing it to her IP address for immediate download the next time she logs on to her computer.
Or perhaps the answer is much more mundane: advertising. It has worked for television -- why not for MP3 and DIVX downloads?
Conclusion
This is not an exhaustive list of possible solutions to the payment problem inherent in open source software and digital media piracy. Smarter people than I will innovate these models. The point is that neither industry will ever discover these models by looking backward. Innovation around access to great new technology has outpaced innovation around payment for that technology, but this is a momentary lag, one that the software and entertainment industries will resolve by focusing on payment, rather than property. Let's look forward.
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=...e=thread&tid=3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Radiant Data Corporation Receives U.S. Patent for Distributed File Consistency and Distributed File Locking; Patented Technology Enables Global File Synchronization over Any Network
Press Release
Radiant Data Corporation, the leading provider of continuous data availability products to the Linux market, today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted the company a U.S. patent for its technology developments in the field of distributed file consistency.
The patent is titled 6,611,848, Methods for Maintaining Data and Attribute Coherency in Instances of Sharable Files. The patent describes a means for maintaining data consistency among any number of data storage nodes over long distances, which is a critical requirement for disk-based disaster recovery and collaboration solutions.
"Radiant Data has invented the world's first peer-to-peer replicating file system," said Rex O'Neal, General Manager of Radiant Data. "Our Radiant Data Server (RDS) software product provides a simple means to replicate, synchronize and share data reliably and securely on a global basis.
"File system technologies are receiving increasing attention today because they are the only efficient means to merge application and data storage management domains on a global basis, and among heterogeneous hardware platforms. This patent is the first to issue related to our revolutionary product architecture and validates our leadership in the development of data sharing technologies," O'Neal added.
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/...m&footer_file=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Morpheus 3.3 File-Sharing Software Increases Advanced Security and Privacy Protection
Press Release
Latest Morpheus Version Includes Anti-virus Scanning, Web Search And Electronic File Shredding Functionality
StreamCast Networks(TM) Inc., creators of the popular file-sharing software Morpheus(TM) and a global leader in peer-to-peer communications technology, today announced the release of its new Morpheus(TM) 3.3 software. In addition to continuing its no spyware policy, Morpheus 3.3 provides users with the ability to automatically scan downloaded files with their anti-virus software to help to ensure that their computer remains infection-free from malicious viruses. Morpheus 3.3 includes increased Web search capabilities, improved third party chat functionality, and the ability to electronically shred downloaded files in order to prevent against file security intrusions.
(Photo:
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/...15/SFTU091LOGO )
"Like our previous version, Morpheus 3.3 responds to our users' concerns about invasions of their privacy and security. We expect more users to download Morpheus 3.3 because it provides a faster, safer, more secure file- sharing experience while delivering reliable downloads with greater search results," said Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast Networks, Inc. "Consumers can expect to see regular feature upgrades and technological innovations from us that reflect their needs and desires."
Morpheus 3.3 incorporates security functionalities that allow users the option to more privately protect the host IP address of downloaded files by linking to a worldwide network of public proxy servers that act as intermediaries between Internet users. Morpheus 3.3 allows its users to access public 'blacklists' of IP addresses that are believed to violate the privacy of users. The new version of Morpheus is also a smaller file application requiring less computer resources while adding network speed and performance.
Morpheus 3.3 features include:
-- Advanced file sorting capabilities -- folders for music, documents,
videos, and photographs
-- Metadata editing capabilities
-- More user configurable options -- including ability to become a leaf or
ultra-peer
-- Smart installer -- uses less bandwidth for downloading
-- Magnet support -- ability to create clickable Web links to download
files or email friends
-- Improved chat features
-- Hashed IP's -- conceals user IP-address within Morpheus
-- Anti-Virus protection -- enables virus scans of downloads
-- Web search -- ability to search the entire Web from within Morpheus
-- File-Shredder -- easily shred files
Morpheus 3.3 is available for free at
http://www.morpheus.com .
About StreamCast Networks, Inc.
StreamCast Networks, Inc., creators of the Morpheus software product is a leading global communications technology company that is revolutionizing Internet digital media distribution and communications via software that enables users to communicate directly with one another on an unprecedented scale. Users according to CNET's download.com have downloaded over 114 million copies of Morpheus.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030826/sftu049_1.html
Top 10 D/Ls - Singles
BigChampagne
Ben Affleck Admits To File Sharing
P2PNet
You probably don't think you have a lot in common with Ben Affleck, right?
Like, he has no worries about where his next mil is coming from, or anything like that. And with an Oscar behind him, his career is set to bop right along.
File-sharing? Forget it. He'd just buy the label. Pirate movies? That'd be money right out of his pocket.
But apparently not.
"Yes. I file share," he tells Jessica Corbin during a TechTV interview. "I do. Yes. I think it's really interesting."
Saying the music industry has missed out Big Time by not clueing into the business possibilities offered by downloading, he's got his numbers all wrong, but he's got the right idea.
An annual subscription based system "is the one that works," he says. Users would be charged around $200 a year for access to the 'entire library'. "You pay more directly to the artist," he says. "You have less overhead. You pay no shipping or packing."
On movies, "There is piracy," but movies will be downloaded regularly within five years, he says. "Maybe it won't be available first weekend" but after that, pay a premium for first download and then lower the amount as the movie release date gets further and further away.
Who said Affleck for President? (RIAA president, of course ; )
http://www.p2pnet.net/article/7505
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time Bandits
Adam Turner
It's never been easier to put in a hard day at the office without actually getting any work done. By the time you check your email, swap instant messages, play a few games and watch the latest movie trailers, there's hardly any time left for reading Dilbert, scanning the news headlines and taking a few online surveys.
Cyber-bludging was always going to take off among a people who consider bludging a national pastime but are quick to embrace new technologies. In 2000, spruikers of internet monitoring and blocking tools warned that workplace productivity was under threat from the internet.
With the Y2K bug behind them and "spam" and "security" yet to become technology buzz words, vendor CommSoft claimed cyber-bludging was costing the nation $300 million a year. By 2002 it was $4.6 billion, according to Websense, but this year WebSpy has settled on the more conservative $1 billion mark.
Such vendors offered surveillance solutions such as allowing the boss to read our emails and watch our every online move. Non-essential access is sometimes blocked - turning us into a nation of internet haves and have-nots in the workplace.
Almost half of internet use in the workplace is of a personal nature, according to research by Queensland's Griffith University released last month, which found company policies on internet use are often either inadequate or not properly communicated to staff.
A British poll by online employment portal Monster this year found that 50 per cent of workers admitted that surfing the internet and chatting online are their biggest time-wasting vices at work.
Meanwhile, employers have also discovered that a little internet access can be a good thing. As well as giving their workforce access to a wealth of information, the internet offers services such as online banking, shopping and paying bills - meaning staff can no longer blame queues at the bank for taking an extra-long lunch break.
Today the focus of monitoring and blocking vendors has moved from catching those slacking off online to protecting companies and employees from the dark side of the web.
While blocking the minority of workers who download unsavoury content, employers are also attempting to halt the avalanche of porn-laden spam aimed at everyone from the managing director to the tea lady.
The long arm of the lawyers has also reached into cyberspace. Entertainment conglomerates are breaking down the doors in search of copyright-infringing material after the explosion of peer- to-peer file-sharing applications.
Thanks to file-sharing, instant messaging and wireless networks, there are more ways in and out of your organisation than ever before. Viruses can find their way in to wreak havoc while business-sensitive data is exposed to the world. Instant messaging makes archiving all electronic communications almost impossible.
The technological needs of various organisations and industries mean there is no one appropriate use policy applicable across all workplaces, says Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace policy director Peter Anderson.
"As long as an employer makes it clear to an employee when they start their new job that personal emails may be monitored, then the monitoring of personal emails at the workplace is appropriate," Anderson says. "The business has a right to expect its own resources are not to be used for the personal gain of employees."
Employee concerns about filtering and blocking are fading, according to filtering software company SurfControl.
A study by the Social Justice Social Change Research Centre at the University of Western Sydney, commissioned by SurfControl, found that decisions about what to filter and what constituted acceptable behaviour was more important to employees than whether filtering should occur. This contrasts with a similar study conducted for SurfControl 18 months ago, which found the main debate was whether or not filtering should occur.
But while workers may be resigned to their every move being watched, who is watching the watchers?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...663722287.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time To Give Up On Copyright Law?
Ed Quillen
Although I own hundreds of copyrights, I'm beginning to think that society would be best served if copyright laws were repealed.
At heart, there's nothing complicated about a copyright. If you create something (literature, music, art) on your own time, you have the right to determine whether it is reproduced, and you can charge for it. That "right to copy" is a copyright, and you can lease it or sell it. Copyrights are valid for a limited time, and after that, the work passes into the public domain, where anyone can use it.
The first complication is that even if you're the creator, you might not own the copyright. If you create your work on company time as part of your job, then it's a "work for hire," and the company owns the copyright. Or you might sign a contract that assigns the copyright to the company.
It's usually clear what's a "work for hire" and what isn't, although some companies try to make it unclear. For instance, I used to contribute occasional articles, including some home-rolled software, to various computer magazines owned by Ziff-Davis.
On the back of any check they sent, above the endorsement line, there was exceedingly fine print which said, in essence, that your endorsement constituted the assignment of all rights to Ziff-Davis - which meant that at some point, Z-D could have charged me to use my own software.
Fortunately, the local bank tellers knew how to stamp the endorsement with something like "For Deposit to the Credit of the Account of the Payee," so my signature never appeared under their "contract."
To move on, there has been much in the news lately about how recording companies are pursuing people who share music files on their computers. One reason the companies do this, they say, is to make sure the recording artists get paid.
That's got to be a joke. I have never read a good word about Allen Klein, the New York accountant who once managed both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Note, though, that Klein got to that level because he was very good at auditing the books of record companies and discovering millions of dollars in unpaid royalties that he would then secure for his clients. That Klein flourished demonstrates that record companies don't make a priority out of paying their artists.
Then there's the hypocrisy of the Walt Disney Co. Disney has made many millions by adapting old works that had passed into the public domain: "Pinocchio," "Cinderella," "Alice in Wonderland," to name a few.
But Mickey Mouse's copyright was supposed to expire this year, and Disney sure didn't want that rodent loose in the public domain. So the Disney folks and their allies donated $6.5 million to congressional campaigns a few years ago, and the result was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Mickey remains Disney property until 2023, though the bagmen will doubtless purchase another extension before that.
It's fine with Disney if Lewis Carroll's work goes into the public domain to be used by Disney, but Disney will get the law changed before its critters reach the public domain.
And there's computer software. I use Linux, which is generally covered by something called a "copyleft" or a "General Public License," agreed to by the creator of the software.
Under the GPL, you are free to copy programs, and sell or give them away if you want. However, you have to include the source code, and if you or others modify those programs, the modifications are also covered under the GPL. You can't take somebody else's work, tweak it and claim ownership.
That seems fair and sensible. So naturally, somebody is trying to wreck it. A Utah software firm, the SCO Group, has gone to court against IBM, along with Linux users like me (though I haven't been served yet).
SCO argues that the federal copyright law for computer software allows users to make only a single backup copy, and it supersedes the GPL. That is, no matter what the intentions of the creator were concerning distribution of his work, he can't allow you to give a copy of it to a friend.
SCO has even engaged a legal heavyweight, the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. It's headed by David Boies, who represented Al Gore in Florida and the U.S. in the Microsoft anti-trust prosecution. But IBM can afford some big-league legal talent, and besides, the Boies record isn't that good - George Bush is president, and Microsoft still has more than 90 percent of the market.
So there's hope that American copyright law will allow creators to control how their work is distributed. But any law that can be twisted the SCO way, enforced the RIAA way, extended the Disney way, or abused the Ziff-Davis way is a law that ought to be repealed. All it does is enrich lawyers and big companies, and they'd probably get along just fine without it.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...77963,00.html#
Until next week,
-
js.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current Week In Review.
Recent WIRs -
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17325 August 23rd
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17265 August 16th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17176 August 9th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17108 August 2nd
Jack Spratts’ Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts at lycos.com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.