View Single Post
Old 28-03-07, 08:49 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - March 31st, '07


































"Though Viacom seems unable to determine what constitutes infringing content, its lawyers believe that we should have the responsibility and ability to do it for them." – Michael Kwun


"Had you told me five years ago that organized crime would control 1 out of every 10 home machines on the Internet, I would have not have believed that. And yet we are in an era where this is something that is happening." – Dave Dagon


"I drive a city bus. It would be nice to see her plastered on the side of it." – Geraldine Champion


"Stop putting tomorrow's fishwrap behind paywalls. Writers hate it. Readers hate it." – Dave Winer


"In the future, every educated person will be a journalist." – Dave Winer


"I simply can not believe that I updated to a new computer and put windows Vista on it to find that it's not even capable of moving and deleting files in an efficient manner. Microsoft must be kidding! The most basic of features that I use all the time is a slow train wreck." – hac5x3, poster on MS TechNet Vista forum


"Because of the slow move/delete/copy I'm thinking of going back to XP .......I downloaded a 1,8 Gb file over the internet to my D drive. Moving the tmp file from C to D took three times longer than downloading the file on a 6Mbit internet connection !!" – BadBlock, poster on MS TechNet Vista forum


"It is no fun becoming a litigation target as the result of your clients' widely-discredited tactics." – Merl Ledford III


"The only way the RIAA can get that information is if the RIAA takes us to court to get those names." – John Diamond


"They want to bully universities into exposing students and also bully students directly into signing onto a discount. There's no legal process and that's the end of the story." – Jon Ippolito


"It could be a pretty sad world where money alone buys the ears and anybody that can't afford it, can't get proper placement, is pushed off to the ghettos." – Derek Sivers


"Don't fear the RIAAper." – ASU protester sign


"Download like it's 1999." – ASU protester sign


"I’m, like, accorded 15 minutes, and I want to take it while I still look hot." – Trisha Henson





































March 31st, 2007







New EU Piracy Penalties to Exclude Personal File-Sharing

Intellectual Property Rights: Criminal Sanctions to Fight Piracy and Counterfeiting
Press Release

The first EU directive aiming at harmonising national criminal law was backed by the Legal Affairs' committee, when it adopted on Tuesday a first-reading report on a legislation imposing criminal sanctions for the infringement of intellectual property rights. The issue now goes before the April plenary session.

Nicola Zingaretti (PES, IT), Parliament's rapporteur, said: "We are turning a new page: this is the first directive where criminal law is included. […] To harmonise criminal codes will be a radical new thing". If approved by Parliament and the Council, the proposed directive would oblige all Member States to consider as a criminal offence all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right carried out on a commercial scale. The text proposes, as a deterrent, measures ranging from fines to imprisonment, according to the gravity of the crime.

Members of the Legal Affairs' committee backed the overall aim of the Commission proposal, while amending some of its provisions. They excluded patent rights from the scope of the Directive, and decided that criminal sanctions should only apply to those infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded. (Emphasis mine. – Jack)

The report aims to ensure that national judicial authorities will always be able to impose sufficiently serious penalties by setting out minimum levels for the upper limits on punishments imposed by national law. In cases of serious crimes committed by a criminal organisation, the maximum penalty must be at least €300 000 and/or four years' imprisonment. The same applies where the offences carry a health or safety risk. For less serious infringements, the maximum penalties should include criminal and civil fines of at least €100 000. In some cases, remedies can include the seizure and destruction of counterfeited goods.

A series of provisions on investigations was also approved. Member States are asked to ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations is not dependent on a formal accusation, at least when acts were committed in the territory of the Member State. Moreover, EU countries, if the directive is adopted, would have to allow holders of violated intellectual property rights to assist investigations undertaken by joint investigation teams.

The proposed directive reflects the Commission's interpretation of the European Court of Justice’s judgment of 13 September 2005. According to the Commission, this ruling allows for measures under the Community method to insist on criminal sanctions, when these are required for the effective implementation of Community law. This view is contested by those who believe criminal law cannot be a competence of the Community - but amendments rejecting the entire proposal on this basis were defeated in the vote.
Procedure: codecision, first reading -- Vote in plenary: April, Strasbourg

19/03/2007
Committee on Legal Affairs
Chair : Giuseppe Gargani (EPP-ED, IT)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...default_en.htm





You’re Caught Downloading “Dream Pinball”, Settle Now or Go Broke
enigmax

Having outstayed its welcome in Germany, a company is bringing its legal strategy against file-sharers to the UK. Its first targets are 500 P2P users who illegally distributed a game according to the company, even though many of the victims never even heard of the game in question. All Filesharers receive a letter in which they are urged to settle the case for a relatively small sum of money. So who are the accusers and what quality of evidence do they hold?

Since early March 2007, many internet forums have been buzzing with news of users receiving letters from UK law firm Davenport Lyons, alleging that they have illegally distributed (uploaded) the ‘Dream Pinball 3D’ game from German company Zuxxez Entertainment. The letters, which were sent out to 500 alleged file-sharers, demand a minimum of £340 ($667) to avoid being taken to court and claimed potential costs of “tens of thousands of pounds”. Most of the alleged filesharers never even heard of the pinball game, or never had the IP-address that was listed in the letter. However, some already report to have paid the settlement money because they don’t want any legal trouble, it almost sounds like a perfect scam.

The letters state:

"Our client has retained forensic computer analysts to search for and identify internet addresses from which their games are being made available on so called "peer to peer" (P2P) internet sites for the purposes of making them available for download by third parties without our client's consent or licence"

Note that the letters are not addressed to an individual, just ‘Dear sir or madam’ - this proves that the ‘forensic’ process cannot correctly identify an alleged infringer behind an IP address.

It continues:

"Our client is in possession of compelling evidence that on the following date and time 15.09.2006 12:15:22 [made up date/time for illustration purposes] (captured in the German time zone), the Game was made available from the internet protocol (or IP) address XXX.XXX.XXX.XX specifically for the purpose of downloading by third parties. Pursuant to a High Court Order, the internet service provider XXXXXXXXXXXXX identified you as the subscriber associated with that IP address at the time in question".

TorrentFreak has seen evidence that suggests alleged infringers’ IP addresses were being collected within hours of the game appearing on the eDonkey network. Unconfirmed reports even suggest that the delay could be measured in minutes.

So where exactly does this ‘compelling evidence’ come from, who are these ‘forensic computer analysts’ and why does the letter speak of evidence gathered in the German time zone? A little background;

Back in 2005, it became evident that Zuxxez Entertainment had decided to take a very aggressive course of action against Germans accused of sharing their game ‘Earth 2160′ on the eDonkey network by employing a law firm to file 12,000 claims with the state prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe (the home town of Zuxxez). In the German case the settlement were also relatively low, giving the alleged filesharers an easy way out, instead of taking it to court.

The ISPs in Germany soon got tired of all these ungrounded, and seemingly random infringement notices, and they soon stopped responding to the claims Zuxxez made until there was some hard evidence against their customers. Zuxxez realized then decided that they couldn’t make any easy money in Germany anymore and moved to the UK, still using the same strategy.

In each claim, the law firm shows the software alleged to have been uploaded (in the UK it’s the Pinball game), the IP address of the alleged infringer plus the users emule/edonkey user ID and a timestamp. So who collated this information? Enter Logistep, a Swiss anti-piracy company employed by Zuxxez to track down eMule users they claim were sharing its software, gather information and use it to gain Court Orders to force ISP’s to give up the names and addresses connected to the accused IP address. In the UK, it’s believed that up to 18 ISP’s were presented with Court Orders to force them to reveal users personal details.

Although Zuxxez and Davenport Lyons don’t openly admit to using Logistep in these UK cases, it seems more than likely, given that information on the Internet Piracy Portal states that Logistep are a partner of Schutt, Waetke (the law firm dealing with the German cases) and also Davenport Lyons in the UK. Of interest is that Zuxxez Entertainment has its home in Karlsruhe, Germany and so does Logistep, even though the company appears to be registered in Switzerland.

In each UK case it’s likely that Davenport Lyons will have obtained what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, which relates to the obtaining of information regarding infringements from parties who may not themselves be involved in the infringement, i.e the ISP. In the original Norwich Pharmacal Co and Others v Customs & Excise Commissioners case in 1973/74, it was ruled that a party who became even innocently involved in someone else’s wrong doing, was under obligation to provide the injured party with information to identify the wrong doer.

Apparently, such an order should not be granted where it’s clear that the plaintiff is ‘fishing’ (phishing) for information and is attempting to discover something that will form the basis of a court action. As the law firm is very obviously making a ‘phishing’ attempt to obtain the name of a possible infringer other than the account holder, this should be something that anyone accused should take up with their lawyer.

Davenport Lyons imply that the evidence against alleged infringers is so good that the fact that a court order was granted is likely to be enough to prove guilt. This is seriously up for debate. In Germany, a criminal investigator has stated that Logistep refuses to reveal how it gathers information against alleged infringers so it becomes impossible to confirm that the data it collects is correct. In my opinion, it is of paramount importance that Logistep is required to reveal how it gathers such evidence in order to prove its validity to a court, otherwise it’s possible that there would be errors, leading to the wrong people being accused and/or convicted. A UK Government audited and approved system could give their case credibility but until such an audit takes place, I don’t see how their systems can be trusted.

According to a computer forensics expert, the evidence held is likely to be inconclusive and the digital equivalent of Hearsay. Visitors to this thread will note that the expert seems to be offering his services on a no-win, no-fee basis. If his support means that the accused don’t have to go to Court, then he says there is nothing to pay. Any fees will be taken from costs awarded should the accused win their cases. We cannot endorse this guy but it’s certainly worth a look. There is an interesting post about other legal issues here.

Several people accused of uploading Dream Pinball are concerned that they may have an unsecured wireless network and that unknown third-parties may have committed an offence without their knowledge. Davenport Lyons have already responded to at least one person who put this scenario to them;

“There has already been a ruling in the German courts confirming that a wireless network is the responsibility of its owner and any consequences of failing to secure the network fall upon the owner of it, irrespective of who carried out the illegal activity”.

There was indeed a decision in the regional court of Hamburg on 27th July 2006 (ref 308 O 407/06) which ruled that the owner of an internet connection is responsible for infringements which take place on it. Presumably, if there had been a case under relevant UK law, Davenport Lyons would have mentioned it, rather than having to resort to referencing a German case.

So it appears that in the UK it may remain uncertain as to whether an account holder is liable for the actions of others on his internet connection. It’s an issue for the Court to decide, not a law firm or anti-piracy company. Indeed, a British Court may decide that the person who has had their wireless network hacked, bandwidth stolen, connection used illegally and reputation damaged, is actually a victim of a crime themselves and if companies like Logistep have the ability to identify the criminal who did this, then surely they have a legal obligation to do so. Anyone who feels they are the victim of this fraud should present this scenario to their lawyer.

In addition to the ‘uploading’ claim, one of the claims in the letter relates to the illegal copying of the game to the hard drive. Even if someone in the UK is found responsible for what someone does on their internet connection, surely they cannot be guilty of copying the game to the hard drive if this was done by an unauthorised user accessing an unsecured wireless LAN, on a PC outside of their control?

In Germany the district court in Mannheim denied Schutt-Waetke any fees they asked from a defendant, claiming the firm had already filed over 3700 similar cases and it was hard to see where such automated proceedings would require extensive work justifying any fees. A Court may or may not decide that should be the case here.

Dirk Hassinger, the sales director at Zuxxez said he had tried to find a law firm prepared to charge low fees because he didn’t want to “bankrupt” file sharers. On face value, this seems like a considerate thing to do, until you examine some of the wording in the Davenport Lyons letter;

“In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property”

So Zuxxez don’t want to bankrupt people but are quite willing to threaten their family home. Very considerate. It’s more likely that Zuxxez make the settlement ‘affordable’ to make sure defendants choose not to go to court. If going to court means companies like Logistep are forced to reveal their methods and they prove suspect, the whole process could fall to its knees. If someone is proven unresponsible for the actions of a wireless hacker, the whole process could fall to its knees. Obviously this is the last thing that Zexxez, Logistep or Davenport Lyons want.

Finally, having battered the German legal system with their proceedings and taking steps to do the same in the UK, it appears Italy is also becoming a target . Ominously, Logistep also have legal partners in Dubai, Israel, Austria, Poland and the USA.

The Corporate Enemies of File-Sharers list just got longer.
http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught...w-or-go-broke/





New England Grit

UMS Refuses to Hand Student Info to RIAA
Tony Reaves

The University of Maine System has refused a request from the Recording Industry Association of America to produce names of students who allegedly downloaded copyrighted materials.

The system has also opted not to forward the RIAA's pre-litigation letters offering settlements to those students, although the schools those students attend will inform their students of the letters and give them a chance to pick up the letters if they so choose.

At the University of Maine, students with pending RIAA lawsuits were told on Friday.

"It's not the university's role to, in effect, serve papers on our students for another party," John Diamond, spokesman for the university system, said of the decision.

At the same time, the university has ensured those students get a chance to settle. "We want our students to be aware of it, but we do not feel that it is our obligation to be the arm of the RIAA beyond simply sharing the information," Diamond said.

On Wednesday, the RIAA sent 27 letters to the UMS to forward to its students offering settlements before their alleged music piracy could go to court. The letters direct students to the Web site http://www.p2plawsuits.com, where students can admit guilt and settle for an amount far lower than the RIAA could get in court.

Of the 27 letters, 14 went to UMaine students. The remaining 13 went to students at every other UMS school except Farmington and Augusta.

The RIAA sent the system only the numerical Internet addresses of students the industry has accused of copyright violations. They asked the UMS to provide the names of those students.

Diamond said the RIAA's request for student information asks the system to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which bars the UMS from divulging information not considered public.

The Internet addresses the university assigns to students accessing the network is not public. Despite this, some institutions have given up their students' names to avoid court fees.

"The only way the RIAA can get that information is if the RIAA takes us to court to get those names," Diamond said.

According to Jon Ippolito, a UMaine new media professor and associate curator of media arts at the Guggenheim Museum, the university has taken a principled stance.

"[The RIAA] have so many lawyers that they can afford to send frivolous subpoenas right and left, and the mere threat to do so has caused some universities to cave right away," said Ippolito, an expert on digital media.

On Thursday, Ippolito sent a letter to the university system urging administrators not to reveal students' identities to the RIAA.

Ippolito said the practice of subpoenaing universities won't necessarily hold water in court, and was critical of the RIAA's newest tactics with colleges, a policy he called "mafia-like."

"They want to bully universities into exposing students and also bully students directly into signing onto a discount," Ippolito said. "There's no legal process and that's the end of the story."

According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 bill meant to protect copyrighted material in the digital age, the university is not responsible for copyright violations on its network. The university system needs only to make sure students delete any copyrighted works found by an outside agency such as the RIAA.
http://media.www.mainecampus.com/med...-2792041.shtml





Students Largely Ignore RIAA Instant Settlement Offers
Ken Fisher

While the RIAA is touting a settlement percentage north of 25 percent with its recent campaign against file sharing at US colleges and universities, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of students are shunning the insta-settlement approach. According to the RIAA, some 116 students have used their new web site to settle copyright infringement claims, but that means that another 284, or 71 percent of students contacted through the program aren't taking the easy way out. At least not yet.

The average settlement amount offered by the RIAA is about $3,000, so this latest pre-litigation strategy has drummed up at least $350,000 in revenue by our estimate. That's no small amount of money, but considering that music sales this quarter were nearly $100 million, one wonders if the haul from this strategy is worth the public image problems that it's deepening. Then again, public image hasn't been something that appears to concern the RIAA, but with music sales on the decline, perhaps they ought to be taking this more seriously.

A student who received a pre-litigation letter told Ars that he refused to engage their offer because they offer zero proof of what is alleged. "It's like receiving blackmail. 'We know what you did, pay us' is the message, but they don't really know me or what I have done," he wrote. The student wishes to remain anonymous.

He knows that students who ignore the pre-litigation letters are just asking the RIAA to pursue them more, but he hopes that when the RIAA is actually faced with having to produce evidence that they'll simply come up short. The current approach by the RIAA is to simply tell students that each song shared is a $750 violation, so one's fine is often calculated based on the number of songs the RIAA says that they've shared. Yet the RIAA offers no proof of their claims, while sometimes trying to make students feel like they're getting a deal.

Despite the low response, the RIAA believes that the program is going well, and they have sent another 405 pre-litigation letters to students at 23 universities. "This is not our preferred course, but we hope that students will understand the consequences of stealing music and that our partners in the college community will appreciate the proactive role they can play," said Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, in a statement.

According to the Associated Press, one student received a letter demanding $590,000 in payment. Such letters are apparently only sent to egregious file sharers, for the average settlement rarely tops $5,000. After all, the RIAA wants to offer a good deal, you see.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...nt-offers.html





Industry Group Says Piracy Students are Settling

Recording Industry Association of America filed about 18,000 lawsuits
Timberly Ross

A recording industry group that has been offering settlements to college students suspected of sharing music online says more than a quarter of the alleged music pirates have accepted the offer.

The Recording Industry Association of America sent letters offering discounted settlements to 400 computer users at 13 universities in late February. Another batch was sent out this week.

Association spokesman Jonathan Lamy said Friday that, so far, 116 settlements were reached after the first round of letters went out.

Those letters targeted students at Arizona State University; Marshall University; North Carolina State University; North Dakota State University; Northern Illinois University; Ohio University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts, Amherst; University of Nebraska- Lincoln; University of South Florida; University of Southern California; University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and University of Texas, Austin.

Lamy would not specify which of the schools the 116 students attend.

As part of its ongoing copyright crackdown, the association has sued about 18,000 computer users nationwide since September 2003. The figure includes about 1,000 university students.

The lawsuits were initially filed against "John Doe" defendants, based on their Internet addresses. Many are accused of downloading music over university Internet services.

After filing a lawsuit, recording industry lawyers work through the courts to learn the name of the defendant.

In the association's latest effort to curb music piracy, colleges are given letters to forward to students suspected of music piracy, Lamy said. Students are urged to contact the association to broker a settlement before a lawsuit is filed.

"Part of the rationale for this new program is to offer students a chance to settle early and with no public mark on their record," he said.

The association has declined requests to provide specific details about the settlements.

A letter to one Ohio University student told her that she distributed 787 audio files, putting her total minimum potential liability at more than $590,000. The minimum damages under the law is $750 for each copyright recording that had been shared, the letter said.

Patrick McGee, an attorney Ohio University arranged to meet with its students, has said $3,000 is the standard settlement offer, though cases have settled for as much as $5,000.

The second wave of letters the association sent out Wednesday targeted 405 students at 23 colleges. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln was the only school whose students — 61 in all — were targeted in both rounds of letters.

UNL spokeswoman Kelly Bartling said the university was having problems identifying some of the targeted students because the university only stores computer usage records for 31 days.

Thirteen of the 36 students sent letters in February have been identified, she said, and 19 of the 25 sent letters this week were.

Bartling said Friday that the students were being referred to the university's student legal services for advice, but she didn't know how many have accepted a settlement.

Lamy said UNL's records-keeping policy is an anomaly among universities the association is dealing with.

"Reasonable data retention policies are essential," he said. "Lawsuits for music theft are just one example, but there are a host of other crimes regularly perpetrated on computer networks.

"As services providers, one would think universities would understand the need to retain these records."

The university isn't planning to change the records policy, UNL network security analyst Zac Reimer said earlier this week. That's partly because the association probably will begin asking for names in the same months the file-sharing occurred, he said.

Last fall, UNL began a public relations campaign in which students were advised the practice was illegal and could lead to university disciplinary action.

The school has a three strikes policy: First, a notice to music pirates they are violating university policy, then loss of Internet access, and finally, a visit to the school's disciplinary board.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17761473/





Bill Would Hand Colleges Cash For Anti-Piracy
Roy Mark

Earlier this month U.S. Rep. Ric Keller warned colleges and universities if they didn't "get serious" about curbing peer-to-peer (P2P) music and movie theft on their campuses, "the hammer is coming." First, though, comes cash.

The Florida Republican introduced legislation Tuesday to allow schools to apply for federal grants to help purchase anti-piracy systems. The Curb Illegal Downloading on College Campuses Act of 2007 (H.R. 1689) would expand the allowable use of funds by the Department of Education to include technology solutions to piracy.

"Illegal downloading of music and movies on college campuses is harming their computer networks by consuming a huge amount of education-related bandwidth and exposing them to viruses," Keller said in a statement.

Keller's proposal comes as academia is taking increased fire over its efforts to curb the piracy that Congress and the music industry claims is rampant. Despite years of lawsuits targeting campus pirates, more than half of all college students still download music and movies illegally, according to the University of Richmond's Intellectual Property Institute.

At House hearing on March 8, John Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association of American Universities, told lawmakers schools face difficult challenges in curbing the theft rate, not the least of which is cost. He said the cost to implement one proposed filtering technology would be over $1 million initially, with annual licensing fees of approximately $250,000.

"Such costs represent a serious financial challenge for colleges and universities, particularly at a time when we are trying to address the issue of rising costs of attendance for students," Vaughn said.

A 2005 EDUCAUSE survey indicated that 73 percent of institutions surveyed shape network bandwidth by type of traffic to limit possible illegal P2P activity. Vaughn said this type of filtering is more effective in identifying large movie files than smaller music files.

"My legislation encourages colleges to be part of the solution by allowing them to apply for federal grants to help purchase innovative technologies that will stem piracy on their computer networks," Keller said.

Bryan Malenius, Keller's chief of staff, told internetnews.com the bill allows Congress to "put its money where its mouth is," laying the groundwork for schools to afford the pricey filtering technology."[Piracy] is just plain wrong. It's flat out wrong," Malenius said. "There are so many sites out there when folks can download legally."

UCLA Chief Technology Officer Jim Davis, though, told Congress legal download services are not a panacea for online piracy. Davis said students complain that legal services are limited in content, dependent on specific vendors or operating systems and the tunes are often non-transferable to portable players.

"Such concerns are not trivial to students. As creators of intellectual property ourselves, we understand the complexity in business models, particularly in a nascent area," he said. "But we also feel there are not good answers to give, because the business models are not yet viable."
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3668501





The RIAA Came to ASU Today
Anthony Garone

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from ASU about the RIAA coming to campus to give a talk about copyright and the state of the music industry as part of ASU's Security Awareness Week. I went this morning, and it was fairly interesting. The guy, whose name I didn't really catch, is the Senior Vice President of Technology for the RIAA... I believe it was David something. [Correction: the guy's name is David Hughes.] Anyway, his schpiel (sp?) was noteworthy. He made some good points and he made some really ridiculous points.

I got there about 10-15 minutes early and there were 2 guys running the video/audio recording equipment and two other guys waiting for the event to start. One guy was wearing an Invisible Children shirt. It turns out he's the president of the Young Democrats club, or something to that effect. The turnout was looking quite bleak until the event was just about to start. Students started coming in, slowly, but surely. About 20 minutes into the event, the room was about 3/4 full.

David, if that is his real name, started talking about the history of the music industry, the way things work with record companies, etc. It was a fairly decent background and he was quite casual, even throwing out a few profanities, possibly to look "cool" and "laid back." He went on about how record companies need money to do "research and development," and that they're essentially "venture capitalists" who will sign somewhere around 20 new artists per season, lose money on 17 of them, break even on 2, and make a lot of money on 1. It's that 1 artist, the Britneys and Jessicas, that make a ton of guaranteed money that allows the record company to sign less successful artists. He mentioned that many of these artists end up making a ton of money off the record company with big advances and poor sales, something I questioned him about regarding recouping costs. He also mentioned that he estimates 50% of college students actively steal music, to which he got some pointed retaliatory remarks, and said that he had some studies to back his point up. Basically, he wanted to tell us that we [college students] used to be the recording industry's best customer and now we're the worst enemy. I guess that's what happens when you suddenly lose your monopoly in an industry.

Shortly thereafter, excitement was thrust upon us when...

Four people, likely students, walked into the back of the room, all holding cardboard signs. One sign had a scythe attached and said, "Don't fear the RIAAper." Another guy had no pants on and had a sign that said, "The RIAA sued the pants off me." Another girl had a sign that said, "Download like it's 1999." And the last girl had some spare change in her hand that was to go to "Metallica's retirement fund." It was quite funny and David reacted fairly well, laughing loudly and wishing he had his camera. After they had a brief debate, none of which was captured by a microphone, David essentially kicked them out and had some (defensible and understandably) snide remarks for them. As they were walking out, they said, "Some people still believe that sharing means caring.'"

After David had started speaking again, it was apparent that the audience, most of which were students, were growing antsy and needed to get their anti-RIAA questions off their backs. Few people asked particularly good questions, unfortunately. One guy even mentioned, "I only make enough money to buy one CD per month. What am I supposed to do?" to which I replied, "You're justifying your stealing," and David had a few things to say as well. That sparked the series of mostly-immature, folly-that-comes-with-youth questions including one guy saying, "You keep saying 'stealing' when you should be saying 'copyright infringement.'"

Anyway, the presentation left me feeling irritated because of two things:

David's argument was basically that we should feel sorry for the fact that his business is quickly becoming irrelevant and they don't know how to change. It's expensive to find new artists and they're releasing bad music because they know it'll sell and it's expensive to change a business model. So, instead, they're going to use what he calls "Education through litigation," which disgusted me and other people in the room. Basically, it's our fault that the record companies sell music from Britney Spears and it's our fault that Wal-Mart is the #1 music retailer in the country. We've forced the "lowest common denominator" on ourselves. And if the RIAA can't find new talent because of us, then "that's a shame."

Many people who steal music have an immature perspective about stealing music and don't realize foolish they sound to real adults. The RIAA isn't bad because people want to steal music! The RIAA is bad because they have bad business practices! They sue stroke victims, 10-year-old children, people who don't own computers, and make many lives a living hell. They intimidate people without substantive proof, they bully ISPs and universities to hand over network traffic data, and they don't care about the customer. They treat the customer like she's a thief or criminal. It's implied that nearly everyone college-age is a pirate. At least, that's the way I see it. Like my friend said, you don't go to the gas station and steal gas, even when you hate the oil companies and refineries. Why? Because there's accountability... you're on camera, they'll track you down, etc. But, when it comes down to something like music, it's socially acceptable to steal music. There's definitely a supposed-anonymity and a disconnect of ethics. Also, college students are total moral relativists, as my friend put it, and there's no way the RIAA is going to convince them not to steal.

I was glad about a few things, though. The RIAA is well-aware that they are becoming irrelevant. They are also aware that nobody likes them, but they don't care about that. Someone also brought up the fact that the RIAA was recently voted as being the "worst company in America", to which David responded with some laughs and a quip about how they've been "beating Exxon-Mobil for years" in that arena. Another guy also brought up the fact that the RIAA is losing credibility with its customer base by suing everyone and their grandmother.

Another thing David brought up that was interesting is Steve Jobs' open letter to the music industry about removing DRM from electronic sales of digital media. David brought up a meeting and some e-mail exchanges he's had with Jobs and called Jobs a "hypocrite." When asked if Jobs would be willing to sell Pixar movies through iTunes without DRM and DVDs without CSS encryption, there was no response. When asked about interoperability of downloads from the iTMS, Jobs responded, "Ask me again when we have less than 50% of the market share." He thinks Jobs posted that letter to get the attention off of him and the bad press he'd been getting regarding Norway's tying laws, which I think was a really good point that most of the tech blogs has missed. Jobs knows exactly what he's doing and he's one of the world's most wealthy businesspeople for a reason.

Someone asked about the out of court settlements that they're offering to people who get the DMCA notices in the mail. Apparently, they think it's a very nice way to settle things and doesn't skirt the law by any means. In fact, it can be considered "beneficial" to the John Doe being sued in that if John is trying to get a job with the FBI, a copyright infringment settlement never goes on his record. So, it's actually a "good thing" (my words, not his). Personally, I think it's ridiculous because people can be threatened with a lawsuit by the RIAA without the RIAA having any proof of the person actually stealing. But, whatever... people seem to be settling out of court all the time now.

What the RIAA needs to do is cope with downsizing, realize that some aspects of their industry are going to fail, they no longer have a monopoly, there are better distribution and business models, and work around the fact that "piracy will always exist" (as David put it). His argument is that in the 1980s/1990s, somewhere around 80% of people who had cable were getting it for free through illegal, "illegitimate" channels. That's not how the industry is anymore and the record companies want it the same way. Unfortunately, this is a bad analogy because there are no reasonably-cheap alternatives to getting cable. In my area, we have a choice of going through Cox Cable, Qwest digital cable, or some satellite TV. And they all cost about-the-same. With the music industry, you can release your own music at little to no cost (as I did with my newest album, Within) and the distribution/business model is completely different. If they truly are venture capitalists, then they'd realize that there are other ways to earn money. They're just too comfortable with the monopoly they used to have that they won't use their venture capitalism to try a different model.

David kept going on about "basic economics" when it comes to the prices of CDs and whatnot. Unfortunately, his understanding of "basic economics" stops there. The demand for music has changed and the supply needs to change. They must reform or die. And no one will care if they die because artists will find another way to distribute their music. The RIAA sees their way as the only way to do business. That's the way it's been for the last 50 years and that's the way they want to keep it. Musicians never spoke poorly about the record companies 50 years ago because no one wanted to bite the hand that fed them. Now, the RIAA is unnecessary for success and the world is ushering change. Whether the RIAA will survive or not, we won't know for another 20-30 years, likely. Especially considering the rate at which copyright law changes.

The entire presentation was filmed and will supposedly be released on iTunes U and ASU's security website. There was a microphone going around for people to use if they had questions, but more than half the time, the microphone didn't make it to the student, so I'm sure it'll be hard to hear the questions being asked. Nevertheless, a few other students were recording, including a woman who recorded on her camcorder for Geek Method's podcast. I don't think the official ASU recording picked up the protestors, but I know the Geek Method recording did, so your best bet is to stop there when it's available.
http://www.garone.net/anthony/archive/blogpost/386





Why the RIAA Doesn't Want Defendants Exonerated
Eric Bangeman

Litigation is always a risky endeavor. One can never be entirely sure how a judge will interpret case law and rule, and should the case proceed to trial, juries are even harder to read. Filing over a thousand lawsuits, therefore, is even riskier. Should a handful of rulings go the wrong way, it could jeopardize the numerous other cases currently in the system.

This is a dilemma faced by the RIAA in its war against suspected file sharers. The hundreds of cases filed have all proceeded along the same lines, with which most of us are all too familiar. The music industry's exit strategy from cases it deems undesirable to pursue—due to mistaken identity, poor likelihood of winning, or other factors—has been just as consistent. The record labels file for a dismissal without prejudice and everybody goes their own ways, footing their own legal bills, and no one is officially cleared of wrong-doing. Recent events may be casting a shadow over the wisdom of the RIAA's strategy.

A new tactic

One such event is yesterday's news from the world of file-sharing litigation. Faced with the prospect of having to pay attorneys' fees in cases it has no interest in pursuing, the RIAA appears to be trying a new tactic. In the case of Warner Bros. v. Tallie Stubbs, the record labels have said that they "now covenant not to pursue claims against Defendant" for copyright infringement and that the defendant's counterclaim should be dismissed.

Tallie Stubbs was sued by the RIAA last year after the trade group's investigators traced a Kazaa shared folder back to her with the help of an ISP. After what it described as "further investigation," the record labels apparently concluded that they had either misidentified her or didn't have sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, and decided to move for dismissal without prejudice. When contacted by Ars and asked the reasons behind the dismissal, the RIAA declined to comment.

But Stubbs wanted something more than a mere dismissal: complete exoneration. She filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that she had not infringed on the record labels' copyrights. Earlier this month, Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange split the difference. She granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice while denying their motion to dismiss the counterclaim, ruling that "there are independent bases for subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's declaratory judgment counterclaim." In other words, the defendant can seek to have her name cleared of any wrongdoing, regardless of the plaintiff's decision to dismiss.

By promising not to sue Stubbs again and keeping the dismissal without prejudice on the books, RIAA hopes to avoid the same fate it met in Capitol v. Foster (Debbie Foster is being represented by the same attorney as Tallie Stubbs) and faces in Elektra v. Santangelo: a ruling that the defendant is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to attorneys' fees. In Warner v. Stubbs, the labels are arguing that since they are promising never to sue her for infringement again, there is no need to continue the legal wrangling and the judge should therefore dismiss Stubbs' counterclaim. In other words, no harm, no foul.
Risky business

In choosing this course of action, the RIAA is taking a calculated risk. Dismissing a case without prejudice while promising not to bring further legal action could be interpreted as the functional equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice. As a result, the judge may very well decide to dismiss the case with prejudice after all. She could also then dismiss Stubbs' counterclaim, as a dismissal with prejudice would mean that she is the prevailing party and leave the labels vulnerable to an attorneys' fees awards.

Last week, we noted that the RIAA found itself in a difficult situation with Elektra v. Santangelo because the judge had ruled that Patti Santangelo was entitled to a shot at vindication, either via trial or a dismissal with prejudice. If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...xonerated.html





RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl
NewYorkCountryLawyer

The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/24/2220222





Italian Authorities Say Raid Yields 5 Terabytes Of Copyrighted Works

Authorities report more than $1 million in music industry losses through Discotequezone.
K.C. Jones

Italian authorities have shut down a peer-to-peer site and seized servers they say shared more than 600,000 pirated music tracks daily, contributing to $1 million (U.S.) worth of losses.

Italy's fiscal police announced Thursday that they had shut down Discotequezone with help from the Federation Against Music Piracy and prosecutors. Authorities said they seized five servers, four uploaders, 16 computers, 27 external hard disks, and more than 1,000 DVDs and CDs containing more than 5 terabytes of copyrighted material. Police arrested 11 people and charged them with copyright infringement.

Italy's music industry federation said the country has prosecuted nearly 200 people for illegal P-to-P distribution since 2005. The federation collaborates with the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), which represents about 1,400 record companies in roughly 70 countries and is currently advertising an opening for an Internet music piracy specialist in London.
http://www.informationweek.com/story...leID=198701134





Music Publishers Sue XM For Copyright Infringement
FMQB

The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) has filed a lawsuit against XM Satellite Radio over its XM + MP3 service, which allows users to digitally store songs they hear on XM and create playlists without paying the required royalties. The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court, alleges massive copyright infringement and seeks an injunction against XM and a maximum of $150,000 in damages for each work infringed upon. The filing lists over 175 songs as a "small fraction" of those being illegally distributed through the XM + MP3 service.

"These devices go well beyond a radio transmission," said NMPA President David Israelite about XM's receivers that record songs, according to the Wall Street Journal. "They replace the need to buy music."

However, XM has contended that songs captured and stored on their receivers aren't true sales, in part because they stay on the radio only as long as the owner remains a subscriber, and also because they can't be moved onto a computer or other device. XM also argues that the devices encourage subscribers to buy songs, allowing them to bookmark favorites and facilitating digital sales through its partner, Napster.

XM spokesman Chance Patterson called the suit "a negotiating tactic to gain an advantage in our ongoing business discussions," according to CNet News. He continued, "XM pays royalties to writers and composers who are also compensated by our device manufacturers. We are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and that we will prevail."
http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=375508





Digital Radio Broadcast Flag Gets Snubbed by FCC
Ken Fisher

There's good news coming out of the FCC for radio fans; news that's sorely needed after two bits of negative news this past week. The FCC has published its rules for Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB), and the big news is what's not in the rules: the broadcast flag.

The FCC made a number of important decisions with regards to DAB, but none of them touched the sensitive issue of requiring encryption and end-user control schemes for digital radio. The FCC's silence on the matter means that should the RIAA still wish to chase after the broadcast flag for digital radio, they'll need to lobby Congress to get it. The jury is out on whether or not there's any chance of Congress pushing something like that through, but since last year's elections there seems to be more skepticism in Congress with regards to the entertainment industry's technology plans. And make no mistake: the clock is ticking on this one. Digital radio has the clear go-ahead now (previous offerings were on a limited, case-by-case basis), and the time for implementing such a thing is quickly passing because of the equipment setup involved.

The announcement also indicates that the FCC chose to refrain from establishing a mandatory conversion schedule for digital radio, and a number of other changes seem largely favorable for the industry. FCC commissioner Robert M. McDowell called the FCC's decision "historic," as it now paves the way for digital radio to roll out across the country and in fairly laissez-faire fashion. This concise report by Glenn Fleishman covers most of those issues, and I also recommend this write-up by Brad Kava at the Mercury News.

Capture the Flag

For more than a year there has been a battle between the RIAA and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) over the issue of protecting content on digital radio. The issue centers around digital radio's quality: DAB will provide static-free, near-CD quality broadcasts, and the RIAA and friends are worried that this will enable users to merely record radio and never buy a CD again.

The big problem with the RIAA's demand for a broadcast flag was that they missed the boat. While radio stations were prepping for this move for years, the RIAA twiddled its thumbs. Only at the 11th hour did they step in and then ask for changes. A broadcast flag solution would have required end-to-end encryption, which would have required significant changes to digital radio broadcasting equipment. To make matters worse, there are already digital radio players on the market, and a move to a broadcast flag would have rendered them useless.

The RIAA will likely still fight for a broadcast flag for radio, but the FCC's decision makes it plain that they would prefer to see digital radio get out of the gate sooner rather than later, and they remain satisfied that the rollout should begin immediately and without worry for the added complications of a broadcast flag.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ed-by-fcc.html





Musicians Campaign for Free Internet
Dibya Sarkar

Sensing a revolution in the way Internet traffic is managed, rock and roll musicians find themselves in the unusual position of defending the status quo.

Independent, lesser-known musicians and smaller record labels have launched a nationwide campaign Tuesday to support the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, which they said is under fire from Internet providers who want to charge a fee to have some Web sites load faster than others.

The Rock the Net campaign, made up mostly of musicians who are on smaller record labels or none at all, said they are fearful that if the so-called "Net neutrality" principle is abandoned their music may not be heard because they do not have the financial means to pay for preferential treatment.

Some said they do not want to pay. The Web, they said, has allowed many unknown musicians to put their music online, giving fans instant access to new music and giving bands greater marketing capabilities.

They said independent record labels are also on an equal Web footing with major players like Apple Inc.'s iTunes.

"It could be a pretty sad world where money alone buys the ears and anybody that can't afford it, can't get proper placement, is pushed off to the ghettos," said Derek Sivers, owner of CD Baby, an online store that sells compact discs by independent musicians.

The group is the latest to get involved in the Net neutrality issue.

SavetheInternet.com is a coalition of more than 800 groups -- ranging from liberal political groups, such as MoveOn.org, to conservative groups, such as the Christian Coalition of America -- that support the issue. That campaign was formed more than a year ago and is organized by Free Press, a national public interest group.

On the other side, phone and cable companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., want the freedom to charge content providers for priority Web traffic. They contend any legislation affirming Net neutrality would harm investment and innovation in the Internet.

Former musician Jenny Toomey, who is now executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group for independent musicians, said this issue is so important that it has even attracted some big name artists, such as R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan and even Kronos Quartet, a classical musical string ensemble.

"Never before have I been doing work for the music community where every single artist that we called said, 'Yes use my name. I'm on board to support this,"' she said during a teleconference Tuesday morning. Her group is one of the campaign's organizers.

Rep. Edward Markey, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, said if Internet providers are allowed to start charging fees for preferential treatment then it will stifle innovation across many industries, not just music.

"This is nothing more than a new bottleneck fee, a corporate broadband tax that will discriminate against less powerful voices and those unable or unwilling to pay such discriminatory fees," he said during the teleconference.

He complained that the Federal Communications Commission isn't doing enough to protect Net neutrality.

However, the FCC said last week it will see if Internet providers are conducting any such discriminatory business practices.

It said it will study how high-speed Internet providers are managing traffic on their networks and if they're charging different prices for different speeds or levels of service. The FCC might adopt regulations to ensure all Web traffic is treated the same.

Besides the Future of Music Coalition, the Rock the Net campaign is sponsored by Noise Pop Industries, which sponsors an annual San Francisco music festival among other things, and Zeitgeist Artist Management, which manages musicians.

According to the campaign's Web site, 124 bands and 24 music labels support the initiative.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...nmentfront-hed





Well, not that free…

Musicians Speak Out In Favor Of New Royalty Rates
FMQB

A variety of musicians have spoken out in favor of the controversial, proposed higher royalty rates for Internet radio proposed by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Drummer Jody Stephens (Big Star, Golden Smog) said in a statement, "If music adds commercial value to someone's site, then there is a monetary value due the writers and recording artists. The decision by the Copyright Royalty Board helps us afford to continue to add this value of music."

"A lot of internet users think of music as a product created and generated by major labels with corporate megadollars and so think nothing of taking or paying very little to use this music," added singer Michelle Shocked. "But the evidence shows that a large majority of music is now created by independent artists with very small margins trying earn a living and it's in that context that the recent decision to raise the internet broadcasting rates are seen as an encouragement to creativity and independence."

Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister added, "With the shrinking royalties from the usual sources, the ever expanding digital universe is apparently becoming the future and, before our very eyes, it is here now. I wholeheartedly support all organizations that endeavor to collect and account to all the hard working artists whose material is exploited. I applaud these new royalty increases as they scratch the surface of the new world order."

Last week, following criticisms and petitions from NPR and other broadcasters, the CRB agreed to grant motions for a possible rehearing over the royalty rates
http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=376561





A Radio Station Just for You
Wilson Rothman

FOR all the talk about satellite radio, the most vibrant frontier in radio may be the Web. Many traditional AM and FM stations have begun streaming on the Internet, along with hundreds of smaller online-only operators. Even subscription download services like Napster, Rhapsody and Urge from MTV have preprogrammed radio for users who are not in the mood to hunt for tracks.

Currently, the most compelling online radio is interactive. Services like Pandora, Last.fm and Slacker evaluate your musical tastes, then serve up a continuous stream of programming to match. They mix familiar songs with new material you might like. They all do it by harnessing the technological forces of social networking, data mining and music analysis, though each uses a slightly different technique.

With so much momentum, there are still plenty of bumps. The Copyright Royalty Board of the Library of Congress recently announced a Web-radio royalty payment plan that has caused many free Internet broadcasters to fear for their fragile business models.

Some new interactive music services choose not to stream anything. Instead, they rely strictly on music the listener already owns or new tracks donated by publicity-hungry independent artists and labels. Others are becoming as creative with the way they license content as they are with the way they personalize it for you.

On its surface, Pandora is the simplest option. When you visit www.pandora.com, enter the name of a song or artist you enjoy. Immediately you will hear music from a “station” based on that initial choice. You can refine your station by naming other artists and songs, and Pandora picks music from those artists but more important, it chooses other songs you might like based on your suggestions.

Pandora makes recommendations based on analysis of songs by musicologists in Pandora’s Music Genome Project. The experts listen for up to 400 different characteristics in every song, from musical genre to the presence of a particular instrument. Songs with the most similarities naturally make their way to the same radio stream.

If you do not like one of Pandora’s suggestions, you can click on the “thumbs down” sign and it is never heard from again. If, on the other hand, you do like a song, you can give it the “thumbs up,” and that particular preference will be used in later suggestions.

Now that the free ad-supported service has been operational for 15 months, it can use the behavioral data of its six million listeners to add a new layer of suggestion. For instance, even if, on paper, the musicologists think it logical to pair a song by the “American Idol” superstar Clay Aiken with one by the Canadian folk balladeer Ron Sexsmith, several hundred listeners may give the juxtaposition a vote of no confidence. Tim Westergren, a Pandora co-founder, says the database now contains half a billion useful points of “contextual feedback.”

Last.fm (www.last.fm), an interactive radio service started in 2003, doesn’t use a musicologist. Instead, it bases its suggestions primarily on the wisdom of the crowd. A Last.fm co-founder, Martin Stiksel, refers to it as “collaborative filtering applied on a massive scale.”

At signup, the service asks users to download software — available for Macs and PCs — that tracks the music playing on your computer. The song-counting process, called “scrobbling” by Last.fm’s chief software developer, lets the company observe shifts in popularity, spot unexpected correlations between songs, and even discover new artists — or new tracks by known artists.

To date, Last.fm has “scrobbled” 65 million tracks by 8 million artists, in just about every country in the world. As with Pandora, you can identify songs you love, which helps to tailor your radio experience. The result is a stream of music that, statistically speaking, you ought to enjoy.

An important byproduct is the identification of musical “neighbors.” As the Last.fm community grows to over 15 million active users, it also promotes itself as a social networking site, like MySpace. You can see and contact others whose musical tastes correspond significantly with your own.

“This is community-driven,” Mr. Stiksel said. “Interest in new music flags when you don’t have an infrastructure of informers around you.”

The most ambitious free service is Slacker, unveiled this month. The ad-driven beta program at www.slacker.com resembles Pandora. But when the full-fledged release becomes available in early summer, Slacker will have several components. Slacker was founded by former chief executives of Musicmatch and Rio, so it is only fitting that Slacker will offer a free software player, like the once-popular Musicmatch Jukebox, and sell a portable iPod-like device, like those Rio made.

One twist is that, like Last.fm, the Slacker jukebox will enhance the radio stream by paying attention to the songs you choose. (D.J.’s will aid in programming as well.) Another twist is that, in addition to MP3s, the portable player will carry personalized radio streams that will be automatically freshened. For $7.50 a month, users get access to more features, but even if you do not pay, you will be able to buy the portable device and have access to free — though ad-rich — radio streams.

Most radically, sometime this year Slacker says it will introduce a satellite receiver dock for the portable player. The Slacker team plans to blast individual song files to listeners from a satellite several times an hour. As each song is sent, the player itself will determine whether the song is a good fit for its particular user. If so, it will be saved. If not, it will be rejected.

Because of the controversy over royalty rates, and because of its unique portable properties, Slacker made its own licensing deals directly with the four major music groups plus several hundred independent labels. Last.fm recently announced content deals with the Warner Music Group and EMI for tracks on its new, ad-free $3-a-month premium radio service.

The royalty issue is explicitly why services like Soundflavor, Goombah and Mog don’t offer true streaming radio. Soundflavor DJ, a free player available at www.soundflavor.com, uses a collaborative filtering technique, but instead of streaming new songs, it lets you cue up songs on iTunes or Windows Media Player, then takes over D.J. responsibility, matching your initial choices with other tracks from your own collection. It is especially effective if you have a library with thousands of tracks. After every few songs, Soundflavor offers you a free track download from an independent artist, or the opportunity to buy a song that its filter suggests you might like.

Goombah (www.goombah.com), another new service, asks you to download software that analyzes your entire music library. You can, however, select artists or albums that you do not want included in this evaluation. After the analysis, Goombah offers free track downloads and connects you to music fans with similar tastes.

Mog (www.mog.com) is a bustling new online community of music fans. Like Goombah, it uses software to examine your whole library, but it gives you the opportunity to prioritize songs played recently. The result is not streaming radio, but a music blog (hence “mog”) scene where people with overlapping musical tastes talk about concerts, post MP3s and share videos.

Mog’s most inspired development starts today. It is Mog TV, a personalized stream of YouTube music video posts. Mog says there are 400,000 videos there now, plenty to personalize for all tastes.

“Imagine if YouTube knew what songs were in your music collection,” said Mog’s chief executive, David Hyman. “It’s the ultimate mash-up.”

As for artist royalties, that currently appears to be YouTube’s problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/te.../29basics.html





The Doors Lead Way as Big Names of Rock go Digital

Record labels woo younger audience by offering back catalogues on downloads
Owen Gibson

In 1967 they were trying to "break down the doors of perception" with some of the best known songs of the era. Now the surviving members of the Doors hope to snare a new generation of fans by today releasing their entire back catalogue online for the first time.

Faced with declining CD sales, record labels are increasingly hoping to market rock's biggest names to younger listeners via the web, with the Doors leading the charge to mark the 40th anniversary of the release of their classic debut album.

The group is re-releasing all six albums with late lead singer Jim Morrison, from their incendiary self-titled 1967 debut to 1971's LA Woman, made months before their frontman died in a Paris bathroom.

All will be made available for digital download for the first time, as record companies turn to their back catalogues to boost online sales. Each album has been remastered with new material from the original sessions by the band and engineer Bruce Botnick. Two new greatest hits collections and a raft of unreleased tracks and alternate versions will also be made available on the web.

The marketing focus of such exercises has previously been on persuading diehard fans to part with their cash for new versions of songs they already own. But labels are now also targeting younger record buyers who missed classic acts the first time round.

The Doors guitarist Robby Krieger said listening to the tapes "brought back a lot of memories" and that this was the first time they had revisited the back catalogue in depth. "Even though you get bootlegged to death, there's something good to be said for the internet. If groups can sell their own records, that's great. I use iTunes and stuff," he told the Guardian.

He hoped the campaign would lead fans new and old to discover some of the band's lesser known tracks. Keyboard player Ray Manzarek added: "The delivery system is what it is. If everyone is on their computers, that's fabulous. But although you gain the ease of access, you do lose the sense of an artefact."

Dan Chalmers, senior marketing director at Rhino International, the Warner subsidiary on which the albums will be released, said: "It is fitting that such a pioneering group are now using 21st century technology to explore how their fans, both old and new, can experience their music. Offering download-only digital content such as video interviews, ringtones and remixes is further evidence of how the Doors continue to evolve."

Elton John will also today make his entire back catalogue available for digital download for the first time, initially via Apple's iTunes. The archive, spanning four decades and more than 400 tracks, is being released to coincide with his 60th birthday and a new greatest hits album. "I've wanted my music to be available for digital download worldwide for some time, but I knew that the entire catalogue - not just the hits - needed care and attention to be released in this way," said Sir Elton.

Like the Doors, he will also make tracks available as ringtones for the first time. The Beatles are also expected to finally join the digital download fray this year after settling a long running trademark dispute with Apple Computer. With archive tracks now eligible for the charts, they are expected to dominate the top 10.

But while he approved of making the Doors' acid fried LA rock available in new ways, Krieger said the record industry had not changed for the better. "I think it kind of sucks compared to then. I think the labels have gotten too much power and ego."

Krieger said they would repeat the exercise for Other Voices and Full Circle, the two albums recorded after Morrison's death, and a 1978 release that put new music to Morrison's poetry. The pair will tour this year with their band Riders on the Storm.

Top selling back catalogue artists

1 The Beatles
2 AC/DC
3 Muse
4 Rod Stewart
5 Metallica
6 Pink Floyd
7 Oasis
8 Madonna
9 Michael Jackson
10 Eagles

Source: HMV

Top selling back catalogue downloads

1 Take That
2 Kylie Minogue
3 Pink Floyd
4 Michael Jackson
5 Linkin Park
6 Eminem
7 Queen
8 Guns N' Roses
9 David Bowie
10 Abba

Source: hmvdigital.com
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/sto...042893,00.html





Sixty Years On - Sir Elton Celebrates 60th
Paul Lewis

"I've no wish to be living 60 years on," a 23-year-old Elton John sang at his first US concert in Los Angeles in 1970. Last night Sir Elton was poised to mark his 60th birthday by singing the same song - Sixty Years On - at a record-breaking live show at New York's Madison Square Gardens.

The sell-out Happy Birthday, Elton charity concert was set to be the star's 60th appearance at the legendary arena, streamed live to fans across the world via the internet. He has held the record for most performances at Madison Square Gardens since October 2001. Previously, the Grateful Dead held the record, playing there 52 times.

Last night's public celebration of his birthday followed a private event for around 300 guests on Saturday night at the St John The Divine gothic cathedral in Harlem. The guest list for the black tie dinner and dance included dozens of famous friends including Robin Williams, Elizabeth Hurley and Rod Stewart, and the fashion designer Donatella Versace.

Little Britain stars David Walliams and Matt Lucas were also in attendance, with John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono. Elton John shared the Madison Square Gardens stage he played at last night with Lennon in November 1974, the former Beatle's last performance before his death. The concert capped a fortnight of birthday celebrations for the flamboyant singer, who said he wanted a "once in the lifetime" extravaganza to mark reaching 60.

The London-based branch of the festivities took place this month at Shoreditch Town Hall, in east London. Sir Elton wore a Russian military fancy dress outfit while his partner David Furnish donned a US marine captain's uniform for what was described as a "low key" celebration.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/sto...042900,00.html





Elton John Celebrates 60 Lavishly, in His Garden
Nate Chinen

Elton John never seemed like the kind of guy to shrug off a big occasion. So it was natural, perhaps even inevitable, that he would celebrate his 60th birthday at Madison Square Garden. His sprawling concert on Sunday night featured no onstage candles – not even "Candle in the Wind" – but felt ceremonial enough without them. There were dedications, recollections and a shower of confetti. A banner was unfurled from the rafters, bearing a giant number 60 under Sir Elton's name.

That last flourish actually commemorated something other than a birthday: Sir Elton's 60th performance in the arena. That's more than any other single artist, as the finer print under the numeral made clear. Small wonder that Sir Elton wanted to spend his birthday at the Garden: it's obviously a place where he feels at home.

The concert's opening salvo was "Sixty Years On," a conveniently titled song from one of Sir Elton's first albums. Immediately there was the ominous threat of show biz bloat: Las Vegas-style lighting, heavy synthesizers and cosmic graphics on an oversized screen. It was looking to be a big night, and not just in the festive sense.

Thankfully things got better, and not too much bigger: the concert gathered strength as it steamrolled along, covering a wide range of material from an expansive career. Sir Elton's regular five-piece backing band, augmented by the cellist Martin Tillman, sounded crisp and engaged, only occasionally succumbing to pomp. And the Brooklyn Youth Chorus managed to bring a sense of uplift, along with some raw power.

Singing in an unfaltering voice, and projecting an exuberant air, Sir Elton behaved more like a master of ceremonies than a guest of honor. His patter between songs was affable enough to defy the dimensions of the arena. "We haven't played this song in maybe 30 years," he mused before starting into "Ballad of a Well-Known Gun," the first of many gospel-inflected romps. He introduced "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters" as "one of my all-time favorites," almost as if he hadn't been the one to write it.

Of course flamboyance has always suited Sir Elton better than modesty. (Robin Williams, briefly taking the stage with Whoopi Goldberg, toasted him as "a man who used to make Liberace look Amish.") But he was understated on Sunday: black coat, white shirt. And though he struck one puckish pose atop the piano, and took multiple victory laps across the stage, his performance was relatively subdued. Even on "Empty Garden," a tribute to John Lennon, he conveyed a plainly rueful feeling, stripped of melodrama.

The evening's biggest guest was a non-performer: Bernie Taupin, Sir Elton's lyricist and creative partner of 40 years. Emerging on the heels of Mr. Williams – and upstaging him in the only possible setting where he could – Mr. Taupin led the audience in singing "Happy Birthday." Sir Elton reciprocated by giving credit where it's due: "Without Bernie Taupin none of us would be here tonight. Because the words have always come first."

Then came "Daniel," one of the pair's many successful collaborations, and the beginning of the concert's stronger midsection. The band caromed through well-worn hits like "Rocket Man," along with lesser-known fare like "All the Young Girls Love Alice." Sir Elton and his cohorts kept getting lighter and leaner, sounding best during the last few songs before the encore: "The Bitch is Back," "Crocodile Rock" and "Saturday Night's Alright (For Fighting)," each more emphatic than the last.

The song preceding that finish-line sprint was more telling, though. It was "I'm Still Standing," accompanied by a video montage of album covers and outlandish old photographs. The song's lyrics amount to a bitter reprisal, but Sir Elton made them sound more jubilant than angry. "Don't you know I'm still standing better than I ever did," he sang. "Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/ar...elton-web.html





It's Boom Time for Festivals

They sell out in minutes, there may be as many as 450 this year, yet demand for music events is still growing
Esther Addley

It will feature a loch, a castle, the Beastie Boys and, its organisers hope, 20,000 "discerning music fans" who like their festivals with "a little more comfort" and can overlook the risk of drizzle.

The promoters behind the Glasgow music festival T in the Park last week announced they were launching a new festival, called Connect, to take place in Inveraray Castle in Argyll and Bute in September.

It followed the launch a few days earlier of Fflam, another new event, scheduled for Swansea in July and featuring Keane, the Manic Street Preachers and Placebo. 30,000 tickets are now on sale.

The new events are merely the latest in what has become an increasingly packed festival calendar. Festival-going has been growing sharply in recent years, but this year, say music industry insiders, the demand for tickets and new events is unprecedented.

It is estimated that as many as 450 festivals, large and small, will be taking place around the country this summer.

T in the Park, already Scotland's biggest annual music event, has expanded from two days in July to three, with capacity for up to 80,000 fans. When the last 10,000 tickets for the event were released for sale earlier this month, they sold out in 20 minutes.

Oxegen, an Irish festival, sold all its 60,000 tickets within an hour and 20 minutes and its promoters said they could have sold out three times over.

Today, meanwhile, the organisers of the Glastonbury festival are expected to be granted permission by Mendip district council to extend the capacity from 150,000 to 177,500, the biggest legal attendance it has ever had.

The festival has had to introduce a new system of pre-registering for tickets, due to go on sale on April 1, to cope with the unprecedented demand.

"There is no doubt about it, festivals are incredibly fashionable at the moment," says Neil Greenway, founder of efestivals.co.uk, an independent festival listing website.

Yesterday, the site listed 273, though Mr Greenway says a further 50 are currently being added. "We only list the ones we get to hear about, and each year more and more events are getting in touch with us. There is a definite growth in the number of events."

"It is a total boom time for festivals," agrees Paul Stokes, news editor of the NME. "They are as much a part of the summer now [for young people] as going on a Club 18-30 holiday."

How does he explain the surge in demand? "The British music scene at the moment is incredibly healthy, and the appetite for it is massive. Five years ago, going to gigs was seen as a bit of a minority interest. Now bands can sell out arenas after one album. And if you go to a festival, you can see your entire record collection in one weekend."

John Curd, the promoter behind Fflam, says he had been wanting to get involved in the festival scene for some time, but found the market "chock-a-block". "Everywhere around the country was already covered. I was looking around the south coast, but always in my mind was the thought, you're crazy, it is already so crowded for festivals. Then we realised that the one place where there was no major festival was Wales."

He hopes to build attendance up to 50,000, "a nice workable capacity".

Even away from the big rock gigs, there is a boom in smaller events. All Tomorrow's Parties, the line-up of which is "curated" each year by a different artist, has for the past seven years been held at a small holiday camp in East Sussex. This summer it is moving to a Butlins site, to double its capacity to 6,000.

Last year, Simon Taffe sold his house in order to fund a new event called End of the Road, held in Dorset in September and already much raved about by aficionados. "There are a lot of big events, but I felt there weren't really that many small festivals at the time that had quality and some really good bands. That was it, really."

He feels a lot of festivals will have folded in a few years' time. "I think we are overpopulated. I know it has become a recent trend, but you get so many festivals with the same line-up."

Aside from the very big events, he says, only those offering something quite distinct will survive.

Mr Stokes agrees that the trend will inevitably fade, though perhaps not for some time. "It is like all music fashions. Look at the superclubs that were hugely popular 10 years ago. Now they are completely gone. At the moment, going to a festival, spending a weekend in the rain watching a bunch of guitar bands, seems amazing, but whether that will always be the case, we will have to wait and see."


One weekend's parties

Some of the festival events scheduled for the weekend of July 6-8

Roskilde, Roskilde, Denmark
After Glastonbury, the biggest music festival in Europe, established in 1971. Confirmed acts this year include Arcade fire, Beastie Boys, Bjork and Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Tickets £130 for four day event.

Stonehaven Folk Festival, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire
Long established event based in Stonehaven town hall and in local pubs. Confirmed acts include Kate Rusby, Archie Fisher, Black Umfolosi 5.
Prices not yet confirmed.

Sounds in the Grounds, Forcett Hall, Richmond, N Yorks
Five-year-old event, with all proceeds in aid of Eppleby Forcett school. Confirmed so far: Fizzyfish, The Mosaics
Weekend tickets £10 adults, £6 children

Blissfields, Bradley farm, Alresford, Hampshire
Small, family-focused festival featuring largely unsigned bands.
Adults £20, children under 14, £10

Antiworld, "A secret location somewhere near London"
Three-day outdoor dance event featuring "techno, trance, house, hard-dance, hardcore, uplifting and hard trance" and more.
Tickets £70

Ely Folk festival, Ely, Cambs
A 22-year-old event. Confirmed acts include Battlefield Band, Shooglenifty and Mawkin.
Tickets from £18

T in the Park, Balado, near Glasgow
Boisterous Scottish event. Headliners include: Arctic Monkeys, the Killers, Razorlight, Snow Patrol
Tickets £140 (sold out)

Live Earth, Wembley Stadium, London, and in Shanghai, Brazil, the US and Antarctica
Ecological Live 8 in aid of "a climate in crisis". Confirmed acts (not necessarily playing in London) include Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, Duran Duran and Enrique Iglesias
Prices to be confirmed.

Oxegen, Punchestown Racecourse, Naas
Ireland's biggest music event. Featuring Snow Patrol, the Killers, Muse, Arcade Fire, My Chemical Romance, CSS, Amy Winehouse.
Tickets €197.50 (sold out)

Riverside festival Stamford, Lincs
Free event attracting around 10,000 people annually. Broad range of music.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/sto...042744,00.html





The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor
Jeff Leeds

Now that the three young women in Candy Hill, a glossy rap and R&B trio, have signed a record contract, they are hoping for stardom. On the schedule: shooting a music video and visiting radio stations to talk up their music.

But the women do not have a CD to promote. Universal/Republic Records, their label, signed Candy Hill to record two songs, not a complete album.

“If we get two songs out, we get a shot,” said Vatana Shaw, 20, who formed the trio four years ago, “Only true fans are buying full albums. Most people don’t really do that anymore.”

To the regret of music labels everywhere, she is right: fans are buying fewer and fewer full albums. In the shift from CDs to digital music, buyers can now pick the individual songs they like without having to pay upward of $10 for an album.

Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CD’s for the first time. So far this year, sales of digital songs have risen 54 percent, to roughly 189 million units, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital album sales are rising at a slightly faster pace, but buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1.

Because of this shift in listener preferences — a trend reflected everywhere from blogs posting select MP3s to reviews of singles in Rolling Stone — record labels are coming to grips with the loss of the album as their main product and chief moneymaker.

In response, labels are re-examining everything from their marketing practices to their contracts. One result is that offers are cropping up for artists like Candy Hill to record only ring tones or a clutch of singles, according to talent managers and lawyers.

At the same time, the industry is straining to shore up the album as long as possible, in part by prodding listeners who buy one song to purchase the rest of a collection. Apple, in consultation with several labels, has been planning to offer iTunes users credit for songs they have already purchased if they then choose to buy the associated album in a certain period of time, according to people involved in the negotiations. (Under Apple’s current practice, customers who buy a song and then the related album effectively pay for the song twice).

But some analysts say they doubt that such promotions can reverse the trend.

“I think the album is going to die,” said Aram Sinnreich, managing partner at Radar Research, a media consulting firm based in Los Angeles. “Consumers are listening to play lists,” or mixes of single songs from an assortment of different artists. “Consumers who have had iPods since they were in the single digits are going to increasingly gravitate toward artists who embrace that.”

All this comes as the industry’s long sales slide has been accelerating. Sales of albums, in either disc or digital form, have dropped more than 16 percent so far this year, a slide that executives attribute to an unusually weak release schedule and shrinking retail floor space for music. Even though sales of individual songs — sold principally through iTunes — are rising, it has not been nearly enough to compensate.

Many music executives dispute the idea that the album will disappear. In particular, they say, fans of jazz, classical, opera and certain rock (bands like Radiohead and Tool) will demand album-length listening experiences for many years to come. But for other genres — including some strains of pop music, rap, R&B and much of country — where sales success is seen as closely tied to radio air play of singles, the album may be entering its twilight.

“For some genres and some artists, having an album-centric plan will be a thing of the past,” said Jeff Kempler, chief operating officer of EMI’s Capitol Music Group. While the traditional album provides value to fans, he said, “perpetuating a business model that fixates on a particular packaged product configuration is inimical to what the Internet enables, and it’s inimical to what many consumers have clearly voted for.”

Another solution being debated in the industry would transform record labels into de facto fan clubs. Companies including the Warner Music Group and the EMI Group have been considering a system in which fans would pay a fee, perhaps monthly, to “subscribe” to their favorite artists and receive a series of recordings, videos and other products spaced over time.

Executives maintain that they must establish more lasting connections with fans who may well lose interest if forced to wait two years or more before their favorite artist releases new music.

A decade ago, the music industry had all but stopped selling music in individual units. But now, four years after Apple introduced its iTunes service — selling singles for 99 cents apiece and full albums typically for $9.99 — individual songs account for roughly two-thirds of all music sales volume in the United States. And that does not count purchases of music in other, bite-size forms like ring tones, which have sold more than 54 million units so far this year, according to Nielsen data.

One of the biggest reasons for the shift, analysts say, is that consumers — empowered to cherry-pick — are forgoing album purchases after years of paying for complete CD’s with too few songs they like. There are still cases where full albums succeed — the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ double-CD “Stadium Arcadium,” with a weighty 28 tracks, has sold almost two million copies. But the overall pie is shrinking.

In some ways, the current climate recalls the 1950s and to some extent, the 60s, when many popular acts sold more singles than albums. It took greatly influential works like The Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” to turn the album into pop music’s medium of choice.

But the music industry’s cost structure is far higher than it was when Bob Dylan picked up an electric guitar. Today’s costs — from television ads and music videos to hefty executive salaries — are still built on blockbuster albums.

Hence the emergence of scaled-back deals with acts like Candy Hill. Labels have signed new performers to singles deals before, typically to release what they viewed as ephemeral or novelty hits. Now, executives at Universal say, such arrangements will become more common for even quality acts because the single itself is the end product.

With Candy Hill, Universal paid a relatively small advance — described as being in “five figures” — to cover recording expenses. Ms. Shaw, who formed the group with Casha Darjean and Ociris Gomez, said the members had kept their day jobs working at an insurance company and doing other vocal work to be able to pay the rent at the house where they live together.

If one of their songs turns into a big hit, they hope to release a full album, and to tap other income sources, like touring and merchandise sales.

But turning a song into a hit does not appear to be getting any easier.

Ron Shapiro, an artist manager and former president of Atlantic Records, asked, “What are the Las Vegas odds of constantly having a ‘Bad Day?’ ” — referring to a tune by the singer Daniel Powter that sold more than two million copies after it was used on “American Idol.”

While music labels labor to build careers for artists that are suited for albums, he added, “You have to create an almost hysterical pace to find hits to sell as digital downloads and ring tones that everybody’s going to want. It’s scary.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/bu...6music.html?hp





Apple iTunes Offers 'Complete My Album'
May Wong

Apple Inc., the company that popularized selling songs online for 99 cents apiece, now hopes to buoy interest in albums, giving customers credit for purchases of full albums from which they have bought individual tracks.

Apple introduced the "Complete My Album" feature Thursday on its iTunes Store. It now gives a full credit of 99 cents for every track the user previously purchased and applies it toward the purchase of the complete album.

For instance, most albums on iTunes cost $9.99 so a customer who already bought three tracks can download the rest of the album for $7.02.

Previously, users who bought singles and later opted to buy the album had to pay the full price of the album and ended up with duplicates of those songs.

The album price reduction is good for only 180 days after the initial purchase of individual tracks.

Eddy Cue, Apple's vice president of iTunes, said the new feature should help eliminate the resistance that customers, including himself, may have felt in buying an album after they had already bought a single from it.

"Once we bought a song, we wondered why we had to buy it again if we wanted the album," Cue said. "We hope it helps us sell more songs ultimately, and from the customer point of the view, we think it's the right thing to do."

About 45 percent of the nearly 2.5 billion songs sold on iTunes were purchased as albums, Cue said.

For a limited period of 90 days, Apple said it will make the "Complete My Album" offer retroactive to users who purchased tracks dating back to the launch of the iTunes Store four years ago.

Apple dominates the online music market and is a leading music retailer worldwide behind only Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Best Buy Co. and Target Corp.

Some record label executives have complained about Apple's one-size-fits-all model of 99 cents a track; they would prefer flexible pricing, such as charging more for new releases. Some also contend today's easy access to single song downloads - versus the more lucrative method of selling albums - hasn't helped the industry's declining sales.

In addition, some artists have complained about how a la carte downloads have wrecked the integrity of albums that are meant to be enjoyed as a single work of art.

Apple plans to maintain its groundbreaking 99-cents-per-download model because "it's exactly what consumers want," Cue said in an interview.

He also said the concept of "albums should exist forever," though they're being redefined in the digital era. Some albums sold on iTunes, for instance, include music videos as part of the package.

Digital technology allows for that kind of flexibility, Cue said, in the same way it allows iTunes to sell a single song and then apply the purchase toward a full album later.

Thomas Hesse, a president of global digital business at Sony BMG Music Entertainment, called "Complete My Album" another "revolutionary" offering from the Cupertino-based company. "ITunes is giving music fans the best of both worlds - the ability to discover great new music by buying just the single and a credit toward the purchase of the complete album," he said in a statement.

Shares of Apple climbed 51 cents to close at $93.75 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...es_Albums.html





Bay City Rollers Sue for Royalties
Owen Gibson

They once turned the world tartan and melted millions of teenage hearts but, they have long claimed, never received their financial due. Now 1970s pop idols the Bay City Rollers are suing their former record label, claiming millions of dollars in unpaid royalties.

Famous for hits including Bye Bye Baby and Shang-a-Lang and their tartan outfits, they sold an estimated 120m records around the world. But after years of wrangling with each other and their former label Arista, six members of the Scottish band have now joined forces to file a claim in the district court of Manhattan.

The group claims Arista owes millions of dollars in royalties generated from selling their albums, multimedia licences, merchandise, rights to commercials, films and other recordings over the past 25 years. The Rollers claim a contract states Arista has obligations dating back to the 1970s, that a payment of £133,000 in September 1997 was the only one made to the band, and that Arista has repeatedly claimed it does not know who to pay and has made a series of excuses to avoid payment.

Joshua Krumholz, of Holland and Knight, lead counsel for the band, said: "To this day Arista Records is still successfully exploiting their recordings in the US and around the world." One estimate suggests the band could be owed up to £50m. In 2005 Sony BMG, the label that now owns Arista, told the Guardian it had been unable to pay royalties because the feuding band could not decide who was owed what. It said the money was being held in an escrow account while the matter was resolved.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/sto...039812,00.html





AT&T, Napster Offer Free Downloads on Music

Napster Inc. has partnered with AT&T Inc. to give the communication company's customers free, unlimited access to Napster To Go for one year, the companies said Monday.

The deal, which becomes available April 1 with qualifying AT&T plans, gives customers access to more than 3 million songs across multiple screens including the PC, wireless screen and other compatible music devices.

It is available across the San Antonio-based AT&T's nationwide wireless footprint with qualifying plans, as well as across its entire 22-state local telephone service footprint with qualifying wireless, home phone and broadband triple-pack bundles, the company says.

AT&T will support the promotional offer with a marketing campaign to include broadcast, print and online advertising.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Los Angeles-based Napster offers free, Web-based music listening and sharing, subscription and portable subscription services.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...26/daily7.html





Ninth Circuit Deals Setback to Labels in Bertelsmann, Napster Suit
Susan Butler

Bertelsmann won a partial victory Wednesday in its ongoing battle with labels and publishers over the German company's financial contribution to the original Napster. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that Bertelsmann does not have to turn over confidential communications with its lawyers regarding the transaction.

Bertelsmann loaned the peer-to-peer service operator about $85 million between 2000-2001 to fund Napster's anticipated transition to a licensed digital music distribution system. The deal occurred while copyright holders were suing Napster for copyright infringement. Napster failed to fully launch the new system before it declared bankruptcy.

In the current action, filed in 2003 by EMI and Universal labels as well as publishers, the copyright holders claim that Bertelsmann is secondarily liable for infringement by Napster's users. They argue that by lending Napster the money, Bertelsmann assumed control over the service or prolonged its allegedly infringing operations in order to avoid losing the estimated 40 million Napster users before the licensed service launched.

In November 2005, labels and publishers asked the federal District Court in San Francisco to order Bertelsmann to turn over all so-called attorney-client communications related to the loan. These types of communications are confidential – and protected as such by the law. But there is an exception to the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality when a client consults an attorney for advice that will service him in the commission of a fraud. Those communications may not be confidential.

The labels and publishers argued that when drafting the loan documents, Bertelsmann engaged in a continuing scheme to defraud the courts. They argued that the loan was really cash given in exchange for an equity stake in the Napster, and Bertelsmann used its lawyers to create sham loan documents to avoid liability for Napster's activities. They also argued that through its lawyers, Bertelsmann attempted to defraud the courts by omitting from the loan documents a side agreement that allowed Napster to channel some money into its litigation expenses in fighting the infringement action filed by rights holders.

In April 2006, the District Court agreed and ordered Bertelsmann to turn over the communications. Bertelsmann appealed. Now, the Appeals Court has sided with Bertelsmann.

In its 35-page opinion, the Appeals Court concluded that the loan terms did not constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation. Since the labels and publishers filed to provide enough evidence supporting their claim of fraud, Bertelsmann's communications with its lawyers are confidential.

Universal Music Group is no longer part of the case. UMG labels settled their claims last fall when buying Bertelsmann's BMG Music Publishing.

Representing BMG are Weil Gotshal & Manges attorneys R. Bruce Rich and Kenneth Steinthal in New York City; Matthew Powers and Gayle Rosenstein in Redwood Shores, Calif.; and John Keker and Michael Page of Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco.

Representing the record labels as real parties in interest are Daniel Collins, Glenn Pomerantz and Kelly Klaus of Munger Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles; Carey Ramos and Lynn Bayard of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison in New York; Peter Simmons and Mitchell Epner of Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobsen in New York; and Paul Duvall and Richard Busch of King & Ballow in La Jolla, Calif.

The case is In re: Bertelsmann Inc., 06-72515.

Leslie Simmons contributed to this story.
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/...03558872&imw=Y





EMI, Bertelsmann Settle Napster Suit

EMI Group Plc. and Bertelsmann AG have reached a settlement on litigation stemming from the German media company's investment in music file-sharing software company Napster, the two companies said Monday.

They did not release details of the agreement, which settles one of the numerous lawsuits targeting Napster. Bertelsmann admitted no liability as part of the settlement.

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Bertelsmann," Eric Nicoli, chief executive of EMI Group, said in a statement. "We can now put this matter behind us and continue to pursue the development of new legitimate digital music business models."

The lawsuit stems from Bertelsmann's decision in 2000 to invest in Napster after the once wildly popular site was crippled by lawsuits seeking to shut down the network, which music companies accused of enabling users to steal music.
http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...39765320070327





Cablevision Loses Network DVR Court Case

Cablevision Systems Corp. has lost a legal battle against several Hollywood studios and television networks to introduce a network-based digital video recorder service to its subscribers.

The New York-based cable operator said in a statement late on Thursday it is currently considering an appeal against the ruling by Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Cablevision was sued last May by several Hollywood studios and television networks, including those owned by Time Warner Inc., News Corp., CBS Corp. and Walt Disney Co., which charged that the planned service would violate U.S. copyright laws.

Cablevision had hoped a network-based DVR system, called Remote Storage DVR or RS-DVR, would have done away with the need for the installation of hundreds of thousands of digital set-top boxes in subscribers' homes.

This would potentially have saved Cablevision significant administration and maintenance costs. It already has installed over 500,000 set-top boxes in homes in its area.

Other cable operators had been vocal in their support for such a system.

But the studios and TV networks argued in two suits filed at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan that because the proposed service would allow subscribers to store television programs on the cable operator's own computer servers, it would be breaking copyright agreements by effectively retransmitting the programs.

The judge agreed with the studios and networks. "The RS-DVR is clearly a service, and I hold that in providing this service, it is Cablevision that does the copying," Chin said in his ruling.

He also dismissed a countersuit by Cablevision.

Cablevision had argued that DVR technology based on its network is as legal as digital video recorders in the living room, such as those produced by TiVo Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc.

"The RS-DVR is not a stand-alone machine that sits on top of a television," Chin said. "Rather, it is a complex system that involves an ongoing relationship between Cablevision and its customers."

Cablevision said it would be considering all its options and would continue to install conventional set-top boxes.

"We are disappointed by the judge's decision, and continue to believe that remote-storage DVRs are consistent with copyright law and offer compelling benefits for consumers -- including lower costs and broader availability of this popular technology, Cablevision said in the statement.

Cablevision shares fell 20 cents, or 0.65 percent, to $30.36 on the New York Stock Exchange.
http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...25977020070324





Judge Rules Against DVD Consortium
Rick Merritt

A Superior Court judge ruled Thursday (March 29) a startup's media server does not violate the security technology used to protect DVD disks because the standard licensing contract and specifications for the technology are so poorly worded.

The decision marks a rare, though small victory for a Silicon Valley startup facing the interests of a group of large movie studios and consumer and computer companies. The ruling also could open the door for other systems makers who want to design personal video libraries that store DVD movies on hard drives.

Judge Leslie C. Nichols ruled against the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) in a civil suit that asked the court to force startup Kaleidescape to change its design or stop selling its server that stores hundreds of DVD movies on a hard drive array. Nichols said the basis for his decision was his ruling that an entire section of the DVD CCA's spec for the Content Scramble System (CSS) was not technically included as part of the license agreement.

"This [CSS spec] is a product of a committee of lawyers," said Nichols in his ruling.

In testimony, witnesses said the CSS specification was drafted a decade ago by a team of lawyers mainly from Hollywood studios working with the advice of a small group of engineers over the course of more than 100 meetings. "It is almost self evident that there is potential for confusion there," said Nichols.

Specifically, Nichols ruled that a 20-page document known as the CSS General Specification was not part of an overall group of 170 pages of technical specifications defining CSS. The DVD CCA relied on language in the general spec to assert any system playing DVD movies has to have the physical disk present.

The Kaleidescape system imports DVDs into a hard drive array for future playback. The DVD disks do not remain in the system, something the DVD CCA said would allow users to keep unauthorized digital copies of rented or borrowed DVDs.

Kaleidescape maintained the CSS agreement allowed the company to build a system that kept a single, protected copy of a DVD on a hard drive for private use. The company has a policy against importing rented and borrowed DVDs. It said the fact such disks could still be imported is a problem for studios, not Kaleidescape to solve.

Nichols also faulted the DVD CCA's process. The group makes the CSS license available on the Internet, but does not provide legal or technical guidance on implementing it, something Kaleidescape sought. "I saw this as a case where no one sat down to talk," said Nichols.

Michael Malcolm, founder and chief executive of Kaleidescape hailed the decision as a victory for innovation in the face of large consortiums. The DVD CCA is managed by a board of 12 executives, six drawn from the top movie studios and three each from top consumer and computer companies. It has 350 licensees for CSS.

"The ugly thing about the motion picture industry is the extent to which it operates by collusion and corporate lock step in organizations like the DVD CCA," said Malcolm. "It stifles competition in this country and it has for a long time.

"It's much better for the economy to have these things decided by competition and free enterprise," said Malcolm, a serial entrepreneur who also founded Network Appliance and CacheFlow. "This is a victory just one small battle in that war," he said.

Kaleidescape has sold more than 2,600 of its media servers since they were launched in August 2003 at prices starting at $10,000 and up. The company employs more than 100 people and has more than 900 dealers in 42 countries.

The DVD CCA sued the company in late 2004, a move that cast a cloud over the company for many of its employees and prospective dealers and users, said Malcolm who has invested $8 million of his own money into the startup to date.

"We were pretty nervous. It's a scary thing to come to court to hear a decision that may impact whether your company is around in a few months," said Malcolm before joining employees for a pizza and champagne lunch at its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters.

Bill Coates, lead attorney for the DVD CCA said he expects the group will appeal the decision.

This was the time the DVD CCA took a hardware company to court alleging it infringed its CSS contract. The consortium is in mediation with another hardware company, AMX (Richardson, Texas) over similar alleged violations in a media server.

The Motion Picture Association of America did warn a wide swath of as many as 80 chip and systems makers of possible violations of CSS in 2005. The group ultimately settled out of court cases raised with three chip makers-- MediaTek Inc. (Hsinchu, Taiwan), ESS Technology Inc. (Fremont, Calif.) and Sigma Designs Inc. (Milpitas, Calif.).

The DVD CCA has at least threatened to take action against one other startup, Molino Networks of San Jose. The company demonstrated in February 2004 a system aimed to sell for less than $2, 000 that could store up to 50 DVDs on a single hard drive, but it folded late that year when it failed to get venture financing, in part due to the threat of legal action from the DVD CCA.

"We spent a lot of time meeting lawyers and reading contracts instead of writing software," said Tim Sylvester a former Cisco engineer who was founder and chief executive of Molino. "Michael Malcolm is in a fortunate position that he can fund this himself," Sylvester said.

"We will see more competition now," said Malcolm. "That's probably the biggest loss in the eyes of the DVD CCA. They will see a lot more consumer companies going into this kind of product," he added.

In closing arguments Coats warned that a ruling in favor of Kaleidescape "could open the flood gates to copycatsPrices could come down to that of a laptop for products that are not as elegant as Kaleidescape's but have the same basic functionality," Coats said.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s... ID=198701186





Valenti Has Stroke

Former U.S. presidential aide and movie ratings creator Jack Valenti has been hospitalized after suffering a stroke last week, his friends said on Tuesday.

"He is hospitalized at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and his family tells me that the doctors are encouraged by his progress to date," Barry Meyer, chairman and chief executive of Warner Bros., said in a statement made at the request of the family.

"Out of respect for Jack and the family's privacy, we are not going to release any additional information at this time," Meyer said.

Valenti, 85, was preparing to promote his new book, "This Time, This Place: My Life in War, the White House, and Hollywood," which is due out in June.

Valenti served as an aide to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and was aboard Air Force One by Johnson's side when he was sworn in after Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

A Texas native, Valenti ran an advertising agency in Houston before heading to Washington to work for Johnson, then majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

He later spent 38 years as the top lobbyist for Hollywood, heading the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA, where he helped develop a voluntary ratings system for movies and fending off government attempts to curb explicit sex and violence on film.

After leaving the MPAA in 2004, he worked with the television industry to fight tougher regulations to address concerns by parents' groups and regulators about profanity and sexual content on broadcast television.

He still retains an office at the movie organization's Washington headquarters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/peopl...39855320070328





At Kink.com, a Live Tool Against Piracy
Declan McCullagh

Lexi Love has thrown herself headlong into a four-hour shoot at Kink.com, an adult video company with a Web site that's pushing the envelope in both technology and taste.

Love, an experienced porn star who flew up from Los Angeles for one day earlier this week, is surrounded by a three-person video crew and computer-controlled mechanical devices that can't be adequately described in a family publication.

Soon, a video of Love will be extracted from the high-definition video camera's attached hard drive, edited, rearranged, converted to multiple formats, and made available on a Web site for anyone who pays a subscription fee of $30 a month. The nearly imperceptible clicks of a still camera's shutter--shoots are also photographed--are painstakingly removed during editing so they can't be heard on the soundtrack.

That, simply put, is Kink.com's business model, and it has propelled the company to a prominent position in the adult entertainment business. Revenue was reportedly $20 million last year, and the company recently made headlines for buying San Francisco's former National Guard Armory, a sprawling structure with a dank and dilapidated basement said to be perfect for filming the so-called fetish entertainment for which the company is known.

It's often said that adult entertainment companies were the first to figure out how to profitably sell content on the Internet, and that they have continually found new and inventive ways to take advantage of the interactive medium while titillating their audiences.

Now Kink.com is on the cutting edge of the fight against video piracy. While mainstream entertainment outlets like Viacom and NBC complain noisily about YouTube, Kink.com, with neither the resources nor the mainstream appeal of its giant counterparts, is in an even tougher fight: Protecting the content it produces that's continually copied and reposted on the dozens of Web sites that traffic in poached adult material.

"It's an uphill battle--it's never-ending," Kink.com founder Peter Acworth said about copyright infringement in an interview with CNET News.com. "That's one reason we're moving in a live-show direction."

Like other online publishers, Kink.com has had to puzzle out ways to deal with the perennial problem of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks and Usenet. Kink.com's solution is live shows. In some ways, it's is a throwback to a more analog era, back when the Grateful Dead encouraged taping and sharing of live concerts (while still charging admission). The band Phish follows the same model today by authorizing taping and Internet sharing for "non-commercial purposes."

Earlier this month, Kink.com began streaming live 1080i high-definition video--at a time when mainstream sites such as CNN.com offer jerky, blurry pre-edited clips at roughly one-tenth the resolution of high-def.

"I haven't actually seen live high-def streaming elsewhere," Acworth said.

Better than banking

Ackworth's office boasts an impressive collection of pornographic DVDs but otherwise could belong to any other high-tech entrepreneur. And that, despite what he produces, is essentially what he is.

A genteel Brit with degrees from Cambridge University and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales in Paris, Acworth moved into the adult entertainment business while working toward a doctorate in finance at Columbia University. He came across a 1997 news article describing the money to be made through Internet porn and decided he'd rather be an entrepreneur than work in a bank for the rest of his life.

Kink.com now has around 70 employees and 10 Web sites, with three more (including "The Training of O" and "My First Time Bound") scheduled to be launched by mid-2007.

As Kink.com has grown, so has the porn sector. Some estimates place the U.S. share of the industry at as much as $20 billion, though $10 billion is more widely accepted. The market for porn internationally is up to five times as large. Adult mobile content generated $1.4 billion in sales worldwide last year and will balloon to $3.3 billion by 2011, according to Juniper Research.

It is an article of faith among the digerati that pornography drives advances in technology. The argument goes something like this: VHS bested Sony's rival Beta format because that's where skin flicks were widely available. The Super 8 camcorder became so popular because of its devotees among amateur and professional pornographers. At-home downloading of porn spurred the growth of broadband and online credit card processing.

If Kink.com's experience with its first live broadcast on March 17 is any indication, that rule of thumb still holds true today. Live broadcasts are hardly novel, of course. Webcam doyenne Jennifer Ringley pioneered the updated-every-few-minutes JenniCam more than a decade ago, and adult sites like Webcams.com and Sexcams101.com have taken Webcam salaciousness to its logical and mostly uninteresting conclusion. A Webcam stripper is even a main character in NBC's popular Heroes television show.

But most of those videos, like the tiny streams from CNN.com or FoxNews.com, are displayed at an embarrassingly grainy resolution of some 70,000 pixels. Although the audio is clear enough, miniscule onscreen windows can be painful to watch. High-definition content that's encoded in 1080i, on the other hand, has a resolution of 1 million to 2 million pixels, depending on what method of counting is used.

Kink.com's inaugural HDTV broadcast relied on an intricate and fragile chain of computer hardware, some 30 components in all. "It required some black magic," said Jeff Schnitzer, Kink.com's chief technology officer.

Three high-definition video feeds were mixed into streams that were piped to the Internet through Windows Media Server boxes and watched by about 300 people who could also join a live chatroom. About two-thirds selected the live 1080i stream, which required a 1 megabit-a-second link. Because of the complexity involved, the job required 11 Kink.com workers, including camera operators, technicians, Webmasters and two models, one of whom seemed to spend most of her time typing on a laptop from within a metal cage.

An important requirement is to minimize latency, the delay between when a customer types a request and the video result appears on their computer. The live shoot had a latency of less than 20 seconds, and the company is trying to find ways to reduce it even further. "If they're typing 'spank her harder' and it takes 30 seconds, that doesn't feel live," Schnitzer said. A second live broadcast is scheduled for next Friday.

Networking at the 'Porn Palace'

Creating and maintaining a network that can handle live high-definition video is no trivial task. Kink.com has a fiber link running from its main office--called the "Porn Palace"--to a data center operated by 365Main. Two 1-gigabit links connect the company's servers at the 365Main site, which can hold 50 terabytes of data, to the rest of the Internet.

Schnitzer, the CTO, says an upcoming project will create a duplicate data center in Amsterdam that has a mirrored copy of all the data. "In case the legal climate here were to ever change, we could flip a switch," he said.

Prosecution is a concern of any adult business, from movie theaters to strip clubs, but so far the U.S. Department of Justice has not launched the kind of aggressive Internet crackdown the industry feared when George W. Bush became president six years ago. Although one hardcore California video distributor, Extreme Associates, is facing obscenity charges, federal prosecutors have mostly spent their time targeting child pornography instead. The Child Online Protection Act remains in legal limbo.

The threat of obscenity prosecution "seems to have evaporated," said Kink.com founder Acworth.

Kerfuffle over National Guard armory

As fetish sites go, Kink.com is practically buttoned-down. It has strict rules of conduct and about 40 percent of its employees are female. In addition, the company offers benefits, including health, dental, vision and a 401K plan with employer matching. It proudly counts itself as part of San Francisco's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community and its employees send a float to the annual Burning Man art festival in the Nevada desert.

That float currently is stored in a corner of the massive drill court of what used to be the San Francisco National Guard Armory, which Kink.com quietly bought for $14.5 million last December. What looks like a Moorish castle in San Francisco's Mission District has been vacant for nearly 30 years, after neighborhood activists blocked efforts at the height of the dot-com bubble to turn the 200,000-square foot building into office spaces for start-ups. They also opposed plans to turn it into a telephone switching station. (Because it's on the National Register of Historic Places, it can't easily be razed.)

When Kink.com announced that it had bought the armory and planned to use its dank, decaying basements to film bondage scenes, even famously liberal San Francisco started to become squeamish. Neighborhood activists wrote opinion articles in the San Francisco Chronicle decrying "degrading images of men and women." Street protests took place. Mayor Gavin Newsom demanded public hearings on the matter.

After a brief public kerfuffle, however, not much changed. Acworth took pains to reassure skittish San Franciscans that there would be no garish signs on the outside of the building announcing Kink.com's presence, and promised to clean up the armory, which had grown filthy with disuse and is poorly lit at night.

Acworth has plans to outfit the armory with industrial-strength lighting gear (a 1200-amp lighting box has already arrived) so he can rent it out to Hollywood studios looking for a place in San Francisco to film. He envisions the top floor eventually becoming residential units, the second floor being used as Kink.com offices, and the basement remaining largely as-is and being used to film dungeon and boiler-room scenes for Kink.com sites.

By showing that adult videos can co-exist with mainstream movies, Acworth seems to be laying the groundwork for an infiltration of sorts. "I think it's only a matter of time before some tamer bondage appears on cable TV," he said. "Part of my goal, in addition to make money out of this, is to make kink thought of as OK."
http://news.com.com/At+Kink.com%2C+a...3-6172180.html





Questions and Answers on Domain Name System and the Bid for 'XXX'
AP

LISBON, Portugal — The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the Internet's key oversight agency, voted Friday against a proposal to create a voluntary ".xxx" domain name for pornography sites.

Questions about the proposal and domain names in general:

Q. What are domain names?

A. Behind every machine connected to the Internet is a series of four numbers known as an Internet Protocol address. Domain names were created as an easy-to-remember shortcut — it's much easier to remember "ap.org" than "165.1.59.220." When you type a domain name into a Web browser or an e-mail message, your computer checks a series of domain name servers to match the name to the equivalent numeric address.

Q. How many domain names are there?

A. There are currently 266 suffixes with a handful of others approved but not yet functional. Most are for specific countries or regions, such as ".fr" for France and even the legacy ".su" for the Soviet Union. Others are reserved for specific uses, such as ".mil" for the U.S. military and ".museum" for museums. Relatively few — the most popular being ".com" — are truly for global and universal use.

Q. How do names get added?

A. Most of the names date back to the system's creation in the 1980s. In 1998, the U.S. government, which funded much of the Internet's early development, selected ICANN to oversee Internet addressing policies, including the addition of domain names. ICANN approved the first major round of additions in 2000, selecting seven names but essentially rejecting ".xxx" and several others. ICANN opened a second round in 2004 and received bids for 10. ICANN also has approved region-specific codes, including ".eu" for the European Union and ".ps" for the Palestinian territories.

Q. Where would have ".xxx" fallen?

A. The current proposal grew out of the 2004 round of bids, which ICANN specifically restricted to "sponsored" names, meaning their use would be limited to a specific community, be it the travel industry or porn sites. ICM Registry LLC, a Florida startup founded by entrepreneurs with backgrounds in domain names and U.K. Internet companies, sought its creation.

Q. Why did the decision take so long?

A. Of the 10 applications, only ".xxx" and ".post" for postal services had remained pending. The ".xxx" was rejected Friday by the ICANN board in a 9-5 vote with one member abstaining. ICANN had rejected the ".xxx" proposal last May, but ICM came back with a new plan with more specifics. Even before that got a vote, ICM returned with yet another proposal to address concerns about ICANN's enforcement abilities and the independence of a nonprofit body that would set rules governing the domain's use. Each step meant a period for public commenting. Opposition was strong among many adult Web sites and religious groups.

Q. What happens now that the name has been rejected?

A. ICANN Chairman Vinton Cerf said that the ICM proposal was at an end and that it would no longer be considered. ICM could seek to have the decision reviewed through ICANN channels or file a lawsuit if it believes ICANN failed to follow its own guidelines. A new proposal could be offered in the next round, too. ICANN has yet to announce details on the next round.
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1089825.html





Adult Site's Legal Battle Could Aid Web Hosting Services
Anne Broache

A federal appeals court ruling in a case involving an adult publisher appears to have delivered broader legal protections for online service providers against lawsuits claiming privacy violations and other illicit behavior by their users.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Thursday released a 26-page opinion (PDF) that upholds a number of lower-court findings against the adult-oriented Web site Perfect 10 in a lawsuit against a family of companies including Web hosting service CWIE and credit card processing firm CCBill.

The same appeals court is also preparing to release rulings in two other cases involving Perfect 10, whose online presence boasts "thousands of images of the most beautiful natural women in the world"--one against Google and Amazon.com and the other against MasterCard and Visa.

Perfect 10's suit against Arizona-based CWIE and CCBill dates back to 2002 and includes a wide array of allegations, including copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and violation of right of publicity--that is, protection against unauthorized commercial use of a person's image or name.

Attorneys for Perfect 10 and the Web hosts did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

One of the most significant parts of the court's opinion is a brief section that appears to clarify questions about how a portion of a federal law called the Communications Decency Act (CDA) applies to state laws, lawyers following the case said.

The CDA's Section 230, which has proven to be a critical defense for Internet service providers, bloggers and Web publishers, broadly immunizes providers of an "interactive computer service" from liability for content that others post, provided they make good-faith efforts to restrict access to material that could be considered "filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable."

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit essentially concluded that Section 230 can also shield service providers from liability when they are confronted with allegations that their users violated state laws, such as right of publicity and trademark statutes, which was not always clear. (Disputes involving federal copyright and criminal laws, however, continue to be exempt from such immunity.)

"This is a very important decision for anyone who runs an online business where you handle other peoples' content, whether it be people who create photos or artwork or anything or whether it's users who log in and upload stuff and comment on things," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has filed briefs supporting Google's arguments against Perfect 10.

The implications could have a broad impact on online service providers, particularly if some states decide to draft laws that would, for instance, require social-networking sites like MySpace.com to clean up their users' behavior.

"The reality is, the way that this 9th Circuit ruling reads, it now makes entirely clear that plaintiffs can't make any state-based claims against online service providers--they're all gone," said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, Calif.

Companies wishing to bring suits alleging bad behavior by Internet users could still target the users themselves, but they may have a weaker case against the intermediaries that post their content.

Interpreting the DMCA
Much of the rest of the opinion centers on interpretations of a 1998 federal law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). A provision in that law says Web hosts are generally not liable for the content their users post, as long as they take down the offending content promptly upon being notified by the copyright holder and meet a number of other standards, such as not receiving "direct financial benefit" from infringing content.

Some of the conclusions reached by the judges could aid content hosts making arguments in high-profile suits such as one Viacom recently brought against YouTube. "The court made it very clear that providers do not have to actively police their systems to look for infringement," EFF's Schultz said.

For instance, the DMCA requires the entity sending so-called takedown notices to include specific information in their requests to service providers, such as identifying the infringing content and certifying, under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

The three-judge panel found that Perfect 10 fell short of meeting those standards, and because of that, the service providers were not obligated to comply with its requests. The judges said they worried about the First Amendment free-speech violations that could occur if a site removes content when it doesn't actually infringe on copyrights.

Perfect 10 had also argued that CWIE and CCBill should have been aware of infringing content on its services because they provided services to Web sites like "illegal.net" and "stolencelebritypics.com." Under the DMCA, Web hosts can be held liable for infringement if they're aware of infringement occurring on their servers and do nothing to stop it.

The judges disagreed with Perfect 10's logic, saying it should not be the burden of a service provider to determine whether photographs are "actually illegal."

"When a Web site traffics in pictures that are titillating by nature, describing photographs as 'illegal' or 'stolen' may be an attempt to increase their salacious appeal, rather than an admission that the photographs are actually illegal or stolen," the opinion said.

The judges left it up to a lower court to weigh a few unanswered questions important to the case, such as whether the nature of CCBill's operations qualifies it for the DMCA protections in the first place and whether Perfect 10 can use takedown notices to bolster its arguments that the companies don't do enough to stop copyright infringement.

Some attorneys following the cases said the first opinion may be overshadowed after rulings are issued in seemingly more high-stakes disputes involving Google and the credit card companies. The search giant has appealed a federal district court ruling from last February that found portions of Google's image search feature may violate copyright law by creating and displaying thumbnail copies of Perfect 10's photographs.
http://news.com.com/Adult+sites+lega...3-6172184.html





From February

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

What if Microsoft threw a party, and nobody came?

Despite its best efforts to create excitement for Windows Vista at release parties held in a variety of retail stores this last week, nobody seems to care about the product.

Just over a decade ago, things went very differently at the release of Windows 95. Some people were reportedly so excited that they bought it without even having a computer to run it on.

What's killing Microsoft’s party this time around?

Look, It's Got A Start Button
Back in late 1995, Microsoft spent $300 million on a massive, worldwide campaign to introduce Windows 95. The company lit up the Empire State Building in red, yellow, and green Windows logo colors, draped Toronto's CN Tower with a 300 foot banner ad, and paid to distribute a million and a half free copies of the Times in London.

The official release party on Microsoft's Redmond campus brought in Jay Leno to host, and paid the Rolling Stones millions for the rights to use "Start Me Up" as the Windows 95 anthem.

Microsoft also produced a half hour TV infomercial, and hired huge teams of users to provide support for the new product. At CompUSA launch parties, Microsoft handed out copies of ”Windows 95 for Dummies.”

Windows 95 wasn't anything close to the Cairo Microsoft had promised back in 1991. Instead, it was just the latest version of MS-DOS running an improved version of the existing Windows graphical shell. Internally, it was called Windows 4.0.

Even so, Bill Gates described it as empowering technology that would herald in a new dawn of computing.

"Windows 95 is about unlocking more of the potential of computing," Gates said in a Microsoft press release. "We are moving into the next era of computing, with broader communications via e-mail and the online world, dazzling multimedia and games, and richer educational software. Windows 95 helps open up this new world. It makes computing easier and more fun, and will empower people and businesses to do more with computers than has previously been possible."

Windows 95 Reaction
Gates was stretching past the truth in his comments about ‘empowering people to do more than had been previously possible.’ He knew Windows 95 wasn't much of a release; his company had worked with IBM on a real operating system in the late 80s, which Microsoft abandoned in 1990 in favor of developing NT on its own.

Five years later, NT was still running late, and it didn't look like it could be adapted for home users anytime soon. Microsoft had to fudge an interim plan out of its existing Windows 3.x product, which was still based on MS-DOS.

As the Washington Post observed, "customers expecting Windows 95 to be a great technological leap forward may be disappointed. International Business Machines Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. already have operating systems on the market that sport the features – greater memory management, the ability to perform several tasks at once and enhanced user-friendliness – now being hailed in Windows 95."

The Post quoted Tim Breuer of IBM as saying, "Microsoft is delivering the same features we delivered seven years ago. We're moving on business as usual here."

Apple’s response was printed in full page ads in major newspapers:

C:\ONGRATLNS.W95

Hey This Is Not Cairo
And what about NeXTSTEP, the basis for Gates' vaporous Cairo announcements from nearly a half decade prior in 1991? Years before Microsoft even announced plans to copy NeXT with Cairo, NeXT had released advanced object oriented frameworks running on top of a modern Unix foundation.

NeXT frequently demonstrated features such as voice email, rapid application development, and modern graphics imaging. Gates was certainly aware that the future had already been delivered, and not by Microsoft.

Gates was also well aware that--even by Microsoft’s standards--Windows 95 was just reheated legacy garbage, particularly in comparison to what other companies had already delivered.

Microsoft was hyping Windows 95 as something noteworthy and impressive, but everyone in the industry knew better.

At the time, it was common to see bumper stickers saying "Windows 95 = Macintosh '89," making it puzzling that something widely recognized as a third rate product could rapidly gain market share.

The Big Mac Attack
Despite the casually indifferent attitude expressed by IBM, Apple, and others, Windows 95 turned out to be devastating for both OS/2 and Mac sales. Microsoft reported selling a million copies of Windows 95 within four days; a year later, it had sold 40 million copies.

On the PC, sales of rival operating systems from OS/2 to DR-DOS quickly dried up; NeXT had already given up on selling its NeXTSTEP product in the anti-competitive PC market prior to the launch of Windows 95, and set out to adapt its technology to power web servers instead.

Apple's hardware sales also took a huge hit. The company began its fall from a position as the top PC maker with 10% of the US PC market to its desperate condition in 1996 and 1997, when it reported losses of $836 million and then a billion dollars--although more than half of its losses in 1997 were costs related to buying NeXT.

So what was the factor that pushed adoption of Windows 95 a decade ago?

It wasn't good technology. CNET described Windows 95 as one of the biggest disappointments of 1996, writing, "Though it was hyped as a 32-bit powerhouse, many companies simply ignored it and stayed with Windows 3.1. And who could blame them? Plug and Play is often plug and pray and to make matters worse, Windows 95 often runs slower than a comparable Windows 3.1 system. And 32-bit or not, it still crashes. A lot."

It wasn't third party software makers. US News and World Report stated, "From a software publisher's point of view, releasing a Macintosh version makes good business sense. Production costs for Mac software are lower than those for Windows titles; less testing is required because there is a single standard for Mac hardware and software. And Macintosh owners buy 30 percent more software than their Windows counterparts."

IDC reported at the time that the average cost to develop and support Windows applications was 50% higher per dollar of revenue than the cost to develop for Mac, and that Macs generated almost 75% more software revenue per machine than Windows machines.

It wasn't an improvement in quality. JD Power and Associates had ranked Apple Macs first in reliability, dependability, and customer satisfaction.

It was the Windows Price Paradox. Microsoft didn't sell 40 million retail copies of Windows 95 at its $209 retail price to consumers wanting to buy its software.

At Windows 95’s debut in the third quarter of 1995, Microsoft reported selling 4 million OEM copies and 3 million Windows 95 retail copies. From then on, retail sales of Windows dropped to about a third the number of bundled OEM sales on new PCs.

Today, OEM sales represent 80% of Microsoft’s Windows profits. Few people buy Windows, they simply get it on their PC as an automatic sale, whether they want it or not.

Microsoft used its existing monopoly position to force hardware makers into exclusive licensing agreements that ensured an OEM copy of Windows 95 was sold with every new PC, and prevented any bundled sales of competing operating systems.

That forced competitors to market their software as a third party retail product competing against the already installed Windows 95, which appeared to be free to end users. There was effectively no real choice among PC operating systems. That left consumers with only the choice between a PC and a Mac.

Free Reign
Apple stumbled through a number of poor business decisions throughout the early 90s, leaving Microsoft with little effective competition. Under CEOs Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio, Apple:


1.
•failed to market the Mac effectively
2.
•failed to sell Macs in retail effectively
3.
•provided poor and expensive software developer tools and support
4.
•failed to deliver its own Mac software development


Microsoft on the other hand, was using PC manufactures to do its marketing and sales, provided much better support for developers, and wrote its own killer apps for Windows, principally Office.

A Perfect Storm
From the mid 80s to the mid 90s, Microsoft amassed fortunes as an application developer for the Mac. Even in 1996, Microsoft reported making more money from Office--$4.56 billion--than it did from all of its Windows sales combined--$4.11 billion.

Tying sales of Windows 95 to Office helped to boost sales of both. Microsoft pushed the new version of Office as a reason to buy Windows 95, and Windows 95 helped kill sales of rival applications, including the then standard WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3, neither of which were available or optimized for Windows 95 at its launch.

That series of events conspired to create a perfect storm funneling the lion's share of new application and PC operating system revenues toward Microsoft and away from all rivals.

The media was stunned that such a undistinguished product could have such remarkable market power. Many analysts concluded that Microsoft was simply being run by a brilliant visionary genius, and sold their souls into the eternal service of Microsoft.

Ship Now, Fix it Later
Throughout the second half of the 90s, Windows 95 was improved upon with a series of updates. The original "O" version of Windows 95 was nearly unusable, but updates in the 1996 "A" and later "B" versions made it workable.

Those updates were only installed on new PCs however, and were not made freely available to users stuck with the original version. The solution for many users was simply to buy a new PC. Further updates would require users to pay at regular intervals for new versions that got progressively worse.

Windows 98, a paid upgrade, was released in June 1998 at a simpler event at Fort Mason in San Francisco. It promised to deliver the Internet and the Push Buzzword to PC users; internally it was numbered Windows 4.1.

In 1999, Microsoft released another paid upgrade, Windows 98 Second Edition, which delivered more bug fixes and a new browser version. It also carried the Windows 4.1 major version number.

In 2000, Microsoft delivered more updates to home users in Windows ME, another paid upgrade internally designated as Windows 4.90. It was such a bad product many Windows users stuck with Win98.

Uptake of Windows ME was so bad that Microsoft was later forced to extend its end of life support for Win98. Windows ME was listed forth in PC World's list of the "Worst Tech Product of All Time," and was commonly referred to as "Mistake Edition."

What users really needed was the NT code Microsoft spent five years struggling to integrate into its DOS-based Windows 95/98/ME product. While Windows ME was a tragically bad product, Windows 2000--aka NT 5.0--worked pretty well; it had been released for business users the same year as Windows ME.

In 2001, Microsoft released Windows XP--aka NT 5.1--as a paid upgrade, revised version of Windows 2000 with all the support for games and odd hardware that had previously only been available on DOS-based Windows.

The Gates Illusion
The mystique of Bill Gates grew as Microsoft destroyed the competition in one industry after another, using products that in most cases weren't very remarkable.

By the release of Windows XP in 2001, Microsoft had swallowed up 98% of the OS market and had become proficient in using its market power to destroy emerging competition in web platforms, in Java development, and elsewhere.

IBM's OS/2 was gone, and Apple's Mac platform had only just recovered from free fall. Apple had spent five years adapting the NeXT technology it bought in the end of 1996 for the new Mac OS X. In 2001, had just released the first full version and first free update.

Even before XP was delivered, Microsoft announced it would:


1.
•deliver a Windows XP successor named Longhorn in 2003
2.
•deploy a Windows Everywhere strategy in mobile and embedded markets with WinCE
3.
•develop software to manage the world's music and media under the name Windows Media
4.
•deliver a challenge to the Sony PlayStation in gaming with the Xbox


Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995
From 1996 to 2006, Microsoft's revenues jumped from $8.67 billion to $44.2 billion, and its net income jumped from $2.2 billion to nearly $12.6 billion. Despite enjoying huge net profit margins of 28.45%, Microsoft's profits to earnings ratio is down from .37 a decade ago to .25 today. Why are the company's profits slipping?

Efforts to deliver on its promises in Longhorn, mobile devices, consumer electronics, music and media have all been huge failures. PC sales have slowed down as consumers waited for the new Longhorn, delivered now over three years late as Vista.

Outside of Office, Windows, and server products, Microsoft's efforts in home, entertainment, and mobile devices lost a staggering $1.2 billion in 2006.

Over the last five years, Microsoft replayed the same type of illusions it delivered in the early 90s:


1.
•technologies promised for Longhorn were dropped as features, just as Cairo had fallen apart a decade prior
2.
•WinCE delivered a new round of hypeware at each year's CES, but none resulted in any successful products
3.
•efforts to deliver music and media products were rejected by consumers in favor of Apple's iPod and iTunes
4.
•the Xbox was outsold 4:1 by the PS2, tying sales with the GameCube
5.
•the Xbox 360 had similarly disappointing sales even without facing any new competition for a year


Software vs Hardware
One might imagine that demand for a new version of Windows should be higher now than it was a decade ago. There are some critical differences however. In 1995, Microsoft promised to turn the dumpy DOS PC into something rivaling a Macintosh at a fraction of the cost of buying a new Mac.

Today, PCs running Windows XP are serviceable, and there's no compelling reason for most users to pay hundreds of dollars for a software upgrade. Most users upgrade when they buy a new PC. Further, the price of Windows has jumped from $209 for a full version of Windows 95, to as much as $399 for the Ultimate version of Windows Vista.

Steve Ballmer wildly gesticulated about the iPhone's $500 price tag, but doesn't seem to grasp that the iPhone delivers more functionality than his own company's attempts with Handheld PCs at a much lower price.

The iPhone is also hardware device with a certain perceived value; customers who paid $500 for earlier generations of the iPod wouldn't have paid hundreds of dollars for a software MP3 player.

Likewise, how many shoppers who paid $800 for their PC will turn around and spring for a $300-400 software upgrade that offers some new flash, but really just makes their system run slower?

Ballmer probably didn't give the subject much thought, because his company can't figure out how to make money selling hardware, and is stuck trying to sell software to consumers.

The problem with that strategy is that consumers don't like to pay for software; they prefer to buy hardware.

It's very difficult to sell software to anyone apart from professionals, who see the value of buying software as a tool. Vista simply doesn't offer much beyond Microsoft's assurance that it fixes the security and usability problems in XP. The problem is it really doesn't, and introduces problems of its own, such as slower performance.

OMG Competition
Another critical difference new in 2007 is that Windows Vista now has effective competition. Apple made a number of major changes between 1997-2001 to bounce back as a retail and marketing powerhouse. It has shipped five major new revisions of Mac OS X since Microsoft last delivered Windows XP.

Windows watchers started comparing Longhorn with Apple's Mac OS X 10.3 Jaguar in 2004. When Longhorn never arrived, Microsoft's revised plans were compared with Apple's Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger in 2005.

Two years later, Vista is now largely being dismissed as Microsoft's version of Tiger, making it difficult to create excitement for it. It’s like the Zune, offering to match features of the almost two year old G5 iPod. Yawn.

Even worse for Microsoft, Apple is about to deliver Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, which builds upon a system that is already known to not suffer from the nagging security, spyware, and viruses that plague Microsoft's products.

Turned Tables, Sticky Sales
On top of that, Apple is now selling NeXT's technology using Microsoft's own tricks: Apple's Mac OS X is only available on Macs. That means that anyone buying a Mac gets a copy of Mac OS X free, and shelling out $300 for a copy of Windows is only an option; an automatic sale for Apple, and a hard sell for Microsoft.

Oh, how the tables have turned.

It gets even worse for Microsoft however. Every new Mac buyer not only expands the Mac market at the cost of Windows, but does so at a greater than 1:1 ratio. Since Macs typically last longer than PCs, every Mac sold means multiple sales of PCs will never happen. Macs last for 4-5 years; typical PCs only 2. Every Mac sold takes out two or more unnecessary PCs, meaning fewer automatic sales of Windows at an accelerating pace.

Oh, and if you have a PC that is more than two years old, count yourself lucky. For every PC more than two years old, there are plenty of far more ancient Macs still in use.

Mac buyers are also more likely to buy a Mac in the future, making the allure of Mac OS X sticky. That's not the case with Dell or HP buyers, who are likely to buy whatever PC happens to be cheapest two years down the road.

Once you go Mac, you don't go back.

It's Not the Money
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, both of whom top the list of the world's richest individuals, are ready to retire and can't be too concerned about losing a few bucks to the Mac.

Lost revenue pales in comparison to how embarrassing its must be to have to suffer through the unveiling of their charlatan scams to deliver the world old, overpriced technology wrapped up in a frumpy me-too package.

Prior to Apple's purchase of NeXT, Steve Jobs was quoted in Triumph of the Nerds giving his impression of Microsoft's products:

"I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success - I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products."

Since then, innovation at Apple under Jobs has demonstrated just how third rate many of Microsoft's products are in comparison.

If a company with a quarter the market valuation, a quarter the employees, and a sixth the profits of Microsoft can dethrone the company in its operating system development efforts, block its attempts to expand its monopoly into music and media DRM, and embarrass it in mobile development, how would Microsoft do on an equal playing field?

Blame Bad Management
Microsoft isn’t a bad entity made up of engineers working to hold back the technology available to consumers and businesses. It’s staffed by the same sort of brilliant engineers, developers, and marketers that work at Apple, or Google, or contribute to open source.

What gives Microsoft such an ill reputation for anti-competitive behavior and mediocre products is the faulty vision and blinding greed of its upper management, particularly Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.

Together, they have done more to stifle new ideas and glut the market with bad products than any other force in our lifetime. Even worse, Gates and Ballmer ignored their incredible potential to use their monopoly position to usher in a wave of fantastic new technology, and instead saddled the world with more profiteering junk.

As Douglas Adams said, "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place."

Is there anything worthwhile at Microsoft apart from its monopoly positions in Office and Windows? What will happen to Microsoft as Mac OS X continues to eat into the premium and most valuable end of the desktop market, and Linux--backed by everyone from IBM to Oracle--eats into Microsoft's business and server markets?

I think I already know, but it will be fun to watch anyway.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...FA27F1CCA.html





Microsoft Makes Copying Vista a Monster Task
Ina Fried

With Windows XP, antipiracy measures were a bit of an afterthought. But with Windows Vista, Microsoft had pirates in its sights from the get-go.

Even the unique Vista retail packaging--a plastic box with one round corner--was designed, in part, to thwart counterfeiters. And the packaging is just the start; most of Microsoft's antipiracy work is built-into the software itself, meaning that just copying the code and getting a product key isn't enough.

"It's a different game for the counterfeiters," Cori Hartje, director of Microsoft's Genuine Software Initiative, said in an interview. "They're having to resort to this full attack on the product."

One such exploit was dubbed "Frankenbuild" because it merged bits of the beta versions of Windows Vista with the final product in an effort to defeat the validation checks built into the software. But, thanks to technology built into Vista, Microsoft was able to update its defenses and start flagging such systems--even those that initially passed activation--as illegitimate.

The antipiracy effort has been building slowly inside Microsoft. Microsoft began quietly testing a Windows Genuine Advantage program in 2004 with an optional check that offered no benefits for taking part, nor penalties for machines that didn't pass. The company quickly expanded the program, adding some incentives for those machines that were verified. The company later made the checks mandatory to download most Windows updates and add-ons.

Microsoft has seen reducing piracy rates as a way to boost its sales, particularly given that the fastest PC sales growth is coming in emerging markets where piracy rates tend to be higher.

With Vista, checking for pirates was always part of the plan. Technology built into Vista allows Microsoft to periodically evaluate the OS to make sure it is legitimate, rather than just having one opportunity, when the product key is first entered at activation.

That's important if Microsoft learns, say, that a once-valid product key has been compromised. Microsoft also used the validation mechanism after Frankenbuild was discovered, forcing machines to go through validation, which the Frankenbuild systems failed because the software was not an intact copy of the OS.

There are a number of features, including the new Aero user interface, that require genuine validation. As part of Vista, machines that fail validation go into reduced functionality mode if not remedied within 30 days, meaning such systems can be used only to browse the Internet for an hour at a time.

Microsoft has also tightened the rules on volume licenses, largely eliminating the ability for businesses, even those with bulk purchase deals, to use one product key across an unlimited number of machines. Microsoft has two options with Vista. Companies can either use their own PC or server as a sort of hall monitor to make sure which Vista systems are out there, or they can get a multiple-use key from Microsoft, though such keys have a set number of activations. Businesses can also use a combination of the two approaches.

It's a little early to tell how all of the efforts are working, but Hartje said there are some reasons for optimism.

"We see indications from our channel that they are concerned they get genuine product," Hartje said. "We're optimistic the technology changes are going to make a difference. The fact we haven't seen any high-quality counterfeits is a good sign."

While engineering is a big part of Microsoft's efforts, the company is also doing other things. One recent move was to change the way copies of Windows are produced. Rather than just license replicators to build as much of the software as they might need, such disc makers are now required to pay a part of the cost of the software when the discs are first burned, discouraging large stockpiles of authentic discs from building up in warehouses.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+...l?tag=nefd.top





Microsoft Announces More Discounted Vista Licensing
Ken Fisher

One of the best things about Windows Vista's new packaging is the fact that all retail versions of the OS are on one disc. If you have one copy of Vista, you have the code for almost all of the other versions.

That's the driving force behind Anytime Upgrade, and it's also the reason why Microsoft is now trying to entice consumers into buying discounted licenses. This past week the company announced the Windows Vista Additional License program, which provides discounts to customers who have already purchased either a retail or an OEM edition of Windows Vista. The program was announced by Nick White, Microsoft product manager. According to White, the offer has been available for several weeks, although unannounced, and it will be made available in Europe, Asia and the Middle East early next week.

The program gives users a 10 percent discount on up to five additional Windows Vista licenses. Customers are eligible to buy licenses for the edition of Windows Vista that they already own. That is, a customer with Home Premium can buy up to five additional Home Premium licenses, but cannot purchase a combination of Home Premium and Ultimate licenses, for instance.

The discounts are modest when put into context. The Home Premium upgrade is $143.00 discounted, down from $159. Retailers are selling Home Premium upgrades for $150-$155 on average, so the discounts aren't exactly shocking, especially considering that the $143.00 price gets you nothing more than a sheet of paper with a licensing key on it.

The new program builds on the so-called "Windows Vista Family Discount," which offers Home Premium upgrade licenses for $49.95 to customers who have purchased Vista Ultimate. We suspect that Microsoft realized that the program was hobbled somewhat by the requirement that customers first purchase Ultimate, which is the most expensive Windows Vista available, at $399 for the full version or $259 for the upgrade. Yet the newer discount program isn't actually much better.

If you're considering snapping up a few licenses, be aware of the pricing conundrum this creates. Three Home Premium upgrades would cost approximately $445 under the Additional License program (one full price, two discounted), whereas an Ultimate upgrade plus two additional Premium licenses would cost $357, about $90 less.

It's actually a quite confusing message, because in one case the Home Premium upgrades are practically 1/3 the cost of the other, yet both are "discount" programs. By spending about $100 more for Ultimate, you save about $100 each on Home Premium, although you are limited to two such purchases. Caveat emptor.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...licensing.html





Microsoft Says Vista Sales Doubling Windows XP Pace

Microsoft Corp. said on Monday that it sold more than 20 million Windows Vista licenses in the first month since the operating system's general debut on January 30.

The world's biggest software maker said the pace of Vista adoption is at more than twice the rate of its predecessor, Windows XP, which had sold 17 million licenses after its first two months of release.

The numbers released by Microsoft follow mixed messages from the company about the pace of adoption for Windows Vista, the company's first major operating system upgrade in more than five years.

Prior to Vista's general release, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer had predicted that consumers would move to Vista faster than past Windows upgrades.

However, several weeks after the release, Ballmer tempered expectations by saying analysts' forecasts for revenue from Windows Vista in fiscal 2008 -- Microsoft next business year starting in July -- were "overly aggressive."

The Windows franchise is the centerpiece of Microsoft's business, because the company makes more than 75 cents in operating profit for every dollar of sales. The cash flow generated by Windows allows Microsoft to make investments in new businesses like digital music players and online services.

Windows operating systems run on more than 95 percent of the world's computers and represent the company's biggest profit driver.

Story





Vista's Long Goodbye
Dan Goodin

Windows Vista suffers from a bug that causes many machines to stall while deleting, copying and moving files, a flaw that has provoked consternation in online forums.

"I've seen this bug in action, and trust me, it's as if you're copying over a 64k link using only 256mb of RAM," one Reg reader complained. "To add to the problem, you can't cancel or anything."

According to a thread (http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/...8057&SiteID=17) on Microsoft's TechNet site, Microsoft has issued a hotfix for the problem, but it has failed to quell the outrage. For one thing, individual users must get Microsoft's approval before the fix can be downloaded, according to our tipster. And for another, hotfixes are more of a pain to install than patches.

We've contacted a Microsoft spokeswoman, who promised to see if a patch for the problem in the works. Meanwhile, Vista users continue to grumble.

"I simply can not believe that I updated to a new computer and put windows Vista on it to find that it's not even capable of moving and deleting files in an efficient manner," one disaffected user posted in the Microsoft forum. "Microsoft must be kidding! The most basic of features that I use all the time is a slow train wreck."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...a_copying_bug/

Slower to Copy Than to Download
BadBlock

"Because of the slow move/delete/copy I'm thinking of going back to XP .......

I downloaded a 1,8 Gb file over the internet to my D drive. Moving the tmp file from C to D took three times longer than downloading the file on a 6Mbit internet connection !!
http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/... f=0&pageid=1





Copy that DVD in a Second, IBM Says

IBM Corp. will unveil a pair of tiny chips today that can transmit huge volumes of data by beaming light pulses through plastic fibers, an approach that uses far less energy than pushing a stream of electrons through copper wires.

IBM said its prototypes can transmit 160 gigabits of data per second -- reducing the download time for a feature-length high-definition video from 30 minutes to one second.

The prototype chips are of a type of processor called a transceiver -- a device that can both send and receive data.

IBM Vice President and technology guru Bernard Meyerson said that within a few years, these light-based transceiver chips could be used to transmit huge volumes of data in critical chokepoints on the Internet or in large computer networks.

This will be especially important as the advent of high-definition video dramatically increases the volume of data flowing through networks.

Analyst Lawrence Gasman of Communications Industry Researchers in Virginia, said that one type of 40-Gbps transceiver costs about $25,000 today. Based on IBM's designs, he estimates that it could sell its 160-Gbps chip for about $500 to $600 -- about the cost of a 10-Gbps transceiver today.

For the foreseeable future, this laser-driven transceiver technology is likely to find its use in Internet routers and switches and network server centers, which ship huge volumes of data at high speeds.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...tml?source=rss





The Hive

Howard Stern Tries to Kill ‘American Idol’ With Kindness for a Weak Link
Edward Wyatt

For the last few years, three-quarters of the network television executives in Hollywood have tried to figure out how to derail “American Idol,” the Fox juggernaut that dominates the prime-time ratings.

Now Howard Stern, of all people, says he has found the way.

For the last two weeks, Mr. Stern has been promoting a Web site created by a 24-year-old “American Idol” fan that encourages people to support the worst performer on the popular talent show. Their candidate has been Sanjaya Malakar, the off-key, lyric-fumbling, elaborately coiffed teenager who is perhaps the most talked-about “Idol” contestant ever.

“We’re corrupting the entire thing,” Mr. Stern said on his Sirius Satellite Radio show Thursday, the day after Mr. Malakar secured a place in the top nine finalists. “All of us are routing ‘American Idol.’ It’s so great. The No. 1 show in television and it’s getting ruined.”

By promoting Mr. Malakar, Mr. Stern says, he hopes to turn the talent competition into a farce and destroy its popularity.

The stakes of the battle are not insignificant, either for Fox or for the contestants. In its sixth season, “American Idol” has drawn an average of 32 million viewers each week, nearly 50 percent more than the next highest-rated show and better than the show has measured in any previous season.

Some past winners of the competition have gone on to produce chart-topping singles and albums, including Kelly Clarkson, who won the first season, and Carrie Underwood, who won the fourth. Jennifer Hudson, who was eliminated in a late round during the show’s third season, went on to win an Oscar for her performance in “Dreamgirls.”

Mr. Malakar, who at 17 looks like a 1970s pop star of the David Cassidy/Bobby Sherman/Andy Gibb variety, had been among the lowest two or three vote-getters in the first weeks of the season. But after Dave Della Terza, the founder of a Web site called votefortheworst.com, first appeared on Mr. Stern’s radio show on March 20, Mr. Malakar has not been among the lowest vote-getters. (“Idol” does not release total vote tallies, but each week reveals which performers are in the bottom slots.)

A number of those voting for Mr. Malakar may be genuine fans, many of them in the pre- and early-teenage brackets, to judge from posts on a number of Internet bulletin boards dedicated to the show.

But the fans also include older women and Indian-Americans, and Mr. Malakar’s progress is being tracked voraciously by Indian newspapers in both the United States and India. And they probably include executives at Fox, the television network that is riding “American Idol” to the top of the ratings.

Mr. Malakar, who is from Federal Way, Wash., also has some prominent detractors, not least some of the show’s judges. (Although the judges eliminate contestants in early rounds, results at the current stage of the show are determined solely by viewer votes.)

Simon Cowell, the acid-tongued British judge who is one of the show’s biggest draws, threatened to quit the show if Mr. Malakar wins. “I won’t be back if he does,” Mr. Cowell recently told the television show “Extra.”

Randy Jackson, another of the three “Idol” judges, responded to Mr. Malakar’s recent performance of “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” this way: “That song was almost unlistenable for me, man.”

A Fox spokeswoman declined to comment on Mr. Cowell’s comment, but the network said in a statement that efforts like Mr. Stern’s do not affect the results. “With 30 million votes every week, and hundreds of millions of votes over the season, the power of true fans of ‘American Idol’ dwarfs any attempt of people trying to gain notoriety,” the statement said. “Despite the press coverage, these campaigns don’t affect who moves forward in the competition.”

Mr. Stern, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed for this article.

Unlike Mr. Stern, Mr. Della Terza, a community college teacher near Chicago, said he did not want to destroy “Idol.”

“We’re not out to take the show down,” Mr. Della Terza said in a telephone interview. “We like the show. We want to keep around the guy we think is funny and corny.” His aim, he said, was simply to spice up the show by toying with the results, keeping what he calls the “cheesiest” contestants on for as long as possible.

In a recent interview on Mr. Stern’s radio show, Mr. Della Terza said he understood that his efforts might be affecting contestants who are better singers. “Everyone tries to say we’re crushing dreams with what we’re doing, but we’re trying to help Sanjaya’s dreams,” he said. “He wants to be the American Idol too.”

Ms. Hudson, coincidentally, was the first contestant to be recommended for support on votefortheworst.com, something that is not lost on Mr. Della Terza.

“We picked her the first week because of her crazy outfits and over-the-top singing,” he recalled. But she improved, and the site switched its recommendation to another contestant. Last year the site also picked Taylor Hicks, the eventual winner, as the worst performer when five competitors were left.

“If we had not recommended him, maybe he wouldn’t have won,” Mr. Della Terza said.

It is unclear how many voters have been influenced either by Mr. Stern or the Web site. Sirius has six million subscribers but does not release listener figures for its individual shows. According to Mr. Della Terza, votefortheworst.com had been receiving a million or so hits per “Idol” show this season; that number jumped to more than three million after his first appearance on Mr. Stern’s show.

Now, Mr. Della Terza said, the site will stay with Mr. Malakar for the duration, even though he thinks there is no chance he will win. (The bookmakers at bodog.com have placed 25-to-1 odds on Mr. Malakar’s winning the competition; the favorite, Melinda Doolittle, is listed at 4-to-5.)

“Even if by some miracle we get him to the final two,” Mr. Della Terza said, “I think the rest of America will be so outraged by the possibility of him winning that they will vote against him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/ar...idol.html?8dpc





How to Improve It? Ask Those Who Use It
Michael Fitzgerald

DR. NATHANIEL SIMS, an anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, has figured out a few ways to help save patients’ lives.

In doing so, he also represents a significant untapped vein of innovation for companies.

Dr. Sims has picked up more than 10 patents for medical devices over his career. He ginned up a way to more easily shuttle around the dozen or more monitors and drug-delivery devices attached to any cardiac patient after surgery, with a device known around the hospital as the “Nat Rack.”

His best innovation to date, he says, involved modifying a drug infusion pump routinely used in hospitals to dispense the proper doses of medicine. Dr. Sims, an accomplished pilot, noticed in the mid-1980s that he could obtain navigation information from regularly updated databases. He wondered why doctors couldn’t use a device preprogrammed with the necessary data to figure out dosages themselves. From 1987 to 1992, he and a small team built an electronic device that worked with an existing pump to provide patients with the correct does of the proper drug. Alaris Medical Systems was the first established medical supply firm to use the technology.

David L. Schlotterbeck, the chief executive of Alaris, bet the company on the device. It was a good wager. The smart pump now brings in $700 million in sales — more than Alaris’s overall revenue of $534 million in 2003, the year before the company was sold to Cardinal Health.

What Dr. Sims did is called user-driven innovation by Eric von Hippel, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. Mr. von Hippel is the leading advocate of the value of letting users of products modify them or improve them, because they may come up with changes that manufacturers never considered. He thinks that this could help companies develop products more quickly and inexpensively than with their internal design teams.

“It could drive manufacturers out of the design space,” Mr. von Hippel says.

It is a difficult idea for research and development departments to accept, but one of his studies found that 82 percent of new capabilities for scientific instruments like electron microscopes were developed by users.

Citizen product design is still unsung, but it has already become a force in software, especially gaming software. “Counter-Strike,” a player-created “mod” (for modification to the original game) of “Half-Life,” became as popular as the original game. Apache, the popular open-source Web server software, or the Firefox Internet browser, with its thousands of add-ons and plug-ins, also depend on users to develop innovations. Large companies like I.B.M. are increasingly turning to open-source techniques in their own software development.

It may also drive economic growth, Mr. von Hippel says. While Dr. Sims has no interest in starting a company, many people like him will do exactly that. Burton Snowboards, for instance, grew out of modifications that Jake Burton Carpenter made to a product called the Snurfer. He added a binding for the feet so that Snurfer riders no longer had to guide it by a rope on its nose.

SawStop makes a table saw that automatically stops within five milliseconds when it comes into contact with a user’s finger or thumb. The blade leaves the user with a small nick or cut, but the digit remains intact. It was invented by Stephen Gass, a patent lawyer who liked woodworking and thought that making a table saw safer was an interesting challenge.

One problem with the user-innovation model is that it can run into intellectual property rights protections. But the potential for creating new companies has led the government of Denmark to establish user-driven innovation as a policy. It found that Danish companies tended not to push for technological innovation, so user innovation may be the way to help them compete more effectively in a global economy.

Denmark may be the perfect testing ground for citizen product design, says Christopher Lettl, who six months ago left his native Germany to become professor of user-driven innovation at the University of Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. He thinks that Danish culture’s focus on the concept of “janteloven,” which holds that no person is better than another, may make companies more open to ideas from their users. The Danish company Lego is famous for tapping customers to help develop its Mindstorms NXT robotics kit.

Skeptics argue that Denmark is both small — population, 5.4 million — and a backwater of innovation, and thus has little to lose in trying something new. They might also point out that even in Denmark, Mr. von Hippel’s ideas are up against more conventional forms of user-aided design, such as sending anthropologists to study how people use products in their daily lives. Companies then translate their research into new designs.

Even some of Mr. von Hippel’s acolytes remain cautious. “A lot of this is still in the category of, ‘You could imagine this working out really well,’ ” says Saul T. Griffith, who as an M.I.T. engineering student was part of a group of kite-surfers who developed products for their sport that have since become commercialized. Mr. von Hippel wrote about Mr. Griffith in his 2005 book, “Democratizing Innovation.”

Still, Mr. Griffith can cite a long tradition of user design. One of his favorite examples comes from the title article in Tom Wolfe’s 1965 book, “The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby,” which chronicled car customizers whose innovations — tailfins, double headlights, low-slung bodies — were later adopted by Detroit. Mr. Griffith says that even now, millions of people modify their cars, far more people than the world’s automakers could ever employ in research and development.

There is currently no effective way for companies to harness the ideas of those millions. But the Web — itself created by Tim Berners-Lee, an Internet user looking to do something new — seems to offer an excellent potential idea-gatherer. Mr. Griffith’s industrial design firm, Squid Labs, last year spun off a do-it-yourself community site on the Web called the Instructables, which features items as diverse as the Minty Boost iPod power source, dachshund wheelchairs and guns made entirely of K’nex toys, along with detailed instructions on how to build them. The Instructables intends to offer software to companies that want to build communities of citizen product developers.

Mr. von Hippel, who has spent 30 years waiting for his ideas to take hold, says that as user communities like the Instructables spread, they will dominate innovation. He calls them “the dark matter of innovation.”

User-driven innovation may still be in its infancy, but it is clear that companies should keep an eye open to whether something is rosy in the state of Denmark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/bu...y/25Proto.html





Artificial Intelligence, With Help From the Humans
Jason Pontin

COMPUTERS still do some things very poorly. Even when they pool their memory and processors in powerful networks, they remain unevenly intelligent. Things that humans do with little conscious thought, such as recognizing patterns or meanings in images, language or concepts, only baffle the machines.

These lacunae in computers’ abilities would be of interest only to computer scientists, except that many individuals and companies are finding it harder to locate and organize the swelling mass of information that our digital civilization creates.

The problem has prompted a spooky, but elegant, business idea: why not use the Web to create marketplaces of willing human beings who will perform the tasks that computers cannot? Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon.com, has created Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online service involving human workers, and he has also personally invested in a human-assisted search company called ChaCha. Mr. Bezos describes the phenomenon very prettily, calling it “artificial artificial intelligence.”

“Normally, a human makes a request of a computer, and the computer does the computation of the task,” he said. “But artificial artificial intelligences like Mechanical Turk invert all that. The computer has a task that is easy for a human but extraordinarily hard for the computer. So instead of calling a computer service to perform the function, it calls a human.”

Mechanical Turk began life as a service that Amazon itself needed. (The name recalls a famous 18th-century hoax, where what seemed to be a chess-playing automaton really concealed a human chess master.) Amazon had millions of Web pages that described individual products, but it wanted to weed out the duplicate pages. Software could help, but algorithmically eliminating all the duplicates was impossible, according to Mr. Bezos. So the company began to develop a Web site where people would look at product pages and be paid a few cents for every duplicate page they correctly identified.

Mr. Bezos figured that what had been useful to Amazon would be valuable to other businesses, too. The company opened Mechanical Turk as a public site in November 2005. Today, there are more than 100,000 “Turk Workers” in more than 100 countries who earn micropayments in exchange for completing a wide range of quick tasks called HITs, for human intelligence tasks, for various companies.

PriceGrabber.com, a comparison shopping site, uses Mechanical Turk to match images to the product pages. “Harnessing the power of this enormous, decentralized work force allows us to obtain images for a wide variety of items in a fraction of the time it would have taken to do it ourselves,” said Sagar M. Jethani, PriceGrabber’s director of content development and community.

Mechanical Turk’s customers are corporations. By contrast, ChaCha.com, a start-up in Carmel, Ind., uses artificial artificial intelligence — sometimes also called crowdsourcing — to help individual computer users find better results when they search the Web. ChaCha, which began last year, pays 30,000 flesh-and-blood “guides” working from home or the local coffee shop as much as $10 an hour to direct Web surfers to the most relevant resources.

Amazon makes money from Mechanical Turk by charging companies 10 percent of the price of a successfully completed HIT. For simple HITs that cost less than 1 cent, Amazon charges half a cent. ChaCha intends to make money the way most other search companies do: by charging advertisers for contextually relevant links and advertisements.

Harnessing the collective wisdom of crowds isn’t new. It is employed by many of the “Web 2.0” social networks like Digg and Del.icio.us, which rely on human readers to select the most worthwhile items on the Web to read. But creating marketplaces of mercenary intelligences is genuinely novel.

What is it like to be an individual component of these digital, collective minds?

To find out, I experimented. After registering at www.mturk.com, I was confronted with a table of HITs that I could perform, together with the price that I would be paid. I first accepted a job from ContentSpooling.net that asked me to write three titles for an article about annuities and their use in retirement planning. Then I viewed a series of images apparently captured from a vehicle moving through the gray suburbs of North London, and, at the request of Geospatial Vision, a division of the British technology company Oxford Metrics Group, identified objects like road signs and markings.

For all this, my Amazon account was credited the lordly sum of 12 cents. The entire experience lasted no more than 15 minutes, and from my point of view, as an occluded part of the hive-mind, it made no sense at all.

I was also interested in learning what it was like to be a consumer of crowdsourcing. So at 2:40 p.m. on March 14, I asked ChaCha, “Who was Evelyn Waugh’s commanding officer in the Commandos during World War II?” In an instant-messaging window, CandieSue22087 immediately welcomed me to ChaCha and asked me to be patient.

At 2:44, CandieSue threw up her virtual hands and transferred me to another guide, Tressie57635, who referred me to an academic paper on “suffixal sound symbolism in the novels of Evelyn Waugh.” When I protested, Tressie complained that it was a hard search, and at 2:49 she gave up, typing that I might do better with yet another guide. When I agreed, Tressie accidentally ended the search altogether — but not before serving me a page of 12 search results, not one of which was relevant.

A quick search on Google quickly provided the right answer.

THERE have been two common objections to artificial artificial intelligence. The first, confirmed by my own experiences searching on ChaCha, is that the networks are no more intelligent than their smartest members. Katharine Mieszkowski, writing last year on Salon.com, raised the second, more serious criticism. She saw Mechanical Turk as a kind of virtual sweatshop. “There is something a little disturbing about a billionaire like Bezos dreaming up new ways to get ordinary folk to do work for him for pennies,” she wrote.

The ever-genial Mr. Bezos dismisses the criticism. “MTurk is a marketplace where folks who have work meet up with folks who want to do work,” he said.

Why do people become Turk Workers and ChaCha Guides? In poor countries, the money earned could offer a significant contribution to a family’s wealth. But even Mr. Bezos concedes that Turk Workers from rich countries probably can’t live on the small sums involved. “The people I’ve seen commenting on blogs seem mostly to be using MTurk as a supplemental form of income,” he said.

Mitch Fernandez, 38, a disabled former United States Army linguist, said by e-mail that he became a Turk Worker for various reasons: “At first, I was just curious about the idea of crowdsourcing.” But he said he soon found that by working about two hours a day, he could often earn more than $100 a week. In the last nine months he made around $4,000, which he used to buy a high-definition television, a DVD player and a new subwoofer — all from Amazon.com.

“I do this primarily for the money, but I also view it as a form of therapy to get me used to working again.” he explained. “The experience has gotten me thinking about pursuing a library science degree.”

We probably have at least another 25 years before computers are more powerful than human brains, according to the most optimistic artificial intelligence experts. Until then, people will be able to sell their idle brains to the companies and people who need the special processing power that they alone possess through marketplaces like Mechanical Turk and ChaCha.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/bu.../25Stream.html





Theater’s Alive With the Sound of Laptops
Jesse Green

AMONG the uncommon pleasures of the 2003 Broadway revival of “Wonderful Town” was that you could actually see the orchestra, arrayed like a decorative garland of brass and polished wood across an onstage bridge. Another was that there was enough of an orchestra to be worth seeing. Nearly matching the original 1953 instrumentation, the show’s producers sprang for a hefty complement of 24 musicians. At least at first.

After a while, though, as is not unusual with shows anxious to maximize profit, the ensemble was cut back to 20, still well above the Al Hirschfeld Theater’s house minimum of 14 (including conductor) as stipulated by agreement between the musicians union and the league of Broadway producers. If not exactly a symphony, this was a number capable of producing, with amplification, a moderately rich sound not unlike what the show’s composer, Leonard Bernstein, might have imagined when he wrote it.

But audiences attending a performance of the production’s nonunion tour — which stopped last Sunday at the Tilles Center on Long Island and continues on the road through May — are seeing, and hearing, something quite different. The orchestra is down to 12 traditional instrumentalists, including four reeds and three horns, with only a lonely violin and cello to sweeten the mix. So why does it seem as dense as it did on Broadway? Why is the string sound so big, if not exactly Bernstein-y?

That would be the work of musician No. 13, sitting behind the reeds at a Qwerty keyboard attached to an ordinary PC running a software program called Notion and wired into the sound system. This copy of Notion has been loaded with all the string parts for “Wonderful Town,” broken down in individual instrumental lines that can be muted or played at will, all triggered by a finger tapping the rhythm on any key in the A-S-D-F row. If the conductor speeds up, so does the finger, and so does the music Notion produces. If the leading lady lingers over a note, or skips six bars, the finger can too.

Small as it is, that one finger, doing the work of hundreds, is the center of a controversy now playing out in amateur theaters and national markets and coming soon to Broadway. Already the musicians union has dug in its heels against the use of Notion and similar products. “We’re not Luddites opposed to technology,” Mary Landolfi, president of Local 802, the American Federation of Musicians, said recently. “But we feel that people come to the theater to hear live entertainment, and they should have it.”

Critics have been denouncing nonlive — or, more accurately, nontraditional — instruments in Broadway pits for decades. At first the complaints were about the awful or just unwelcome sounds they made. Electric guitars and organs, imported from the world of pop music to go with the pop scores of the 1960s, offended purists, who mourned the loss of European-style orchestrations, heavy on strings and light on rhythm. When synthesizers started replacing instruments that producers wouldn’t pay for or that couldn’t fit in the ever-shrinking coffins to which orchestras were consigned, criticism shifted to the poor quality of the mimicry. Synthesized trumpets sounded like oboes and oboes like burglar alarms.

The mimicry has improved tremendously in recent years. If the current production of “The Sound of Music” in London has a rich, symphonic sound, it’s not just because of the string players (there are only 6, reduced from the original 12); it’s because of three keyboards programmed to sound like strings. This feels wrong, but the proof is in the experience; and at least such patches, as they’re called, require live players. At many small ballet companies around the United States, the orchestra is a tape, and in many schools putting on musicals, it’s a pirated, karaoke-style CD. Even Broadway shows use click tracks and prerecorded accompaniment for parts of some numbers.

But Notion and its more established competitor, a product made by Realtime Music Solutions and marketed under the names Sinfonia, OrchExtra and InstrumentalEase, represent a huge advance on those limited technologies. They are therefore a huge threat to advocates of entirely “live” music. For one thing, they are cheaper and more compact than older systems, which required a vanful of equipment and a dedicated tech nerd and cost thousands of dollars a week to rent. Notion comes on CDs that sell for about $600.

These products are also cheaper and more compact than human musicians. They do not get sick or have bad nights. And after years of gradual improvements, their sound is now good enough to fool many nonexperts, especially since they are almost always used, as recommended, alongside traditional instruments. Their processing capacities are large enough that details of articulation and attack, vibrato and decay, can be reasonably approximated, if not gorgeously rendered. (Brass and bass drum, I mean you.) And the notes themselves are no longer digitally created but are based on thousands of samples from real instrumentalists. Notion’s main sample source is the London Symphony Orchestra.

Why London? No American ensemble would cooperate. Nor has Notion been used on Broadway. The closest it’s come was an industrial show for Enterprise Rent-a-Car at the Broadway Marriot Marquis hotel in October, where Sutton Foster and other musical stars sang with a 26-piece orchestra pumped up to symphonic density. No one seemed to notice the ringer.

Sinfonia has come even closer. In 2004 it drew protests when used (along with several traditional instruments) to accompany a short-lived Off Broadway musical called “The Joys of Sex.” A year earlier, in anticipation of Local 802’s strike against Broadway producers, shows including “Les Misérables,” “Thoroughly Modern Millie” and “Oklahoma!” prepared Sinfonia versions of their scores as a precaution — and perhaps as a provocation. But no audience ever heard them; the strike lasted four days.

The resulting contract expired three weeks ago, on March 4, but the house minimums stipulated within it remain in effect through 2013. Still, because those minimums are often breached by “special situations” (almost anything can be a special situation), and because emulation technology is not specifically banned in the old contract nor likely to be banned in the new one now being negotiated, the union remains wary. In picketing and press releases, it refers to products like Notion and Sinfonia as “virtual orchestra machines”: a kind of alien in the pit. (Jeff Lazarus, the chief executive of Realtime, prefers the term instruments, and said the union’s tactics amount to “musical gerrymandering.”) Ms. Landolfi, of Local 802, further asserts that the technology interferes “with the ability of creative teams to decide artistic issues without undue economic pressure.”

Maybe. In an informal poll I asked members of such creative teams to consider this: You’re reviving a show that depends on full orchestral sound, like “South Pacific,” which is in fact being revived in 2008. The maximum number of instrumentalists that the budget (and the pit) can accommodate is 20, far fewer than the original 31, but higher than the theater’s minimum of, say, 15. Having preserved jobs by hiring those 20 musicians, would you then consider using a technology like Sinfonia or Notion to push the sound to symphonic levels?

Music directors were clear that they would not. Ted Sperling, who conducted “The Light in the Piazza” with 15 acoustic instruments, said, “I’m a believer in making the most with what you’re given, not pretending that something’s there when it’s not.” Paul Gemignani, who will lead a “South Pacific” with full symphony orchestra at the Hollywood Bowl this August, agreed, saying he’d “respectfully bow out” if the producers wouldn’t reorchestrate for “all live instruments.” He added, “To me it would be like doing ‘Death of a Salesman’ with one great big star and the rest of the cast on a recording.”

Mr. Gemignani has lived and died by that sword; the “Pacific Overtures” he conducted at the Roundabout in 2004 employed 7 musicians, down from 22 in the 1976 original; though the 7 were live, they sounded skimpy and, as processed through the sound system, even artificial at times. For that reason most producers I surveyed and, surprisingly, most composers, weren’t so quick to disavow the new technology.

“A machine-generated orchestra isn’t such a terrible proposition, if the music director and sound designer work in coordination,” said the composer Michael John LaChiusa. “Do the machines provide the human touch of a live musician? Not to my ear, but because of miking, many of the live pit orchestras on Broadway sound canned already, sometimes even pre-taped. To use or not to use a machine to supplement, or even replace, the orchestra for a revival isn’t an ethical or moral argument. It’s not even a sentimental one. It’s a question of aesthetics.”

Many artists, or their heirs, seem to have answered that aesthetic question. Sinfonia has now been used in the West End (but not the Broadway) production of “Les Misérables” and in American non-Equity tours of “Oliver!” and “Miss Saigon.” The Gershwin estate authorized a Sinfonia-enhanced production of “Porgy and Bess” that visited minor markets from 2001 to 2005. Notion can be heard not only in “Wonderful Town” but also in ballet and Meat Loaf concerts everywhere.

Whether jobs are being lost as a result is a matter of interpretation. Yes, “Wonderful Town” has 11 fewer musicians now than it did when it opened on Broadway, but the show probably wouldn’t have toured at all had it been required to maintain the full complement. Keith Levenson, the production’s music supervisor and a paid adviser to Notion, said he is in that sense saving jobs, not cutting them. (He pointed out that Notion too is played by a live musician.) But union representatives call such arguments naïve; what if the producers of the next “Wonderful Town,” having heard how this one sounds with Notion, decide they can only afford nine musicians, or five?

Some see the slippery slope as most precarious not at the uppermost levels of production but at the lowest. Ms. Landolfi complained that the manufacturers are marketing the technology heavily to schools. And it’s true that after years of experimentation and internal debate, both R&H Theatricals (a division of the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization) and Music Theater International, leading licensers of shows for amateur and stock production, now allow customized versions of Sinfonia to be rented with some of their properties. For rehearsals customers can use R&H’s AccompanEase or M.T.I.’s RehearScore. For full performance there are products called InstrumentalEase and OrchExtra. Perhaps the most telling portmanteau is one that was proposed in an employee contest to name the orchestra product at R&H: PitBull.

But philosophical anxieties (what would Rodgers, he of the sweeping string tuttis, think?) and musical misgivings eventually gave way to technical advancements and demand from amateur licensees, especially schools. Customers now pay about $1,400 for a four-week rental, which includes a two-octave keyboard, connection equipment and an Apple MacBook preloaded with the score of the show being performed. (M.T.I. offers 18 of its most popular titles, R&H five, with many more in development.) A knowledgeable musician, especially one savvy about computers, can have it playing within minutes.

Customers clearly love the result. Peter Hoopes, director of technology as well as conductor of the annual musical at St. Andrew’s, a co-ed boarding school in Delaware, said that in previous years he’d had to make do with whatever instruments his volunteers happened to play. This year, having ordered InstrumentalEase for a production of “Annie Get Your Gun,” he turned on the MacBook, clicked “mute” for the instruments he had in the pit and produced the remainder of the orchestration by tapping while he conducted. He was astonished, as were his musicians.

“When they first heard it,” Mr. Hoopes said, “one of the comments was, ‘Well, I guess you don’t really need us here anymore.’ And it did cross my mind that if I wanted a perfect sound, I could just eliminate them. But we’re a small community, and part of the thrill is that everyone’s contributing. On the other hand, it was nice knowing that if one of the players got sick, I could just unmute that part and go right on.”

No one did get sick, and by the time “Annie Get Your Gun” opened on Feb. 23, Mr. Hoopes said, not only had he created a seamless ensemble featuring sounds he could never previously have mustered (try finding a harpist at a boarding school) but his 10 instrumentalists had improved by trying to match the quality of the software.

This is the ideal situation; other schools may prove more willing to ditch their squawky pubescent clarinetists. The licensers’ requirement that live musicians be used with the software is largely unenforceable. It’s partly for this reason that the union opposes these products even at the amateur level. “We think they really undermine the idea of music education,” said Ms. Landolfi, “which undermines the audience for Broadway and classical music. Now the schools can say, ‘We don’t need a music program because we can just buy this very affordable machine.’ But in the end what kind of cultural life would we have?”

A valid concern, and one shared by the manufacturers and licensers, most of whom are musicians themselves. They admit to ambivalence, but argue that the new technology is helping to build future audiences by allowing more shows to be produced and by accustoming young people to sounds they no longer have the chance to hear on a regular basis. (Lori Jarrett, the chief executive of Notion Music, said she hopes her product will promote “a renaissance of more sophisticated art.”) Sure, everyone would prefer full orchestras in grade school and Broadway minimums of 35. But on that score perhaps, Richard Rodgers has left the building.

“Technology is always a threat to live music,” said Bruce Pomahac, director of music at Rodgers & Hammerstein. “When the pianoforte replaced the harpsichord, every harpsichordist was out of a job. And we all fall in love with the art we grew up with. But this is not about putting musicians out of work. They’re already out of work. This is about trying to get back, in some new form, something that’s lost.”

That may end up being the best the musicians union can hope for too. Could we one day find our orchestra pits filled with tuxedoed men and gowned women tapping at laptops? Mr. Lazarus, of Realtime, said he doesn’t want to wave a red flag at the union, but that the products are already working — and getting better.

Anyway, don’t expect labor fireworks just yet. Wait until July, when the contract with Broadway’s stage crews expires. Because Sinfonia doesn’t just mimic cymbals and saxophones. It can be programmed to control scenery too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/theater/25green.html





Viral huckstering

Compassionate Commercialism
Daniel Gilbert

Cambridge, Mass.

IN an advertising campaign that began last week, Nissan left 20,000 sets of keys in bars, stadiums, concert halls and other public venues. Each key ring has a tag that says: “If found, please do not return. My next generation Nissan Altima has Intelligent Key with push-button ignition, and I no longer need these.”

This campaign is clever, but not particularly original.

It was 1997, and the man who was crouched on the sidewalk at 68th and Broadway in New York City was one of the most pathetic souls I’d ever seen. His limbs were twisted in what appeared to be arthritic agony and tears were streaming down his face. “Please,” he whimpered. “Please, somebody help me.”

Most passers-by did what they were named for, but my wife and I stopped. The man looked up. “Please,” he sobbed. “I just want to go home.” My hand needed no guidance from my brain as it reached into my wallet and extracted $10. “Thank you,” he said as I handed him the money. “Thank you so much.” My wife and I mumbled some embarrassed words and walked on.

We hadn’t gone a block when she tugged my sleeve. “Maybe we should have gotten him into a cab,” she said. “He could barely stand up. He might need help. We should go back to see.” My wife is the patron saint of lost kittens and there is no arguing, so we went back to see. And what we saw was our horribly crippled friend walking briskly and happily up 68th Street, opening the door to a late-model car, getting in and driving away after what was apparently a short day of theatrical work.

I know two things now that I didn’t know then.

First, I now know that my hand did what human hands were designed to do. Research suggests that we are hard-wired with a strong and intuitive moral impulse — an urge to help others that is every bit as basic as the selfish urges that get all the press. Infants as young as 18 months will spontaneously comfort those who appear distressed and help those who are having difficulty retrieving or balancing objects. Chimpanzees will do the same, though not so reliably, which has led scientists to speculate about the precise point in our evolutionary history at which we became the “hypercooperative” species that out-nices the rest.

The second thing I know now that I didn’t know then is that this was the most damaging crime I had ever experienced. Like most residents of large cities, I’d been a victim before — of burglary once, of vandalism several times. But this was different. The burglars and vandals had taken advantage of my forgetfulness (“Why didn’t I double lock the door?”) and taught me to be better.

But the actor on 68th Street had taken advantage of my helpfulness and taught me to be worse. The hand that had automatically reached for my wallet had been slapped, and once slapped was twice shy. I’ve never again given money to a stranger without scrutinizing him for the signs that distinguish suffering from its imitation. And because I don’t know what those signs are, I typically just walk by.

Now corporate America has taken a lesson from the guild of shameless grifters. Nissan’s plan to leave those 20,000 sets of keys in public venues is every bit as crafty as the fraudulent performance that a decade ago left me with holes in both my pocketbook and soul. There is no selfish reason to bend down and pick up a key ring, but Nissan knows that we will bend without thinking because the impulse to help is bred into our marrow. Our best instinct will be awakened by a key ring and then punished by a commercial. Like rubes throughout the ages, we will be lured by a false cry of distress and quickly cured of our innocence and compassion.

We are used to commercial tricks that play on our fears. The official-looking letter marked “Verification Audit” is actually a magazine subscription renewal form; the credit card company’s ominous call to “discuss your account” is actually an attempt to sell new services.

Should we now get used to commercial tricks that play on our humanity? How would we feel about a device planted in trash bins that screams “I’m stuck!” until the lid is opened, at which point it continues, “Stuck in a dead end job, that is — and if you are too, then let us show you how to make millions in real estate with no money down”? Is it O.K. to send a thousand doleful puppies into the streets with tags that say: “Thanks for checking. And speaking of checking, our bank charges no monthly fees”?

What happens to us when greed masquerades as need, when cries for help become casting calls for chumps, when our most noble actions make us patsies? “You put an idea out there and seed it,” said the president of the advertising agency that came up with Nissan’s key ring ploy. “And people carry it for you.” Indeed they do. The idea being seeded and carried in this case is that the world cries wolf, that our moral impulse betrays us and that smart people should keep on walking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/op...25gilbert.html





Surveillance

New York City Police Spied Broadly Before G.O.P. Convention
Jim Dwyer

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.

From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.

They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department’s Intelligence Division. Other investigators mined Internet sites and chat rooms.

From these operations, run by the department’s “R.N.C. Intelligence Squad,” the police identified a handful of groups and individuals who expressed interest in creating havoc during the convention, as well as some who used Web sites to urge or predict violence.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities. A police report on an organization of artists called Bands Against Bush noted that the group was planning concerts on Oct. 11, 2003, in New York, Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Boston. Between musical sets, the report said, there would be political speeches and videos.

“Activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda,” said the report, dated Oct. 9, 2003. “Police departments in above listed areas have been contacted regarding this event.”

Police records indicate that in addition to sharing information with other police departments, New York undercover officers were active themselves in at least 15 places outside New York — including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington, D.C. — and in Europe.

The operation was mounted in 2003 after the Police Department, invoking the fresh horrors of the World Trade Center attack and the prospect of future terrorism, won greater authority from a federal judge to investigate political organizations for criminal activity.

To date, as the boundaries of the department’s expanded powers continue to be debated, police officials have provided only glimpses of its intelligence-gathering.

Now, the broad outlines of the pre-convention operations are emerging from records in federal lawsuits that were brought over mass arrests made during the convention, and in greater detail from still-secret reports reviewed by The New York Times. These include a sample of raw intelligence documents and of summary digests of observations from both the field and the department’s cyberintelligence unit.

Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the Police Department, confirmed that the operation had been wide-ranging, and said it had been an essential part of the preparations for the huge crowds that came to the city during the convention.

“Detectives collected information both in-state and out-of-state to learn in advance what was coming our way,” Mr. Browne said. When the detectives went out of town, he said, the department usually alerted the local authorities by telephone or in person.

Under a United States Supreme Court ruling, undercover surveillance of political groups is generally legal, but the police in New York — like those in many other big cities — have operated under special limits as a result of class-action lawsuits filed over police monitoring of civil rights and antiwar groups during the 1960s. The limits in New York are known as the Handschu guidelines, after the lead plaintiff, Barbara Handschu.

“All our activities were legal and were subject in advance to Handschu review,” Mr. Browne said.

Before monitoring political activity, the police must have “some indication of unlawful activity on the part of the individual or organization to be investigated,” United States District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. said in a ruling last month.

Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents seven of the 1,806 people arrested during the convention, said the Police Department stepped beyond the law in its covert surveillance program.

“The police have no authority to spy on lawful political activity, and this wide-ranging N.Y.P.D. program was wrong and illegal,” Mr. Dunn said. “In the coming weeks, the city will be required to disclose to us many more details about its preconvention surveillance of groups and activists, and many will be shocked by the breadth of the Police Department’s political surveillance operation.”

The Police Department said those complaints were overblown.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the convention lawsuits are scheduled to begin depositions of David Cohen, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence. Mr. Cohen, a former senior official at the Central Intelligence Agency, was “central to the N.Y.P.D.’s efforts to collect intelligence information prior to the R.N.C.,” Gerald C. Smith, an assistant corporation counsel with the city Law Department, said in a federal court filing.

Balancing Safety and Surveillance

For nearly four decades, the city, civil liberties lawyers and the Police Department have fought in federal court over how to balance public safety, free speech and the penetrating but potentially disruptive force of police surveillance.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Raymond W. Kelly, who became police commissioner in January 2002, “took the position that the N.Y.P.D. could no longer rely on the federal government alone, and that the department had to build an intelligence capacity worthy of the name,” Mr. Browne said.

Mr. Cohen contended that surveillance of domestic political activities was essential to fighting terrorism. “Given the range of activities that may be engaged in by the members of a sleeper cell in the long period of preparation for an act of terror, the entire resources of the N.Y.P.D. must be available to conduct investigations into political activity and intelligence-related issues,” Mr. Cohen wrote in an affidavit dated Sept. 12, 2002.

In February 2003, the Police Department, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s support, was given broad new authority by Judge Haight to conduct such monitoring. However, a senior police official must still determine that there is some indication of illegal activity before an inquiry is begun.

An investigation by the Intelligence Division led to the arrest — coincidentally, three days before the convention — of a man who spoke about bombing the Herald Square subway station. In another initiative, detectives were stationed in Europe and the Middle East to quickly funnel information back to New York.

When the city was designated in February 2003 as the site of the 2004 Republican National Convention, the department had security worries — in particular about the possibility of a truck bomb attack near Madison Square Garden, where events would be held — and logistical concerns about managing huge crowds, Mr. Browne said.

“We also prepared to contend with a relatively small group of self-described anarchists who vowed to prevent delegates from participating in the convention or otherwise disrupt the convention by various means, including vandalism,” Mr. Browne said. “Our goal was to safeguard delegates, demonstrators and the general public alike.”

In its preparations, the department applied the intelligence resources that had just been strengthened for fighting terrorism to an entirely different task: collecting information on people participating in political protests.

In the records reviewed by The Times, some of the police intelligence concerned people and groups bent on causing trouble, but the bulk of the reports covered the plans and views of people with no obvious intention of breaking the law.

By searching the Internet, investigators identified groups that were making plans for demonstrations. Files were created on their political causes, the criminal records, if any, of the people involved and any plans for civil disobedience or disruptive tactics.

From the field, undercover officers filed daily accounts of their observations on forms known as DD5s that called for descriptions of the gatherings, the leaders and participants, and the groups’ plans.

Inside the police Intelligence Division, daily reports from both the field and the Web were summarized in bullet format. These digests — marked “Secret” — were circulated weekly under the heading “Key Findings.”

Perceived Threats

On Jan. 6, 2004, the intelligence digest noted that an antigentrification group in Montreal claimed responsibility for hoax bombs that had been planted at construction sites of luxury condominiums, stating that the purpose was to draw attention to the homeless. The group was linked to a band of anarchist-communists whose leader had visited New York, according to the report.

Other digests noted a planned campaign of “electronic civil disobedience” to jam fax machines and hack into Web sites. Participants at a conference were said to have discussed getting inside delegates’ hotels by making hair salon appointments or dinner reservations. At the same conference, people were reported to have discussed disabling charter buses and trying to confuse delegates by switching subway directional signs, or by sealing off stations with crime-scene tape.

A Syracuse peace group intended to block intersections, a report stated. Other reports mentioned past demonstrations where various groups used nails and ball bearings as weapons and threw balloons filled with urine or other foul liquids.

The police also kept track of Richard Picariello, a man who had been convicted in 1978 of politically motivated bombings in Massachusetts, Mr. Browne said.

At the other end of the threat spectrum was Joshua Kinberg, a graduate student at Parsons School of Design and the subject of four pages of intelligence reports, including two pictures. For his master’s thesis project, Mr. Kinberg devised a “wireless bicycle” equipped with cellphone, laptop and spray tubes that could squirt messages received over the Internet onto the sidewalk or street.

The messages were printed in water-soluble chalk, a tactic meant to avoid a criminal mischief charge for using paint, an intelligence report noted. Mr. Kinberg’s bicycle was “capable of transferring activist-based messages on streets and sidewalks,” according to a report on July 22, 2004.

“This bicycle, having been built for the sole purpose of protesting during the R.N.C., is capable of spraying anti-R.N.C.-type messages on surrounding streets and sidewalks, also supplying the rider with a quick vehicle of escape,” the report said. Mr. Kinberg, then 25, was arrested during a television interview with Ron Reagan for MSNBC’s “Hardball” program during the convention. He was released a day later, but his equipment was held for more than a year.

Mr. Kinberg said Friday that after his arrest, detectives with the terrorism task force asked if he knew of any plans for violence. “I’m an artist,” he said. “I know other artists, who make T-shirts and signs.”

He added: “There’s no reason I should have been placed on any kind of surveillance status. It affected me, my ability to exercise free speech, and the ability of thousands of people who were sending in messages for the bike, to exercise their free speech.”

New Faces in Their Midst

A vast majority of several hundred reports reviewed by The Times, including field reports and the digests, described groups that gave no obvious sign of wrongdoing. The intelligence noted that one group, the “Man- and Woman-in-Black Bloc,” planned to protest outside a party at Sotheby’s for Tennessee’s Republican delegates with Johnny Cash’s career as its theme.

The satirical performance troupe Billionaires for Bush, which specializes in lampooning the Bush administration by dressing in tuxedos and flapper gowns, was described in an intelligence digest on Jan. 23, 2004.

“Billionaires for Bush is an activist group forged as a mockery of the current president and political policies,” the report said. “Preliminary intelligence indicates that this group is raising funds for expansion and support of anti-R.N.C. activist organizations.”

Marco Ceglie, who performs as Monet Oliver dePlace in Billionaires for Bush, said he had suspected that the group was under surveillance by federal agents — not necessarily police officers — during weekly meetings in a downtown loft and at events around the country in the summer of 2004.

“It was a running joke that some of the new faces were 25- to 32-year-old males asking, ‘First name, last name?’ ” Mr. Ceglie said. “Some people didn’t care; it bothered me and a couple of other leaders, but we didn’t want to make a big stink because we didn’t want to look paranoid. We applied to the F.B.I. under the Freedom of Information Act to see if there’s a file, but the answer came back that ‘we cannot confirm or deny.’ ”

The Billionaires try to avoid provoking arrests, Mr. Ceglie said.

Others — who openly planned civil disobedience, with the expectation of being arrested — said they assumed they were under surveillance, but had nothing to hide. “Some of the groups were very concerned about infiltration,” said Ed Hedemann of the War Resisters League, a pacifist organization founded in 1923. “We weren’t. We had open meetings.”

The war resisters publicly announced plans for a “die-in” at Madison Square Garden. They were arrested two minutes after they began a silent march from the World Trade Center site. The charges were dismissed.

The sponsors of an event planned for Jan. 15, 2004, in honor of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday were listed in one of the reports, which noted that it was a protest against “the R.N.C., the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.” It mentioned that three members of the City Council at the time, Charles Barron, Bill Perkins and Larry B. Seabrook, “have endorsed this event.”

Others supporting it, the report said, were the New York City AIDS Housing Network, the Arab Muslim American Foundation, Activists for the Liberation of Palestine, Queers for Peace and Justice and the 1199 Bread and Roses Cultural Project.

Many of the 1,806 people arrested during the convention were held for up to two days on minor offenses normally handled with a summons; the city Law Department said the preconvention intelligence justified detaining them all for fingerprinting.

Mr. Browne said that 18 months of preparation by the police had allowed hundreds of thousands of people to demonstrate while also ensuring that the Republican delegates were able to hold their convention with relatively few disruptions.

“We attributed the successful policing of the convention to a host of N.Y.P.D. activities leading up to the R.N.C., including 18 months of intensive planning,” he said. “It was a great success, and despite provocations, such as demonstrators throwing faux feces in the faces of police officers, the N.Y.P.D. showed professionalism and restraint.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/ny...ltrate.html?hp





Terror Database Has Quadrupled In Four Years

U.S. Watch Lists Are Drawn From Massive Clearinghouse
Karen DeYoung

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field reports, captured documents, news from foreign allies and sometimes idle gossip -- arrive in a computer-filled office in McLean, where analysts feed them into the nation's central list of terrorists and terrorism suspects.

Called TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, the list is a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States. It is the wellspring for watch lists distributed to airlines, law enforcement, border posts and U.S. consulates, created to close one of the key intelligence gaps revealed after Sept. 11, 2001: the failure of federal agencies to share what they knew about al-Qaeda operatives.

But in addressing one problem, TIDE has spawned others. Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it. "The single biggest worry that I have is long-term quality control," said Russ Travers, in charge of TIDE at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean. "Where am I going to be, where is my successor going to be, five years down the road?"

TIDE has also created concerns about secrecy, errors and privacy. The list marks the first time foreigners and U.S. citizens are combined in an intelligence database. The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, Travers acknowledged.

The watch lists fed by TIDE, used to monitor everyone entering the country or having even a casual encounter with federal, state and local law enforcement, have a higher bar. But they have become a source of irritation -- and potentially more serious consequences -- for many U.S. citizens and visitors.

In 2004 and 2005, misidentifications accounted for about half of the tens of thousands of times a traveler's name triggered a watch-list hit, the Government Accountability Office reported in September. Congressional committees have criticized the process, some charging that it collects too much information about Americans, others saying it is ineffective against terrorists. Civil rights and privacy groups have called for increased transparency.

"How many are on the lists, how are they compiled, how is the information used, how do they verify it?" asked Lillie Coney, associate director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. Such information is classified, and individuals barred from traveling are not told why.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said last year that his wife had been delayed repeatedly while airlines queried whether Catherine Stevens was the watch-listed Cat Stevens. The listing referred to the Britain-based pop singer who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The reason Islam is not allowed to fly to the United States is secret.

So is the reason Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, remains on the State Department's consular watch list. Detained in New York while en route to Montreal in 2002, Arar was sent by the U.S. government to a year of imprisonment in Syria. Canada, the source of the initial information about Arar, cleared him of all terrorism allegations last September -- three years after his release -- and has since authorized $9 million in compensation.

TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the data. "What's the alternative?" Travers said. "I work under the assumption that we're never going to have perfect information -- fingerprints, DNA -- on 6 billion people across the planet. . . . If someone actually has a better idea, I'm all ears."

'Thousands of Messages'

The electronic journey a piece of terrorism data takes from an intelligence outpost to an airline counter is interrupted at several points for analysis and condensation.

President Bush ordered the intelligence community in 2003 to centralize data on terrorism suspects, and U.S. agencies at home and abroad now send everything they collect to TIDE. It arrives electronically as names to be added or as additional information about people already in the system.

The 80 TIDE analysts get "thousands of messages a day," Travers said, much of the data "fragmentary," "inconsistent" and "sometimes just flat-out wrong." Often the analysts go back to the intelligence agencies for details. "Sometimes you'll get sort of corroborating information," he said, "but many times you're not going to get much. What we use here, rightly or wrongly, is a reasonable-suspicion standard."

Each TIDE listee is given a number, and statistics are kept on nationality and ethnic and religious groups. Some files include aliases and sightings, and others are just a full or partial name, perhaps with a sketchy biography. Sunni and Shiite Muslims are the fastest-growing categories in a database whose entries include Saudi financiers and Colombian revolutionaries. U.S. citizens -- who Travers said make up less than 5 percent of listings -- are included if an "international terrorism nexus" is established. A similar exception for the administration's warrantless wiretap program came under court challenge from privacy and civil rights advocates.

Information Sharing

Every night at 10, TIDE dumps an unclassified version of that day's harvest -- names, dates of birth, countries of origin and passport information -- into a database belonging to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. TIDE's most sensitive information is not included. The FBI adds data about U.S. suspects with no international ties for a combined daily total of 1,000 to 1,500 new names.

Between 5 and 6 a.m., a shift of 24 analysts drawn from the agencies that use watch lists begins a new winnowing process at the center's Crystal City office. The analysts have access to case files at TIDE and the original intelligence sources, said the center's acting director, Rick Kopel.

Decisions on what to add to the Terrorist Screening Center master list are made by midafternoon. The bar is higher than TIDE's; total listings were about 235,000 names as of last fall, according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. The bar is then raised again as agencies decide which names to put on their own watch lists: the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" and "selectee" lists for airlines; Consular Lookout and Support System at the State Department; the Interagency Border and Inspection System at the Department of Homeland Security; and the Justice Department's National Crime Information Center. The criteria each agency use are classified, Kopel said.

Some information may raise a red flag for one agency but not another. "There's a big difference between CLASS and no-fly," Kopel said, referring to State's consular list. "About the only criteria CLASS has is that you're not a U.S. person. . . . Say 'a Mohammed from Syria.' That's useless for me to watch-list here in the United States. But if I'm in Damascus processing visas . . . that might be enough for someone to . . . put a hold on the visa process."

All of the more than 30,000 individuals on the TSA's no-fly list are prohibited from entering an aircraft in the United States. People whose names appear on the longer selectee list -- those the government believes merit watching but does not bar from travel -- are supposed to be subjected to more intense scrutiny.

With little to go on beyond names, airlines find frequent matches. The screening center agent on call will check the file for markers such as sex, age and prior "encounters" with the list. The agent might ask the airlines about the passenger's eye color, height or defining marks, Kopel said. "We'll say, 'Does he have any rings on his left hand?' and they'll say, 'Uh, he doesn't have a left hand.' Okay. We know that [the listed person] lost his left hand making a bomb."

If the answers indicate a match, that "encounter" is fed back into the FBI screening center's files and ultimately to TIDE. Kopel said the agent never tells the airline whether the person trying to board is the suspect. The airlines decide whether to allow the customer to fly.

TSA receives thousands of complaints each year, such as this one released to the Electronic Privacy Information Center in 2004 under the Freedom of Information Act: "Apparently, my name is on some watch list because everytime I fly, I get delayed while the airline personnel call what they say is TSA," wrote a passenger whose name was blacked out. Noting that he was a high-level federal worker, he asked what he could do to remove his name from the list.

The answer, Kopel said, is little. A unit at the screening center responds to complaints, he said, but will not remove a name if it is shared by a terrorism suspect. Instead, people not on the list who share a name with someone listed can be issued letters instructing airline personnel to check with the TSA to verify their identity. The GAO reported that 31 names were removed in 2005.

A Process Under Fire

A recent review of the entire Terrorist Screening Center database was temporarily abandoned when it proved too much work even for the night crew, which generally handles less of a workload. But the no-fly and selectee lists are being scrubbed to emphasize "people we think are a danger to the plane, and not for some other reason they met the criteria," Kopel said.

A separate TSA system that would check every passenger name against the screening center's database has been shelved over concern that it could grow into a massive surveillance program. The Department of Homeland Security was rebuked by Congress in December for trying to develop a risk-assessment program to profile travelers entering and leaving the United States based on airline and financial data.

Kopel insisted that private information on Americans, such as credit-card records, never makes it into the screening center database and that "we rely 100 percent on government-owned information."

The center came in for ridicule last year when CBS's "60 Minutes" noted that 14 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were listed -- five years after their deaths. Kopel defended the listings, saying that "we know for a fact that these people will use names that they believe we are not going to list because they're out of circulation -- either because they're dead or incarcerated. . . . It's not willy-nilly. Every name on the list, there's a reason that it's on there."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032400944.html





Ordinary Customers Flagged as Terrorists
Ellen Nakashima

Private businesses such as rental and mortgage companies and car dealers are checking the names of customers against a list of suspected terrorists and drug traffickers made publicly available by the Treasury Department, sometimes denying services to ordinary people whose names are similar to those on the list.

The Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of "specially designated nationals" has long been used by banks and other financial institutions to block financial transactions of drug dealers and other criminals. But an executive order issued by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has expanded the list and its consequences in unforeseen ways. Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area to be issued today.

"The way in which the list is being used goes far beyond contexts in which it has a link to national security," said Shirin Sinnar, the report's author. "The government is effectively conscripting private businesses into the war on terrorism but doing so without making sure that businesses don't trample on individual rights."

The lawyers' committee has documented at least a dozen cases in which U.S. customers have had transactions denied or delayed because their names were a partial match with a name on the list, which runs more than 250 pages and includes 3,300 groups and individuals. No more than a handful of people on the list, available online, are U.S. citizens.

Yet anyone who does business with a person or group on the list risks penalties of up to $10 million and 10 to 30 years in prison, a powerful incentive for businesses to comply. The law's scope is so broad and guidance so limited that some businesses would rather deny a transaction than risk criminal penalties, the report finds.

"The law is ridiculous," said Tom Hudson, a lawyer in Hanover, Md., who advises car dealers to use the list to avoid penalties. "It prohibits anyone from doing business with anyone who's on the list. It does not have a minimum dollar amount. . . . The local deli, if it sells a sandwich to someone whose name appears on the list, has violated the law."

Molly Millerwise, a Treasury Department spokeswomen, acknowledged that there are "challenges" in complying with the rules but said that the department has extensive guidance on compliance, both on the OFAC Web site and in workshops with industry representatives. She also said most businesses can root out "false positives" on their own. If not, OFAC suggests contacting the firm that provided the screening software or calling an OFAC hotline.

"So the company is not only sure that they are complying with the law," she said, "but they're also being good corporate citizens to make sure they're doing their part to protect the U.S. financial system from abuse by terrorists or [weapons] proliferators or drug traffickers."

Tom Kubbany is neither a terrorist nor a drug trafficker, has average credit and has owned homes in the past, so the Northern California mental-health worker was baffled when his mortgage broker said lenders were not interested in him. Reviewing his loan file, he discovered something shocking. At the top of his credit report was an OFAC alert provided by credit bureau TransUnion that showed that his middle name, Hassan, is an alias for Ali Saddam Hussein, purportedly a "son of Saddam Hussein."

The record is not clear on whether Ali Saddam Hussein was a Hussein offspring, but the OFAC list stated he was born in 1980 or 1983. Kubbany was born in Detroit in 1949.

Under OFAC guidance, the date discrepancy signals a false match. Still, Kubbany said, the broker decided not to proceed. "She just talked with a bunch of lenders over the phone and they said, 'No,' " he said. "So we said, 'The heck with it. We'll just go somewhere else.' "

Kubbany and his wife are applying for another loan, though he worries that the stigma lingers. "There's a dark cloud over us," he said. "We will never know if we had qualified for the mortgage last summer, then we might have been in a house now."

Saad Ali Muhammad is an African American who was born in Chicago and converted to Islam in 1980. When he tried to buy a used car from a Chevrolet dealership three years ago, a salesman ran his credit report and at the top saw a reference to "OFAC search," followed by the names of terrorists including Osama bin Laden. The only apparent connection was the name Muhammad. The credit report, also by TransUnion, did not explain what OFAC was or what the credit report user should do with the information. Muhammad wrote to TransUnion and filed a complaint with a state human rights agency, but the alert remains on his report, Sinnar said.

Colleen Tunney-Ryan, a TransUnion spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that clients using the firm's credit reports are solely responsible for any action required by federal law as a result of a potential match and that they must agree they will not take any adverse action against a consumer based solely on the report.

The lawyers' committee documented other cases, including that of a couple in Phoenix who were about to close on their first home, only to be told the sale could not proceed because the husband's first and last names -- common Hispanic names -- matched an entry on the OFAC list. The entry did not include a date or place of birth, which could have helped distinguish the individuals.

In another case, a Roseville, Calif., couple wanted to buy a treadmill from a home fitness store on a financing plan. A bank representative told the salesperson that because the husband's first name was Hussein, the couple would have to wait 72 hours while they were investigated. Though the couple eventually received the treadmill, they were so embarrassed by the incident they did not want their names in the report, Sinnar said.

James Maclin, a vice president at Mid-America Apartment Communities in Memphis, which owns 39,000 apartment units in the Southeast, said the screening has become "industry standard" in the apartment rental business. It began about three years ago, he said, spurred by banks that wanted companies they worked with to comply with the law.

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, has studied the list and at one point found only one U.S. citizen on it. "It sounds like overly cautious companies have started checking the list in situations where there's no obligation they do so and virtually no chance that anyone they deal with would actually be on the list," he said. "For all practical purposes, landlords do not need to check the list."

Still, Neil Leverenz, chief executive of Automotive Compliance Center in Phoenix, a firm that helps auto dealers comply with federal law, said he spoke to the general manager of a Tucson dealership who tearfully told him that if he had known to check the OFAC list in late summer of 2001, he would not have sold the car used by Mohamed Atta, who went on to fly a plane into the World Trade Center.

Staff researchers Bob Lyford and Richard Drezen contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032602088.html





New Driver's License OK'd for Border

Gregoire signs test program to allow non-passport travel
Kristen Millares Bolt

The state's upcoming alternative "enhanced" driver's license -- which Washington residents will be able to use for crossing the Canadian border in lieu of a passport -- is necessary to boost security while preserving the cross-border flow of trade and tourism, Gov. Chris Gregoire said Friday.

The law, signed by Gregoire Friday, launches a pilot program agreed upon between the state and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, whose Secretary Michael Chertoff said that at least one other state has expressed interest in following Washington's lead.

Citing the $35 million in goods flowing both ways daily through the U.S.-Canadian border crossing at Blaine, Gregoire said the law will help Washington keep the benefits expected to spill south from the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver.

"May these gates never be closed," Gregoire said, quoting a phrase inscribed on the Peace Arch, built in Blaine in 1921 as a monument to world peace and the openness of the U.S.-Canadian border on which it rises.

The agreement allows state residents to apply for the $40 voluntary driver's license, which will be loaded with proof of citizenship and other information, beginning January 2008. It is in effect until at least June 2009, the deadline imposed by Homeland Security's Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. As early as January 2008, that initiative may require presentation of a valid U.S. passport or another Department of Homeland Security-approved document by U.S. citizens re-entering the U.S. by land or sea, including ferries, from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean or Bermuda.

The "enhanced" driver's license created by Gregoire's pilot program could serve as a passport-alternative if approved by Homeland Security. Gregoire said the program would be self-supporting financially, relying on the $40 fee to offset the costs of implementation.

Gregoire and Chertoff touted the new driver's license as a cheaper, more convenient alternative to applying for a $97 passport (which costs $67 to renew every 15 years). Regular driver's licenses cost $25 to renew every five years.

The alternative license will contain a Radio Frequency Identification chip, commonly known as RFID, which the guard booths will use to scan the license as a traveler or trucker pulls up to the booth. U.S. passports issued since late 2006 already contain RFID chips.

The alternative license, which Chertoff likened to the E-Z-Pass often used at tolling stations in other parts of the country, also allows the guards to check the driver's criminal history through a series of databases, flagging those with convictions. Gregoire said there was potential for more databases to be added to the card's access.

Citing the 9/11 Commission's support for more secure documentation for U.S. entry, Chertoff pointed out that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents currently must look at more than 8,000 different forms of identification, whether birth certificates, driver's licenses or other documents.

Canadian Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day said that the Canadian government is developing a parallel "enhanced" driver's license system for Canadians. Currently, Canadian citizens must present a passport to enter the U.S. without a visa.

The U.S. and Canada are already cooperating on the NEXUS card, which facilitates border clearance for low-risk, pre-approved travelers between Canada and the U.S., whether by air, land, or sea.

Friday's announcement comes on the heels of last week's federal checkpoint set up outside of Forks for those driving south on U.S. Route 101, who were required to prove their U.S. citizenship. When asked if RFID scanning booths might be set up in different locales to expedite such checks, Chertoff said the federal checkpoint and state license programs should not be confused but did not explicitly rule out such a move.

Such checkpoints are not allowed by Washington state's constitution, but federal law supercedes state law.
CROSSING THE BORDER
Currently: Americans need a driver's license, or another official picture identification, and a birth certificate, to re-enter the U.S. by land or sea from Canada. Americans traveling by air need a passport.

Starting January 2008: Washingtonians can opt to use an alternative driver's license for B.C. border crossings.

Starting June 2009: Americans will need to present a passport to re-enter the U.S. by land or sea from Canada, though alternates such as Washington's may be acceptable.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._border24.html





Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID
Declan McCullagh

Hundreds of millions of Americans will have until 2013 to be outfitted with new digital ID cards, the Bush administration said on Thursday in a long-awaited announcement that reveals details of how the new identification plan will work.

The announcement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security offers a five-year extension to the deadline for states to issue the ID cards, and proposes creating the equivalent of a national database that would include details on all 240 million licensed drivers.

According to the draft regulations, which were required by Congress in the 2005 Real ID Act and are unlikely to assuage privacy and cost concerns raised by state legislatures:

• The Real ID cards must include all drivers' home addresses and other personal information printed on the front and in a two-dimensional barcode on the back. The barcode will not be encrypted because of "operational complexity," which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses.

• A radio frequency identification (RFID) tag is under consideration. Homeland Security is asking for input on how the licenses could incorporate "RFID-enabled vicinity chip technology, in addition to" the two-dimensional barcode requirement.

• States must submit a plan of how they'll comply with the Real ID Act by October 7, 2007. If they don't, their residents will not be able to use IDs to board planes or enter federal buildings starting on May 11, 2008.

• Homeland Security is considering standardizing a "unique design or color for Real ID licenses," which would effectively create a uniform national ID card.

Thursday's draft regulations arrive amid a groundswell of opposition to the Real ID Act from privacy groups, libertarians and state officials. On Wednesday, the National Governors Association endorsed a bill by Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, that would reduce Homeland Security's power to order states to comply with the law.

The draft rules, which are not final and will be subject to a public comment period, also include a more detailed estimate of how much it will cost to comply. The National Conference of State Legislatures and other state groups estimated last year that states will have to spend more than $11 billion. But Homeland Security says the total cost--including the cost to individuals--will be $23.1 billion over a 10-year period.

Another section of the 162-page regulations says that states have until December 31, 2009, to certify that they're on the path toward fully complying with the Real ID Act.

Push for repeal continues
Opponents of the Real ID Act, who have been advising states to publicly oppose the system, said that the draft rules are insufficiently privacy-protective and reiterated their call for a repeal of the entire law.

"We still need dramatic legislative action from Congress," said Tim Sparapani, legislative counsel for the ACLU, which runs the RealNightmare.org site. "We've got to wipe out the underlying act."

Sparapani and his allies of more than 50 groups, including the National Organization for Women and United Automobile Workers, sent a letter on Monday endorsing a bill to repeal the Real ID Act. The letter says it was a "poorly-conceived law that can never be made to work in any fair or reasonable manner."

The ACLU believes Collins' bill is only a half-hearted step that doesn't go as far as it should. Other proposals include one from Rep. Thomas Allen, a Maine Democrat, that would rewrite the Real ID Act, insert privacy safeguards, and hand $2.4 billion to states over an eight-year period. On Wednesday, Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, and Daniel Akaka, a Hawaii Democrat, reintroduced a broader bill to repeal portions of the existing law.

Some state governments, such as Maine, already have come out against the Real ID Act--a move that effectively dares the federal government to continue even when some states refuse to participate. At least eight states (including Arizona, Georgia, and Vermont) have had anti-Real ID bills approved by one or both chambers of the legislature.

For their part, proponents of the Real ID Act say it's designed to implement proposals suggested by the 9/11 Commission, which noted that some of the hijackers on September 11, 2001, had fraudulently obtained state driver's licenses. But not all did: at least one hijacker simply showed his foreign passport and walked onto the airplane that day.

The Bush administration and many congressional Republicans have defended the Real ID Act as a way to stop future terrorist attacks and deter illegal immigrants.

"Raising the security standards on driver's licenses establishes another layer of protection to prevent terrorists from obtaining and using fake documents to plan or carry out an attack," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement. "These standards correct glaring vulnerabilities exploited by some of the 9/11 hijackers who used fraudulently obtained drivers licenses to board the airplanes in their attack against America."

A 23-page report released this week by Janice Kephart, a former lawyer with the 9/11 Commission, defended the Real ID Act by calling it a "significant step in enhancing our national and economic security and our public safety." Kephart is now president of 9/11 Security Solutions.

States bowing out of Real ID requirements is "not the way to secure America," the report says. "Embedding identity security into state-issued (ID card) systems will take significant planning to fulfill the requirements of Real ID and significant financial resources for the 'brick and mortar' start-up costs. Congress must step up to the plate and make securing of identity documents the national priority that our citizens deserve."

The Real ID Act passed Congress as part of an $82 billion military spending bill that also included funds for tsunami relief. No up-or-down vote on solely the Real ID Act took place in the entire Congress, though the House of Representatives did approve the rules by a 261-161 vote.
http://news.com.com/Homeland+Securit...3-6163509.html





Rockefeller: Should CIA Prisons Stay?
Katherine Shrader

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is questioning whether the CIA's secret prison program — which he fears has become a black eye to the United States — should continue.

The review led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., comes as the Bush administration deliberates an executive order, called for by Congress, that will establish new guidelines for the CIA's system for detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. It is the agency's most publicly controversial intelligence collection program.

Rockefeller says there is no doubt that intelligence from detainees has been valuable. Yet he says he wonders whether the CIA needed to create a system outside of long-standing FBI and military interrogation programs.

Rockefeller's spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi, said he has not been convinced that the CIA prisons produce better intelligence than the FBI and military systems.

"The real question is whether the administration's decision to pursue an alternate system (at the CIA) was the right approach," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.

President Bush said he emptied the CIA's secret prisons in September and sent its last 14 high-value detainees to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But he left open the possibility that the program could be used again.

As chairman, Rockefeller has promised to conduct more vigorous oversight of the spy agencies than did his Republican predecessor. He is asking whether having a separate CIA detention and interrogation system is necessary and worth the toll on the U.S. image abroad.

"The widespread reports about secret prisons and torture, whether accurate or not, have damaged the United States' reputation around the world and hindered counterterrorism efforts with our allies," he said.

Human rights groups have argued for years that the CIA's detention and interrogation techniques amount to torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only independent watchdog to interview the 14 detainees who were held by the CIA.

In a confidential report that has not been publicly distributed, the Red Cross said the 14 prisoners described highly abusive interrogation methods, especially when techniques such sleep deprivation and forced standing were used in combination. None of the detainees' accounts has been verified.

U.S. officials long have said the CIA program is for the most dangerous detainees and the CIA says its officers do not torture. "The agency's terrorist interrogation program has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review, producing vital information that has helped disrupt plots and save lives," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said.

As part of the Senate committee's work, members have visited the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay; such fact-finding trips are expected to continue.

The committee held a private hearing last month on CIA renditions — the practice of grabbing suspected terrorists in one country and delivering them to another country. A committee hearing planned for April 10 will focus on CIA detention.

The committee also is reviewing classified documents on the CIA's secret prisons.

One committee aide said that for some time the administration would not brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees on the program's most sensitive aspects and limited those briefings to just a few members. More recently, the administration has begun giving more complete information to the full Senate committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing office policy.

A former senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while discussing internal administration policies, said the CIA had kept the committees informed as much as possible under the White House's rules.

The House committee, led by Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, has had private briefings with CIA Director Michael Hayden and expects more. Reyes wants to see the Justice Department's legal memos justifying the CIA program.

"The chairman is not going to approve any intelligence activity until he has an opportunity to review the legal basis for it," said a House committee aide who was authorized to speak to reporters only if not identified.

The Justice Department, the CIA and the White House have worked for five months on an executive order that will provide more clarity on the administration's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, possibly changing what is allowed during CIA interrogations.

The document will prove important to members of Congress who are evaluating the CIA program. It also will be critical to CIA officers, who do not want to be involved in operations that could put them in legal jeopardy.

"At the end of the day, the director — any director — of the CIA must be confident that what he has asked an agency officer to do under this program is lawful," Hayden wrote in a September memo to employees.

A spokesman for Bush's National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, said government officials have been discussing the executive order, which will take several weeks to complete.

"This process required additional time as new officials, including the defense secretary, director of national intelligence and White House counsel, were brought into the deliberations," Johndroe said.

The CIA's detention practices raised concerns almost from the day that the agency began questioning people with suspected terrorist links. Early in the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, senior military officers took steps to ensure that military personnel were not in the room during CIA interrogations, a government official familiar with military and intelligence operations told The Associated Press last year.

Bush did not acknowledge the CIA's secret detention program until September, when he announced that the agency had just moved al-Qaida operational planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay.

"Terrorists in this program have painted a picture of al-Qaida's structure and financing, and communications and logistics," Bush said, as he made the case that the CIA's interrogation work was tough, lawful and invaluable.

Rockefeller said the goal must be to get intelligence in a legal, effective way — "in a manner that promotes the national security interests of the United States."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/4658521.html





Every Child to be Screened for Risk of Turning Criminal Under Blair Justice Plan

• Police would demand DNA samples from all suspects
• Tories condemn strategy as 'nanny state gone mad'

Alan Travis

A new-style "11-plus" to assess the risk every child in Britain runs of turning to crime was among a battery of proposals unveiled in Tony Blair's crime plan yesterday.

The children of prisoners, problem drug users and others at high risk of offending will also face being "actively managed" by social services and youth justice workers. New technologies are to be used to boost police detection rates while DNA samples are to be taken from any crime suspect who comes into contact with the police.

The "early intervention" approach is part of a package of proposals on security, crime and justice produced by Downing Street which underline the scale of criminal justice reform Mr Blair believes is still needed despite passing 53 law and order bills since he came to power in 1997.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, focused his criticism on the extension of the DNA database to any crime suspect and the early intervention plans for children. He described the proposal to assess every child for risk of offending as the "nanny state gone mad" while he said the Conservatives would have "great and grave concerns" about any extension of the DNA database.

A Home Office spokeswoman said the universal checks on children would look at factors including attainment at school, truancy rates, and substance abuse.

A high-level review of the police that will not address the vexed question of force mergers is also planned, as are an extension of "summary justice" measures and tougher community punishments with the creation of specialist new courts. The plan is sprinkled with eye-catching initiatives such as MP3 music players that can be accessed only with the owner's fingerprints, crowd scanners that detect bombs and efficiency league tables for courts.

The crime package, agreed by the cabinet 12 days ago, came without any time-table or costings and some proposals - such as "hybrid prisons" to treat mentally ill offenders - are clearly labelled as "for the long term". In some parts of Whitehall yesterday the plan was described at best as "blue skies thinking" and at worst as "undeliverable". Opposition MPs wasted no time in criticising it as the PM's swansong after "10 years of failure".

But Mr Blair made clear yesterday that the pace of public service reform in criminal justice needed to match that in health and education. Despite some headlines suggesting the crime plan had been designed to cut the record prison population of 80,000, the 105-page strategy paper talks only of "stabilising sentencing" rather than cutting prisoner numbers.

"This is not an alternative to prison, it is in addition to prison," said Mr Blair before highlighting a renewed drive to focus on the 100,000 prolific "career criminals" responsible for the bulk of crime.

Mr Blair also focused on a proposed new "prolific offender order" under which several hundred "hardcore" career criminals would only be released from prison under licence for the rest of their lives. Those who breach the conditions of their licences - including a ban on associating with known criminals - could face up to a further three years in jail.

"These people have serious problems and targeting the offender means taking those problems seriously. And we have proof that it works," said Mr Blair.

But Home Office research published yesterday appeared to undermine the claim, pointing out that although the results were encouraging "no specific conclusions could be drawn" from an initial drop in offending rates amongst 7,800 "career criminals" on the prolific offender programme since 2004.

The measures in the plan aimed at tackling mental health and drug problems among prisoners were widely welcomed yesterday, with the Liberal Democrats claiming the prime minister had finally adopted their policies.

The package leaves a question mark over the future of the Home Office with a policy paper talking of the need for a "strong, strategic centre" in government to provide the political leadership to deal with the terrorist threat. But the announcement on splitting John Reid's department into two separate ministries of national security and justice has yet to be made.

The wide-ranging strategy document touches on questions of immigration and asylum, raising the prospect of a review of the impact of human rights legislation in this area and holding out the possibility of a "duty to integrate" being imposed on new migrants.

Early intervention

• Vulnerable children and "those at risk of criminality", including those whose parents are in prison and/or among the 300,000 problem drug abusers, are to be "actively case managed" by Children's Trust social services staff and youth justice workers from "the earliest possible point".

• Universal checks on every child throughout his or her development to help "service providers" identify those most at risk of offending throughout their development, including at 11 when they go to secondary school.

• Preventative programmes to tackle social exclusion, drugs and alcohol abuse.

Detecting crime and enforcing the law

• New types of summary powers, including a "criminal benefit order" to seize the assets of offenders in low-value cases, confiscate "lifestyle assets" such as jewellery, plasma TV screens and laptops, and scrap the current 12-year time limit on asset recovery cases. Expansion of existing "on-the-spot" fines to deal with offenders without going to court.

• Greater use of new technology, including mobile fingerprint readers for the police, crowd scanners that detect bomb-related devices, developing fingerprint-only access MP3 players and expanding the DNA database to all suspects who come into contact with the police. The last proposals would bring hundreds of thousands more people within the scope of the police DNA database. Downing Street says it is also looking at more advanced forms of CCTV, including systems that allow facial recognition of individuals and can scan postal packages for explosive devices.

• Launch of a review of the police, headed by Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, looking into the options for reducing bureaucracy, increasing local accountability and spreading the use of neighbourhood policing teams.

Courts and sentencing

• In the face of a record 80,000 prison population the government now says it wants to "stabilise sentencing" by making non-custodial sentences more effective and to strengthen the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes in prison. In the long term "hybrid prisons" will be set up to treat mentally ill offenders.

• The performance of the courts to be driven up by publishing league tables of efficiency, "virtual courts" to be created using video-link technology so defendants can be dealt with in police stations, and community justice and specialist courts set up to deal with those with mental health problems and others. Greater involvement of voluntary organisations and charities. Also, the introduction of "review courts" under which the same judge looks at the progress of an offender after sentence.

• Step up the pace of workforce reform among court, probation and prison staff with greater use of private sector competition, and break down traditional demarcations.

Prolific Offenders

• A merger of the prolific offenders and drug intervention programmes which are aimed at the 100,000 "career criminals" who are responsible for half of all crime. A new "prolific offender licence" which would see the 500 most prolific offenders placed on licence when they are released from prison for the rest of their lives. Conditions attached might include a ban on associating with known criminals. This is a relaunch of the 2004 crime plan, which led to the prolific offenders' programme. The government claimed yesterday it had been a success because conviction rates of those on the programme had fallen by 43%. But actual figures show that the 7,800 offenders on the programme had been convicted of 55,000 offences in the 17 months before they went on the scheme and convicted of 31,377 crimes after they started, hardly a ringing endorsement of a flagship government programme.

Immigration and community cohesion

• Review the human rights laws to ensure they do not restrict implementation of the government's asylum and immigration policies.

• Rigorously enforce the responsibilities of migrants in Britain, including compulsory health insurance for visitors who come to the country on work permits.

• The duty on new migrants to integrate into British society is to be defined.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...044296,00.html





Mind How You Walk. It Could be a Crime
Philip Johnston

Later today, the Commons home affairs select committee will announce it is to conduct an inquiry into the growth of surveillance in Britain. It is tempting to say this is not before time, but it is probably too late if the aim is to have any influence over policy.

We are already a "surveillance society". We are, for the time being, fortunate that the full potential for its abuse is constrained by the pluralist democracy in which we live. However, we do not have to look back very far in history to imagine the use to which such snooping could be put.

In the media, whenever we wish to describe the burgeoning intrusiveness of the past decade, we are inevitably drawn to one of our greatest writers, George Orwell - although even he could not have envisaged that, in addition to the ubiquitous cameras, it would be possible to track everyone from cradle to grave through computer-chip technology or to build up a database of the population's DNA. But he would have understood why it is being done.

In 1984, it is about control. The state tells its people that the cameras are there for their benefit and to prevent crime, but the crime they are preventing is insurrection. Everyone is watched to ensure they conform.

Winston Smith can never get away from the surveillance. At one point, he realises how dangerous it is even to allow his thoughts to wander in public or when facing the telescreen. Facial expressions were watched closely and could have dire consequences.

Giving a disbelieving look when a state policy or a military victory was announced was considered a "facecrime". There would have been a lot of facecriminals around on Budget day last week.

OK, so we have not gone that far. But the point is that we could. In the wrong hands, technology that appears benign can be used to shackle. Within the lifetimes of millions alive today, there were totalitarian regimes that would have made the most appalling use of such opportunities.

I have no doubt that our political masters believe the rapid expansion of CCTV cameras, for instance, is good for us. Indeed, that would be the view of most people, who seem happy with the cameras.

It stands to reason that if you have a camera trained on a shopping centre, a car park, a hotel lobby or a bus stop, we must be safer.

Well, actually, it does not follow at all. One problem is that cameras take the place of other forms of crime prevention, such as more police or better street lighting.

You might feel safer and the mugger may well think twice before striking if he thinks a CCTV camera is about. But they can engender complacency; and if cameras are so effective in preventing crime, why have the numbers of town-centre assaults and robberies shot up even as CCTV has mushroomed?

The iconic CCTV images we all remember are of crimes happening, or about to happen, not of them being prevented: the grainy image of Jamie Bulger being led away by two boys to his death; Jill Dando shopping before she was murdered on her doorstep; the four July 7 bombers boarding a train at Luton en route to London.

Perhaps CCTV will lead police in Jamaica to the killer of Bob Woolmer. But even as a detection tool, CCTV has been found wanting. A review carried out by Home Office experts and police chiefs has found that too many images are hard to access.

The next generation of CCTV will be far more sophisticated than the analogue video cameras we have now. The new ones will be smart digital technologies able to "decide" if a crime is about to happen and focus in on suspicious activity rather than on everything, making it easier to go back over the images.

These intelligent cameras can tell if someone is spraying graffiti on a wall because they have "learnt" what normal behaviour should be within their field of vision.

Similarly, a camera trained on a car park will be activated only if it detects someone going from car to car. An airport camera can be programmed to know what a departure hall should look like, with thousands of separate movements. A single suitcase left for any length of time would trigger an alarm.

This technology was developed for use in hotels to alert staff to a breakfast tray left outside a room. Soon, it will be coming to a street near you.

Why not go the whole hog and have microphones attached to cameras or embedded in street lights? The Dutch have pioneered a system that recognises aggressive sounds, without actually eavesdropping on conversations (perish the thought).

My favourite is automatic gait recognition. This identifies people by the way they walk and the Government has asked Ministry of Defence scientists to develop it for widespread use.

Cameras are programmed to pick up on a particular gait, thereby making it impossible for a suspect to escape by covering his face. Even Orwell did not come up with "gaitcrime".

It is right that the home affairs select committee should look at this, although it is hard to see what it can do about it. We already have close to five million CCTV cameras, which is one fifth of the world's total.

The average Londoner might be monitored by 300 CCTV cameras a day. They are not going to be switched off, merely made more sophisticated.

But the committee can do one thing and that is alert the country to the potential dangers of putting all this surveillance together - the CCTV, DNA, ID card, radio-frequency identification, citizens' database - and linking it up with the rest of the information held on us.

Whatever can be said for the value of any one of these, it is the combination that makes me feel uneasy. I just hope it doesn't show on my face.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../26/do2602.xml





McLean Students Sue Anti-Cheating Service

Plaintiffs Say Company's Database of Term Papers, Essays Violates Copyright Laws
Maria Glod

Two McLean High School students have launched a court challenge against a California company hired by their school to catch cheaters, claiming the anti-plagiarism service violates copyright laws.

The lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, seeks $900,000 in damages from the for-profit service known as Turnitin. The service seeks to root out cheaters by comparing student term papers and essays against a database of more than 22 million student papers as well as online sources and electronic archives of journals. In the process, the student papers are added to the database.

Two Arizona high school students also are plaintiffs. None of the students is named in the lawsuit because they are minors.

"All of these kids are essentially straight-A students, and they have no interest in plagiarizing," said Robert A. Vanderhye, a McLean attorney representing the students pro bono. "The problem with [Turnitin] is the archiving of the documents. They are violating a right these students have to be in control of their own property."

Turnitin officials did not return calls for comment yesterday. A Fairfax County schools spokesman said the system would not comment on pending litigation.

The legal dispute comes amid a debate over the best way to ensure students are doing their own work at a time when the Internet can make it easy to cheat. Many educators, including Fairfax County school officials, say Turnitin is an effective way to police for plagiarism.

Attorneys for the company and various universities and public school systems, including Fairfax , have concluded that the service doesn't violate student rights. Turnitin is used by 6,000 institutions in 90 countries, including Harvard and Georgetown universities, company officials have said. Some public schools in Arlington, Prince George's and Loudoun counties use the service.

According to the lawsuit, each of the students obtained a copyright registration for papers they submitted to Turnitin. The lawsuit filed against Turnitin's parent company, iParadigms LLC, seeks $150,000 for each of six papers written by the students.

One of the McLean High plaintiffs wrote a paper titled "What Lies Beyond the Horizon." It was submitted to Turnitin with instructions that it not be archived, but it was, the lawsuit says.

Kevin Wade, that plaintiff's father, said he thinks schools should focus on teaching students cheating is wrong.

"You can't take a person's work and run it through a computer and make an honest person out of them," Wade said. "My son's major objection is that he does not cheat, and this assumes he does. This case is not about money, and we don't expect to get that."
Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, co-director of the intellectual property law program at Suffolk University Law School, said that although the law regarding fair use is subject to interpretation, he thinks the students have a good case.

"Typically, if you quote something for education purposes, scholarship or news reports, that's considered fair use," Beckerman-Rodau said. "But it seems like Turnitin is a commercial use. They turn around and sell this service, and it's expensive. And the service only works because they get these papers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032802038.html
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote