Norway's "DVD Jon" Seals Victory
OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegian police say they will not appeal a landmark DVD piracy case for a second time, marking a final victory for a 20-year-old hacker and a defeat for Hollywood.
An Oslo appeals court cleared 20-year-old Jon Johansen, dubbed "DVD Jon", of piracy charges in late December, angering the U.S. film industry which had hoped for a legal precedent to prevent unauthorised copying of DVDs around the world.
Norwegian police, which brought the charges on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), had considered appealing to Norway's Supreme Court by a two-week deadline from the December 22 ruling.
Police "have decided not to appeal the ruling in the DVD case. The acquittal in the District Court will therefore stand," they said in a statement, but gave no further detail.
The appeals court said Johansen, hailed by hackers worldwide as a hero for free speech, had not broken the law by helping to unlock a code and distribute a computer program on the Internet enabling unauthorised copying of DVD movies.
He made the program, called DeCSS, when he was only 15. Supporters worldwide have portrayed the trials as a David against Goliath battle over a teenager's right to free speech.
"This brings this case to a final end, following acquittals in both the district court and the appeals court," Johansen's lawyer Halvor Manshaus told Reuters. "I am pleased with the final outcome and so is my client."
The verdict was a major defeat for the MPAA, grouping Hollywood studios like Walt Disney Co., Universal Studios and Warner Bros, which had brought the case in a bid to stifle piracy that it says costs $3.0 billion a year in lost sales.
The studios feared an erosion of their DVD sales similar to that experienced by the music industry when Napster created a free service allowing online users to download digital free music from other users.
Napster, however, was successfully sued by the five largest record companies for copyright infringement, forcing it into bankruptcy.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040105/80/eic7o.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RealNetworks to Unveil New Media Player
Jon Healey
Upping the ante for computer programs that play movies and music, RealNetworks Inc. is expected today to unveil a new version of its signature digital media player.
RealPlayer 10 offers a downloadable music store as well as music videos and other video clips, songs on demand from selected albums, and the ability to pause and temporarily record live audio and video feeds from the Internet.
RealPlayer 10, which comes in free and premium versions, uses Real's software for deterring piracy, unlike other players and downloadable music stores. In an effort to bridge the compatibility gap, the player is designed to play files obtained from all the major online sources, including Apple Computer Inc.'s competing iTunes Music Store, and transfer them to any device able to play them.
Unlike other companies with media players, Real generates a significant portion of its revenue by selling access to online news, sports and entertainment clips.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DATA BECKER Introduces Private File Transfer, a New Tool for Safely Sharing Large Files
Software Allows Users to Share Files of Any Size and Format Through Standard PC Internet Connection
Press Release
DATA BECKER Corporation, a leading publisher of affordable, high-performance productivity software, today announced the release of Private File Transfer. The software application allows users to quickly and securely share files between two computers without the need of a server or additional Internet services.
Private File Transfer combines the premise of peer-to-peer networking with greater file sharing control, privacy and manageability. After selecting which files to share, the software generates and sends a Web link invitation via e-mail to the designated recipients. Clicking on the link brings each recipient to the secure folders of the host computer where files can then be downloaded or uploaded. Only the host computer needs Private File Transfer installed to move files between systems, further simplifying the file transfer process.
"Private File Transfer lets users share large documents and presentations, or swap feature-rich digital media such as video, music and photos without the complexity and cost of traditional file-sharing methods," said Andrew Langhauser, director of marketing at DATA BECKER Corporation. "Users no longer need to concern themselves with the technical complexities of FTP servers or the file size limitations of e-mail. They simply select the files they wish to share and with whom to share them."
Unlike mass peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, which can be insecure and highly unreliable due to mislabeled or corrupted files and dropped connections, Private File Transfer transmits files to and from verified, secure locations. Three levels of security, including password authentication and file-sharing limitation controls, protect the connection established by Private File Transfer.
Availability and Pricing
Private File Transfer is now available directly from DATA BECKER at
www.databecker.com and soon in retail stores throughout the United States and Canada. Suggested retail price for Private File Transfer is $49.95. For more information call DATA BECKER at 617-614-0600 or visit
www.databecker.com.
System Requirements
Private File Transfer requires Windows(TM) 98, 98SE, ME, XP, 2000; Pentium(TM)-compatible processor 300 or higher; 128 MB RAM; 40 MB of free hard drive space, high color, 16-bit graphics card with 4MB RAM, 800x600 resolution, Internet connection and CD-ROM Drive.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...&newsLang =en
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Device for DVD Movies Raises Legal Issue
PARIS - Hollywood's bid to control how its movies are copied, stored and played is being tested by an unlikely source: a former
French oil engineer in an out-of-the-way Paris suburb, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported.
Henri Crohas's company, Archos SA, makes a small hand-held device, like a bulky Palm Pilot, that can record and then play back scores of movies, TV shows and digital photos on its color screen or a TV set. The gadget -- which in effect does to movies what Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod does to music -- already has sold 100,000 units world-wide during the past six months, beating the big consumer electronics makers to the U.S. market.
Archos's device, which costs about $500 to $900 depending on the model, ignores an anticopying code found on a majority of prerecorded DVDs. That means consumers can plug the Archos device into a DVD player and transfer a movie to it. Users also can transfer recorded TV programs and digital music files to the Archos device. The Archos uses a video compression standard called MPEG-4 to cram as many as 320 hours of video at near-DVD quality onto its hard drive, the company says -- the equivalent of 160 two-hour movies.
A second kind of anticopying protection thwarts users from recording a playable copy of a DVD movie onto the hard-drive of a personal computer and then onto the Archos. But videos can be transferred from the Archos to a PC, where they could be burned onto a DVD or sent over the Internet, though that would likely violate copyright laws.
The gadgets alone aren't likely to spawn a Napster-style boom in online film piracy. Already, scofflaws with a PC equipped with a DVD player and special software can rip off films and share them over the Internet. And the process is slow: It takes as long to copy a DVD movie to the Archos device as it does to watch the movie. Still, Mr. Crohas and his 150-employee team at Archos ( pronounced AR kos) present a fresh headache for Hollywood because they show how the industry's campaign to keep control of its films could be challenged by small players.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/07/tech...e.dj/index.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brilliant Digital Entertainment Receives Notice of Delisting from American Stock Exchange; Company Will Appeal to Listing Qualifications Panel
Press Release
Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc. (AMEX:BDE) announced today that on January 5, 2004, the Company received notice from the American Stock Exchange that it intends to file an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission to remove the Company's common stock from listing and registration on AMEX. AMEX has permitted the Company's common stock to be listed pursuant to a waiver of certain quantitative listing requirements, which expired with the filing of the Company's September 30, 2003 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB. AMEX determined that the Company was not in compliance with the following continued listing standards:
(i) maintaining at least $4 million of stockholders' equity, having incurred losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in three of its four most recent fiscal years (at September 30, 2003, the Company's stockholders' equity was approximately $2,473,000);
(ii) maintaining at least $6 million of stockholders' equity, having incurred losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in its five most recent fiscal years;
(iii) sustaining losses which are so substantial in relation with its overall operations or its existing financial resources, or its financial condition has become so impaired that it appears questionable, in the opinion of AMEX, as to whether the Company will be able to continue operations and/or meet its obligations as they mature.
Brilliant intends to appeal AMEX's decision to a Listing Qualifications Panel, and to present its reasons in support of continued listing. The Company currently is negotiating with various parties to sell equity securities, convert or exchange existing indebtedness into equity securities, and otherwise reorganize its balance sheet in an effort to increase its stockholders' equity and improve its working capital position, and thus regain compliance with the AMEX continued listing requirements. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these efforts or, even if successful, that the Listing Qualifications Panel will permit the Company's common stock to remain listed on the American Stock Exchange. Pending the resolution of the appeal, the Company's common stock will continue to be listed on the American Stock Exchange. If the Company's common stock is delisted from AMEX, the Company expects that its shares will be eligible for quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board.
About Brilliant Digital Entertainment
Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc. (AMEX:BDE) is the parent company of Altnet inc. and a developer of 3D rich media advertising and content creation technologies for the Internet. The b3d rich media format is used to produce entertainment, advertising and music content for consumers distributed over the Internet. Find out more at
www.brilliantdigital.com.
About Altnet
Altnet is the leading peer-to-peer distributor of secure digital media that originates from content owners. Altnet reaches an estimated 100 million users and is the #1 issuer of rights managed music in the world. Altnet's products integrate with websites, applications, and peer-to- peer networks to allow Internet users to simply and easily locate, download, preview and purchase digital content. Altnet is a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment (AMEX:BDE).
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...&newsLang =en
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Infotainment to Hit $7.2B
Unstrung News
Not only are wireless Infotainment services expected to generate worldwide revenues of $7.2 billion by 2008, but their success can make the mobile phone, more than ever, the indispensable tool for modern living. These are some of the key findings from a new research report: "Mobile Infotainment: News, Travel & Information", now available from Alexander Resources, a leading research, consulting and education firm specializing in wireless communications.
According to the report, Infotainment encompasses Personal/Peer-to-Peer and Third Party services which are designed to support and enhance a user's daily life, while on the move. Personal/Peer-To-Peer services include Personal Data/Management, SMS and MMS messaging applications. Third Party services include three subsegments: Mobile News, Sports and Weather Services, Mobile Travel Services and TV, Celebrity, Financial & Other Services.
By supporting rather than competing with actual entertainment services, by improving the way subscribers communicate and manage their lives, by building on highly successful services and technologies such as text messaging, and by focusing on user's needs while on the move, Infotainment can make the mobile phone the focal point of a user's life. This increased reliance on the mobile phone is vital to the mobile industry as a whole and to its future profits, potentially positioning Infotainment as the cornerstone for future non-voice and voice-adjunct mobile services.
The report forecasts worldwide revenues for wireless Infotainment to grow from $1.5 billion in 2005 to $7.2 billion in 2008. To reach these revenues the market must first overcome some significant hurdles. These include market pricing, user willingness and ability to pay, the need for enhanced carrier billing systems, and improved security and privacy measures.
http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=45622
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peer-to-peer technique ramps up wireless speeds.
Software Change Supercharges 802.11 Chip
Ron Wilson
A new software package for use with the Prism Nitro 802.11 g wireless LAN chip promises to substantially increase throughput, in one mode of particular interest to home media network applications, to as much as 140 Mbits/s.
The software from parent Globespan/Virata exploits existing features in the Nitro chip, according to DAve Feller, Prism's director of wireless LAN products. This means that the fundamental media data rate, the modulation scheme and the 802.11 protection mechanisms remain untouched. The new software also leaves the device fully compatible with existing 802.11b or .11g equipment.
To reach the full 140 Mbits/s claimed at the top line, Prism has turned to an altogether proprietary technique: the new software establishes a peer-to-peer link directly between clients when they are passing data from one client to another. This is in contrast to the normal 802.11 architecture in which the data would move from the sending client to the access point, and then to the receiving point. "In effect, this doubles the available data rate, because you aren't transmitting the same data twice," Feller said.
In this mode the software sets up the peer-to-peer link automatically and transparently to the user while maintaining a side-channel connection to the access point. This preserves the security and power-management features of the network while eliminating the need to repeat the data transmission.
Feller explained that this mode would be used, for example, in home network applications where a user might send data to a printer from a digital camera, or might transmit a video stream from a DVD player in one room to a display in another.
http://www.commsdesign.com/showArtic...cleID=17300038
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
File sharers: don't crow yet.
The Recent Court Ruling Isn't The Latest Word On Digital Copying. Congress Will Have To Weigh In.
Editorial
As a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., points out, technology races so far ahead of judges and legislators that it's hard to know when using software, hardware and digital networks to copy intellectual property is, or should be, a crime.
The decision last month barring record companies from forcing Internet service providers to reveal the names of alleged music swappers was, on its face, a victory for consumer privacy rights. Though it won't halt the Recording Industry Assn. of America's legal onslaught against piracy the trade group has sent out nearly 3,000 subpoenas and sued 382 people since last summer it will slow it. It also may yellow-light similar anti-bootlegging efforts that the film industry has suggested it will begin this year.
Before the ruling, the RIAA simply had to request a subpoena from any U.S. district court clerk's office. Now, it must prove to a judge that it has sufficient evidence before naming any individual in a lawsuit and obtaining a subpoena. The judges drew useful distinctions between legitimate and excessive legal actions to defend property. The court, in effect, said the situation was analogous to letting a retailer safeguard its clothes with electronic tags and door guards but forbidding it to sneak into houses to find blouses without receipts.
The ruling, however, was not the triumph that some Internet file-sharing advocates claimed.
The judges mostly punted the gnarly issue to Congress, holding, "It is not the province of the courts
to rewrite [copyright law] in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."
When work began on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which laid the legal foundation for fighting digital piracy, lawmakers had no idea that file-sharing, MP3 players and other digital innovations would be so popular. The act, thus, has little useful to say about what sort of copying constitutes fair use.
That's why Congress should stop digging its head into the silicon and confront an issue it hasn't for years. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) should make good on his recent promise to herd the unruliest industry folks around a table and compel them to develop ways to take advantage of rather than just try to halt technology.
They could begin with an idea forwarded by Internet provider Verizon: to create licensed subscriptions with sharing included in the price. It's just a start. As Consumers Union has put it, "There are all sorts of ways to protect content that don't involve creating content prisons."
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Skype: Net Telephony as File-Trading
The peer-to-peer phone company, started by KaZaA's Scandinavian founders, aims to do to telecom what KaZaA did to the music biz
Alex Salkever
Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis could be the two most dangerous men on the Internet -- dangerous to entrenched business models, that is. The Scandinavian duo created the KaZaA file-swapping software that became the dominant online music-trading platform after lawsuits killed Napster in 2001. With tens of millions of Web surfers trading music files daily, KaZaA, as much as any other factor, forced the big recording labels to agree to offer music downloads for as little as $1 a song.
Now Zennstrom and Friis have drawn a bead on the phone business, where they see voice communications over broadband hookups as a huge, untapped market. Their weapon in this offensive is a piece of software they call Skype. Though it rhymes with hype, Skype is anything but. Distributed by Stockholm-based Skyper, a private company owned by Zennstrom and Friis, the free program gives Windows PCs with a broadband connection the ability to make high-quality computer-to-computer calls anywhere on earth -- as long as both parties are using Skype's software.
"SCREW THE PHONE SYSTEM"
That should frighten not only the established local and long-distance phone carriers but also cable-TV companies and startups that hope to sell Internet phone service. They generally charge $40 a month for unlimited local and domestic long-distance calls, and traditional phone companies charge more. Either price will look ridiculously high should Skype grow large enough to hit critical mass -- as it appears to be doing.
The success of Skype, which debuted only four months ago, raises a question whose answer could define the future of telecom: Can next-generation phone systems take the shape of decentralized, peer-to-peer file-sharing networks that run over the Net and eliminate phone-company middlemen? "What Skype and others like it say is: Screw the phone system.... Let's build a voice app -- software -- that does what the telephone does," says Clay Shirky, a consultant and adjunct professor at New York University who studies peer-to-peer and networking technologies.
Since Skype's software appeared on its Web site in August, it has gone viral. Without spending a dollar on marketing, Zennstrom and Friis have tallied more than 5.2 million downloads, and they figure that perhaps half that many people are using the software. True, that's a blip in the global telecom industry, which serves billions of customers and gathers about $200 billlion in annual revenue. Yet Skype's biggest weakness -- that both parties to a conversation must have it installed to talk via their PCs -- is also what makes it a danger to the telecom Establishment.
GOING MAINSTREAM.
Anyone with access to large numbers of desktops -- from Internet service providers to sellers of operating-system software -- could in theory become a phone company by simply installing the software and eschewing investments in phone-system infrastructure. While it's easier to say that than to make it happen, the possibility is real. "There's no way anyone can combat what they're doing," declares Jeff Pulver, a telecom consultant and the founder of a competing no-charge VoIP offering, Free World Dialup
"MARGINAL NICHE."
Now the popularity of this idea appears to be spreading beyond geeks and adventuresome chief information officers. Startup VoIP providers such as Vonage and 8X8 (EGHT ) expect to have millions of customers within three years. All of the major instant-messenger clients -- from America Online (TWX ), Yahoo! (YHOO ), and Microsoft's (MSFT ) MSN service -- already have some voice capability. Microsoft has quietly inserted key building blocks of PC-to-PC telephony into its Windows operating system. And Apple's (AAPL ) iChat AV software provides voice quality that rivals many cell phones and approaches the quality of a copper line.
Moreover, broadband's rapid adoption in the U.S., Asia, and Europe has made high-speed connections common enough to allow software-based telephony to approach critical mass. A roomful of low-end servers can now handle as much voice traffic as an entire old-line telecom-switching facility. "A company like Skyper can flourish in what for big phone companies would be a marginal niche," says Dave Burstein, publisher of DSL Prime, a telecom-industry newsletter. "They can make profits on a few hundred thousand users. All it takes is a couple of cheap PCs and some good software."
While several companies are trying to tap those dynamics, Skype seems to have broken from the pack -- mainly thanks to its ease of use. Unlike most other Internet voice applications, Skype automatically navigates through firewalls and network address translation systems, elements of broadband systems that commonly trip up phone software for PCs.
GROWING FAST.
Furthermore, Skype uses a peer-to-peer configuration that harnesses the broadband capacity of its users' PCs to build an ever-expanding network of nodes that can create highly stable and adaptable systems. This also means that Skyper itself doesn't have to pay for bandwidth to carry calls -- those who use it provide such capacity via their Internet connections.
To date, Skype says its network has handled as many as 170,000 concurrent users without a major outage. Its growth has been impressive enough to secure an initial round of venture-capital funding, rumored to be in the millions of dollars, with Bessemer Venture Partners in Larchmont, N.Y., as the lead investor. Skyper opened a London office in December and has already grown from less than a dozen employees to 25, with lots of new hiring ahead. It plans to introduce its premium products sometime this spring, and in the meantime, Pulver says, it has been talking to other VoIP startups about ways to more easily interconnect their respective customers.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...5171_tc138.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DMCA doubletalk alive and well with Canadian Politicos
The Liberal Party is Going to Sue Us
I woke up on Wednesday morning to a phone call from a friendly guy named Tim, who informed me that I had one hour to take down the website, PaulMartinTime.ca, or he would set the lawyers loose on our asses (that's not a quote, but it's an accurate summary).
In between his friendly but businesslike remarks, he dropped a few remarks intended to make me nervous. He said, for example, that he "had a little trouble getting through privacy.ca, but they're no longer supporting your cause." If we had in fact been using privacy.ca, that would be pure power-play. It would mean that he had intimidated (legally or otherwise) a company whose function it is to protect the identity of people who use it into breaking its sole mandate. As it turns out, we don't use privacy.ca; the address of Rob Maguire, the person who registered paulmartintime.ca, is publically available, for all with an internet connection to see.
I immediately called Dave and Rob, the people I collaborate on the site with, to determine a plan of action. Dave came over, and we called Rob to discuss the situation. We thought it was strange that some guy had called us up out of the blue, not giving his full name and claiming to work for the Liberal party, telling us to shut down our site in one hour.
Not the most legal way to do things.
First, we set out to figure out who this guy was. We assumed he was with a law firm working for the Liberals. Not having his last name made this effort completely fruitless. Then we get an email from him, to "confirm" that he has our addresses. This was followed by a bizarre message, also from him, that simply read: "Tim Tierney would like to recall the message, 'Address confirmation.'" It turns out that the friendly intimidator (Tim Tierney), is the Liberal Party webmaster.
I have to admit that I was shocked that the guy who makes and maintains web sites all day, every day for the Liberal party would have such a natural grasp of intimidation tactics. I should mention that this guy was out of the textbook of legal intimidation: friendly, casual, yet vaguely paternalistic tone; subtle name-drops indicating the power of the Liberal party to crush us and not think twice; multiple references to the fact that he knows where we live; emphasis that he believes in free speech. I'm a web developer myself, and I can't pull that kind of thing off. If that's their webmaster, what kind of shop are they running, anyway?
Dave and I go over the site, and make a few changes to the design to make it less of an overt copy of Paul Martin's official site. We call up Tim to clarify things. We don't actually get him on the phone until we block callerid from identifying our number. It's the same story: "I see you've made some changes to the site, but I don't think that it's enough." He had passed our names on to the pack of wolv... lawyers, who he refused to name. "They'll get in touch with you," he says.
And then he--completely gratuitously, but sounding like it's a totally natural thing to say--casually mentions that the lawyers will be getting in touch with CIRA (the body that oversees who has .ca domain names). Given the context, the obvious implication is that the Liberal party has the power to take our domain name from us unilaterally, and are willing to do it. Who knows if they actually are, but they're comfortable using the threat, anyway. He also emphasizes that he believes in free speech, and thinks the text of the site is just fine. He takes back the request to take the whole site down, saying that he just wants us not to use the Liberal party's intellectual property.
Before hanging up, he makes a point of repeating that he has all of our names (which we have made no effort at all to hide) and addresses.
The next day, we get the following note:
Sent: 19 Dec 03, 5:52 AM
Subject: Copyright Infringement
Dear Messrs. Macguire, Ron and Jay:
I act on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) with respect to your website,
www.paulmartintime.ca and your collective and individual infringement of my client's copyright in relation to the form and content of its website,
www.paulmartintimes.ca.
As you are no doubt aware, not only have you utilized LPC's art and graphics but, as well, you have, without alteration, made use of its style sheet. Furthermore, the name of your website is, notwithstanding the minor variance, a clear usage of title without alteration. Even your logo is an exact copy of that found at
www.paulmartintimes.ca.
Although my client does not, for a moment, question your Constitutionally guaranteed right to express your opinions, you have failed to take account of the fact that the laws of this country also require that this right be excercised within a lawful framework and it is not prepared to countenance your continued blatant infringement of its copyright. You cannot resort to the entitlement to free speech in a manner whereby my client's proprietary interests are infringed upon.
My client is insisting that you immediately cease your unlawful use of its art work, graphics and style sheet by way of deleting your website in its entirety or, in the alternative, making amendments sufficient to address the improper usages referred to.
Again, you are certainly free to voice the opinions of your choice, but only within a lawful framework.
I am assuming that the required action on your part will be completed within five (5) days of this email, that is, by no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 24th, 2003, failing which those steps needed to obtain injunctive and any other required relief will be sought without further notice to you. Furthermore, should such litigation be necessary, we will also be seeking recovery from each of you of all costs incurred in pursuing this matter.
I trust that you will each govern yourselves accordingly and that this email will mark the end of the matter. If it does not, you should not be under any doubt as to my client's intention to proceed in the manner referred to.
Andrew P. Davis
c/o Shore Davis
Barristers-at-Law
800-200 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON.
K2P 1L5
Tel: (613)233-7747 (Ext. 227)
Fax: (613)233-2374
As you can imagine, we were thrilled that Paul Martin's lawyers support our right to free speech.
http://paulmartintime.ca/lawsuit/000061.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ten Colo. Music Swappers Settle Lawsuits For Up To $4,000
Erin Gartner
At least 10 Coloradans accused of illegally downloading music have settled lawsuits brought against them by the recording industry, some paying as much as $4,000.
"The only reason I did was because I'd spend that much money in attorney's fees," said Brad Wise, a Highlands Ranch resident who settled his copyright suit for $2,814.30.
The settlements were made available Tuesday in U.S. District Court. Eight people settled for between $1,000 and $4,000 while two people were not ordered to pay. All agreed to not use the Internet to illegally download music in the future.
The Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America has filed at least 382 copyright suits across the country since September, when it began an aggressive campaign against online music piracy.
At least 24 Coloradans have been named in such suits.
Court-issued subpoenas have compelled Internet providers, such as Comcast Cable Communications, to identify their customers linked to the online accounts used to download songs.
Wise estimated that his son, who was attending Colorado State University in Fort Collins, downloaded about 1,300 songs while Wise was paying his son's bill for Comcast. The bill was in Wise's name.
"I told him if he ever did it again, I'd kill him," Wise said. "The bill is no longer in my name. It's in his name."
Most of the RIAA's cases have been settled. Record companies can legally demand $150,000 per song, but defense lawyers familiar with some of the cases have said penalties ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 each.
The lawsuits seem to be having their desired effect. The percentage of Americans who download music online has been cut in half, according to a report released Sunday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project and comScore Media Metrix, a Web tracking firm.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguid...aa-suits_x.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get me some of that Internet.
We Hate Spam, Congress Says (Except When It's Sent by Us)
Jennifer 8. Lee
Even as Congress was unanimously approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail, members were sending out hundreds of thousands of unsolicited messages to constituents.
The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported Congressional mass communications.
In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5 to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and was not part of the junk e-mail legislation.
At least 40 House members have bought or agreed to buy e-mail address lists from at least four vendors. The lists, which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are generally created by a process called e-mail appending, taking voter registration files from a member's district. The next step is to cross match them with large databases of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than 75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.
Many members of Congress praise the new policy for allowing cheaper and more effective communications with constituents. But consumer advocacy groups say the policy may unfairly give an advantage to incumbents over challengers because it allows elected officials to use government resources to communicate with voters right up to Election Day. In addition, the consumer advocates say, sending bulk e-mail messages to constituents who have not agreed to receive it is essentially electronic junk mail, or spam.
The ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer expense, the franking privilege, is one of the most cherished and controversial perks of office. For 30 years, advocacy groups have lobbied and sued Congress to try to close loopholes and stop abuses of the privilege.
Critics say the policy has created a significant new loophole.
"The core value is that you don't want to leverage technology to increase incumbent advantage," said CeliaViggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group that has sued to limit franking. "What is troubling is that essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate with the constituency up to an election, and we're not really going to check what you are saying with them.' The point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for abuse."
Before the change, e-mail was subject to the same treatment as regular postal mail. Correspondence sent to more than 500 constituents had to obtain approval from the franking commission and was subject to a 90-day blackout before an election. But individual responses to citizens were not subject to the restrictions.
Congressional officials said the old policy was too cumbersome.
"Anything over 500 e-mails you had to submit that to the franking commission," said Brian Walsh, the Republican spokesman for the House Administration Committee. "There was going to be a delay of a couple of days to get approved. We didn't feel that was consistent with the technology that existed."
The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge amounts of bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the hope that some voters will subscribe.
The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are still subject to approval from the franking commission.
"They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited bulk communications which aren't commercial," David Sorkin, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said. "When we are talking about constituents who haven't opted in, it's spam."
President Bush signed the law on spam on Dec. 16, and it takes effect on Thursday. It will ban the sending of bulk commercial e-mail using false information like fake names, as well as misleading subject lines and automated harvesting of e-mail messages. It will also require all commercial e-mail messages to include a valid postal address and give recipients an opportunity to opt out of receiving more messages.
The law restricts only commercial e-mail, a sector that accounts for more than half of all e-mail traffic. The law does not apply to unsolicited political messages. It also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to study the possibility of a "do not spam" list.
Violators of the law will be liable for a fine up to $250 per violation, up to a cap of $2 million, except in extreme circumstances, when the fine could be tripled. Violators could also face up to five years in prison.
Members of the House say their unsolicited e-mail messages are not junk e-mailings, because the messages are directly intended for constituents who have the right to opt out, and the messages have received positive reactions.
"Our experience has been that we get hundreds and hundreds of people who opt in for every person who opts out," said Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who has bought a list. "E-mail has been a great communications device."
From a technology perspective, commercial and political bulk e-mail look startlingly similar.
Advocacy Inc., a consultant in Washington, had its first unsolicited bulk e-mail, sent on behalf of Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, initially blocked by America Online's spam filters. AOL later agreed not to block the messages, Advocacy said.
The new policy is fueling an e-mail arms race. Democrats say that the new policy, which was drawn up by the Republicans who control the House, took them somewhat by surprise, but they are catching up.
"The Democrats are worried," said Roger A. Stone, the chief executive of Advocacy, who has been signing up Democratic offices at the rate of about five a week. "I'm dealing with people whose boss said, `Get me some of that Internet.' "
http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs....2280313&Ref=AR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Songwriters Say Piracy Eats Into Their Pay
David Bernstein
They think of themselves as the unsung victims of Internet music piracy.
Much of the publicity in the battle over illicit Internet music downloading has gone to artists and record labels. But songwriters say they are also being hurt financially.
Unless they are also performers, most songwriters are typically neither rich nor famous, and their names may be known only to those who bother to read album credits or liner notes.
But their incomes can depend on royalties from sales of recorded singles and albums. In fact, songwriters' earnings are more directly tied to album sales than those of recording artists, who can potentially earn substantial sums through live concerts and merchandise sales.
Charles Strouse, a composer best known for his Tony-winning musicals "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Annie," says illegal downloading has had a disastrous impact on his profession, not to mention his income.
"I am hurting," said Mr. Strouse, who is 75. Even though his songs are not as widely sought as hits by popular rock or pop stars like Sheryl Crow and Eminem, he felt the effects of downloading after the hip-hop artist Jay-Z drew on Mr. Strouse's "It's the Hard Knock Life" from "Annie" for the 1998 album, "Vol. 2 . . . Hard Knock Life."
According to BigChampagne, an online media measurement company, Jay-Z's version of "Hard Knock Life" was downloaded 1.16 million times from July 2000 (when the company began tracking Internet use) to May 2003. The total is probably much higher, said Eric Garland, BigChampagne's chief executive, because the entire lifespan of the song was not counted.
Although songwriters typically earn only pennies for every sale of a recorded song, if every person who downloaded "Hard Knock Life" had bought a CD instead, Mr. Strouse would have collected at least $46,000 in royalty payments, assuming he would have received 4 cents a download.
Mr. Strouse took in about $250,000 from recording royalties in 2002, according to his publisher, Helene Blue. Last year, she said, Mr. Strouse drew only about half that total, mainly because of illegal downloading of various recordings containing his songs.
"I've gotten fat off this business," Mr. Strouse said. "But obviously I'm very annoyed. It's awfully hard to write music. Ownership should be guarded very carefully."
Writers can receive as much as 8.5 cents for each song that appears on an album, each time a copy of that album is sold.
In practice, however, many songwriters receive less, since royalties are typically split with their publishers, leaving them with 4 cents. If a song is co-written, that 4 cents is split again, so the total can amount to just 2 cents. Songwriters also receive royalties of varying amounts when a song is played on the radio, or is used in movies or television.
"Eight cents is nothing; it's cheap," said Carey Ramos, a lawyer for the National Music Publishers' Association, which represents music publishers and their songwriters.
But "a penny here, a penny there - they add up,'' he said. "In the aggregate, it's a big difference in the paycheck of a songwriter."
Barton Herbison, executive director of the Nashville Songwriters Association International, an industry group, estimates that because of the difficulties in making a living from the craft, there are only half as many working songwriters today as a decade ago.
Nowhere have songwriters suffered as much as in Nashville, the nation's songwriting capital. The town is teeming with record companies, recording studios and publishing houses, most of which are concentrated in a small area along Music Row, a half-mile stretch along 16th and 17th Avenues, near Vanderbilt University. The city is also home to some 4,000 songwriters, Mr. Herbison said.
"I know people that have had No. 1 songs who are working at the Dillard's makeup counter," Mr. Herbison said. "Not that there's anything wrong with that - it's an honorable occupation - but that's not what they intended to do."
Illegal downloading "doesn't just affect Garth Brooks," he added. "It affects songwriters, it affects every studio in Nashville that's closing, it affects the working musicians. What it ultimately affects is the choice of music the public gets. When I have No. 1 songwriters working other jobs, we're not getting more music."
David Ross, publisher of "Music Row," a Nashville music industry publication, said music publishing companies had sharply reduced the number of songwriters because of plunging revenues from Internet downloading and industry consolidations.
Jason Blume, 47, is one of 15 staff writers who lost his job at the publishing house Zomba Music Group after BMG Music acquired it in 2002. Mr. Blume had been a staff writer at Zomba since 1991, most of that in Nashville, and his credits included hit songs recorded by the likes of Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys and Collin Raye.
Now, as Mr. Blume searches for another staff writing job, he said, the sense of despair in Nashville is so prevalent that when people walk down Music Row, "they say they feel like they're on the Titanic."
According to Mr. Ramos of the publishers' group, since the first popular file-sharing service, Napster, emerged in 1999, annual collections of royalties from recording sales (known as mechanical royalties) have fallen 22 percent, to $455 million.
In the four years before 1999, he said, those royalty collections grew 24 percent. Assuming that the pre-Napster growth rate would have continued, and if illegal downloading had not occurred, Mr. Ramos said, songwriters would have collected an estimated $300 million more in payments since 1999.
Shelly Peiken, 46, a songwriter in Los Angeles who co-wrote Christina Aguilera's "What a Girl Wants" estimates that she has lost nearly $200,000 in royalties because of online piracy. Still, she considers herself one of the luckier ones.
"Some of my friends are at the ends of their rope," she said. "I'm not going to make myself sick over it. But if I hadn't had these hits, I'd probably be pretty strung out right now."
Not everyone is convinced that downloading is the devastating problem that the music industry makes it out to be.
"There are a lot of pieces that go into the industry's problems that we're not hearing about," said Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group. "It's easy and convenient to blame it all on piracy."
Ms. Seltzer cited the sluggish economy and consolidation among record labels and radio companies as other reasons that record sales had fallen sharply over the last four years. She argued that, assuming the downloading is authorized, online music distribution actually lowered costs and increased exposure for songwriters and artists.
Songwriters "will have to learn how to adapt to the new technology,'' Ms. Seltzer said. "The buggy manufacturer doesn't have a place in the world of automobiles."
She suggested that the music publishing industry adapt for the recording business a model similar to one used in radio, where broadcasters pay blanket fees for rights to play songs and the money is split among the songwriters.
Whether or not online piracy is the main reason for declining music sales, songwriters are trying harder to make their voices heard in the debate. The Nashville songwriters' association has made more than 20 trips to Washington this year to lobby lawmakers over music piracy, Mr. Herbison said.
In September, Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, formed the Congressional Songwriters Caucus to help address illegal downloading. About 40 members in the House have joined the caucus.
Songwriters and publishers have also sought new sources of income to compensate for the losses caused by piracy.
Ms. Blue, who has been in the music business 35 years, says one of the most lucrative sources of new revenue has been royalties from cellphone ring tones. Last year, cellphone users bought more than 4.8 million ring tones, according to IDC, a technology research firm.
But with two billion unauthorized downloads of songs every month, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, royalty fees produced from ring tones cannot make up for the toll that piracy has taken on songwriters.
"There's a big dark cloud over the business right now," the songwriter Ms. Peiken said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/bu...ia/05song.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music Trade Group Probes Cheap CDs
Bernhard Warner
The record industry says it is investigating a number of Web retailers, including Amazon.com, to determine whether they are breaking the law by selling discounted compact discs.
The probe is being conducted by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), a music industry trade association which of late has stepped up its monitoring of Web sites' selling practices.
According to UK law, retailers must sell compact discs sourced from within the European Economic Area in accordance with broader European laws.
A BPI spokesman said on Wednesday the group recently began looking into whether Amazon, among others, is selling to UK consumers CDs obtained from overseas wholesalers.
Many Web retailers have built a brisk business by selling music titles at a discount to high street chains. The BPI's crackdown, industry observers say, may kick off the biggest probe into how Web retailers source their product.
The BPI has already launched law suits against two online music retailers -- CDWow and Play.com -- arguing they are able to undercut high street retailers by sourcing product from cheap overseas suppliers.
The industry's concern is that online retailers will rely heavily upon discount wholesalers and distributors, particularly in Asia, to circumvent strict import laws and put downward pressure on the market price for music.
The industry is in a tight spot, though, because it often acknowledges that Internet retailers have become an important source of revenue at a time of crisis over declining sales.
On Wednesday, the BPI played down the investigation into Amazon.
"This is a standard routine. We look at many Web sites to determine if the product is legitimate," said Matt Phillips, a BPI spokesman. "If we find a Net retailer is importing music from outside Europe, then they are infringing copyright law."
Amazon could not immediately be reached for comment.
The probe applies to Amazon's U.S. division only, the BPI spokesman said, because Amazon.co.uk sells music sourced from the UK.
The BPI represents most of the world's largest music labels including EMI, BMG, Sony Music, Warner Music and Universal Music.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040107/80/eijlu.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New talks Over Webcasting Fees Begin
John Borland
The dust has barely cleared from the last round of battles over the fees that Net radio stations pay record labels, but federal regulators are opening up a new series of negotiations over those royalty rates.
The United States Copyright Office said Tuesday that it is opening up a six-month period for negotiations over new Webcasting fees. Today's royalty rates--decided only after bitter negotiations, a regulatory arbitration process, and successive intervention from the Library of Congress and Congress itself--expire in 2004.
Small Webcasters continue to hold considerable resentment over the outcome of the previous process, and one group has even sued the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on antitrust grounds. But medium-size and larger Net radio operations say they think this round will be more amicable than the last.
"I think a lot has changed this time around and that the labels' attitude toward Net radio has changed," said Michael Roe, owner of Florida-based RadioIo.com and one of a small group of Webcasters who negotiated with the RIAA for small- business rates last year. "I think both sides are going to be more amenable to reaching agreement before getting into a situation that requires intervention this time."
The initial dispute lasted several years, after Congress created the royalty in 1998 but left the rates up to the industry to decide. For years, the fees were put on hold, and thousands of tiny Webcasters sprung up across the Net.
But as the fees began to snap into place last year, Net radio stations either had to begin paying a small per-song fee or a separate payment of between 8 percent and 10 percent of revenue. Many small Webcasters went off the digital airwaves as a result.
The Digital Media Association (DiMA), the trade association for large Webcasters and Net companies including America Online and Yahoo, said it hasn't begun polling its members as to whether they want a substantial revision of the rates for next year.
Jon Potter, DiMA's executive director, said his group is more focused on legislation reforming the regulatory and arbitration process by which the royalty rates are determined, hoping to extend the active period of the fees so they don't have to be renegotiated every two years.
"It's still not a highly profitable business--and is still an evolving business," Potter said. "As industry has consolidated, there are more stable companies who have a growth path, but they also are reticent to spend money on litigation rather than on marketing."
A representative for SoundExchange, the organization that collects the fees on behalf of record labels and artists, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Small Net companies, represented by the Webcaster Alliance, say they are still being ignored by the big labels and SoundExchange and are continuing with their lawsuit against the RIAA.
If Webcasters and record labels do not voluntarily reach agreement on fees for the 2005 to 2006 period, the issue will go in front of a federal arbitration panel again.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5136949.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sony Unveils Music Store, Gadgets At CES
Richard Shim
LAS VEGAS--Sony Electronics unveiled a slew of new gadgets at the annual Consumer Electronics Show and threw its hat into the ring for music download services, as part of its parent company's ongoing efforts to meld its content and electronics businesses.
As expected, Sony announced a music download service called Connect, which will be available this spring and will offer more than 500,000 titles for 99 cents per track. The service, demonstrated at CES, will aggregate content from all the major labels and will be run as a wholly owned subsidiary.
Connect will be headed by Jay Samit, a former EMI Recorded Music executive, and ATRAC will be the audio format used by the service.
The music download service is part of an effort by its parent company to stem declines in its music division and also to remain competitive with the growing list of rivals, such as Apple Computer, Dell, Microsoft, Wal-Mart Stores and most recently RealNetworks, which are increasingly encroaching into Sony's key electronics and content markets.
The service is also part of a larger conglomerate-wide strategy of making its hardware--from computers to digital music players--the centerpieces of digitally networked homes. Sony aims to provide entertainment content directly to consumers and bets that it will drive demand for the company's hardware.
But Sony has been in a uniquely uncomfortable position that straddles the entertainment and consumer electronics world. Hamstrung in part by its movie and music divisions' fears of digital piracy, it has seen independent companies jump ahead in development and sales of digital music players, while its own copy protection-enabled devices have had only lukewarm appeal.
The different divisions within Sony, including Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Sony Electronics and Sony Corporation of America, have been working to develop new services, and Connect is part of those efforts.
"Music is just the start of many more services to come," said Kunitake Ando, chief operating officer of Sony.
The electronics division also announced several new products that build on new trends in the consumer market, in an effort to reverse disappointing results from last year.
Among its parent company's divisions, the consumer electronics business took the hardest fall last year when Tokyo-based Sony posted such disappointing results that financial analysts referred to the report as "Sony shock."
The electronics business, which is the largest revenue contributor among Sony's divisions, cited a sales decline last year for Vaio PCs and for CRT televisions as reasons for its poor results.
The electronics business has turned a corner, Sony Electronics President Hideki Komiyama said.
"As the holidays approached, Sony Electronics achieved record-setting, double-digit growth, which we saw in virtually every consumer product category," Komiyama said in a statement.
Sony Electronics is looking to ride its momentum into this year with a new, higher-capacity MiniDisc format called HiMD. An HiMD disc can hold up to 1GB of content and will cost about $7. The division will also release four HiMD players, two NetMD players, a flash-based player and eight ATRAC CD players.
The company also introduced a 42-inch liquid-crystal display television, 61-inch Wega plasma television and a 12-inch portable broadband LCD television, which allows a consumer to wirelessly watch TV shows or browse the Internet.
Sony demonstrated a Blu-Ray Disk ROM player, a new Handycam camcorder, dual-layer DVD recording technology and new home DVD Dream Theater systems.
The company will also add a new version of its Vaio 505 series, the X505, to its notebook line. The unit is already available in Japan.
http://news.com.com/2100-7353-5137127.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romania Becoming Hub For Cyber-Crime
William J. Kole
BUCHAREST, Romania -- It was nearly 70 degrees below zero outside, but the e-mail on a computer at the South Pole Research Center sent a different kind of chill through the scientists inside.
"I've hacked into the server. Pay me off or I'll sell the station's data to another country and tell the world how vulnerable you are," the message warned. Proving it was no hoax, the message included scientific data showing that the extortionist had roamed freely around the server, which controlled the 50 researchers' life-support systems. The FBI traced the e-mail to an Internet cafe in Bucharest and helped Romanian police arrest two suspects -- the latest evidence that computer-savvy Romanians are fast emerging as a bold menace in the shadowy world of cyber-crime.
"It's one of the leading places for this kind of activity," said Gabrielle Burger, who runs the FBI's office in Bucharest and is working with Romanian authorities to arrest cyber-baddies "and avoid the September 11 of cyber-crime."
Law enforcement documents portray a loosely organized but increasingly aggressive network of young Romanians conspiring with accomplices in Europe and the United States to steal millions of dollars each year from consumers and companies.
Their specialties: defrauding consumers through bogus Internet purchases, extorting cash from companies after hacking into their systems, and designing and disseminating computer-crippling worms and viruses.
Alarmed authorities say the South Pole case underscores the global impact of this new breed of cyber-outlaw.
"Frustrated with the employment possibilities offered in Romania, some of the world's most- talented computer students are exploiting their talents online," the U.S.-based Internet Fraud Complaint Center, run by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center, said in a recent report.
http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...4214-9056r.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justice Dept. Closes Net Music Antitrust Scrutiny
John Borland
After more than two years of quiet investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday that it is closing its antitrust scrutiny of the major record labels' online activities, without filing charges.
When originally revealed in mid-2001, the regulators' investigation was said to be focused on the MusicNet and Pressplay online-music joint ventures and the possibility that the record labels were colluding to favor their own affiliated services at the expense of potential rivals.
But in a statement Tuesday, antitrust regulators said they had found no evidence that the labels had crossed any legal lines.
"The (Antitrust) Division's substantial investigation of Pressplay and MusicNet has uncovered no evidence that the major record labels' joint ventures have harmed competition or consumers of digital music," Assistant Attorney General R. Hewitt Pate said in a statement. "None of the several theories of competitive harm that the Division considered were ultimately supported by the facts."
The Justice Department's investigation was initially hailed by critics of the big music labels, who long suspected that the labels were acting collectively to prevent new Internet companies from gaining prominence in the music business.
But the digital landscape has changed substantially since mid-2001. At that time, the label-affiliated MusicNet and Pressplay were the only services licensed to distribute large amounts of major-label music through subscription services.
Today, online song stores that offer hundreds of thousands of tracks for download are springing up on an almost daily basis. Pressplay, originally a joint venture of Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group, was sold to software company Roxio and folded into the new Napster service.
In a review of its findings, the Justice Department said it studied major-label licensing practices and said the terms offered to third parties differed significantly, indicating that there was no illegal collusion.
The fast growth of the Internet market over the past year and the improvement of MusicNet and Pressplay from their "poor quality and restrictive nature" at launch indicates that the labels are not trying to hold back the Internet as a distribution medium, regulators added.
Peer-to-peer companies such as Roxio and Sharman Networks have repeatedly raised the issue of record label collusion as a defense in their own copyright-infringement cases, but the strategy has never gone far enough to elicit evidence-gathering on the issue.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5133148.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flip Side To File Sharing
Critic at Large
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) proudly announced this week that its full-frontal assault on "file sharers" - people who download copyrighted songs for free on the Internet - is succeeding.
By suing several hundred random downloaders for huge sums of money, the record company trade organization says it has scared millions of others onto the path of righteousness, so they either aren't downloading at all or they have switched to legal paid services like iTunes.
As evidence, the RIAA cites a Pew Internet survey that found only 14% of Americans admitted to downloading in December, compared to 29% in May.
Meanwhile, more people are paying - 99 cents a song or $8 for a CD - to download legally.
And that's fine.
No one objects to artists being paid, though it's also true that, for many of them, the big hurdle to compensationhas been record companies, not fans.
But downloading issues will not be solved by dropping an anvil on a few unlucky file sharers. For starters, downloading music isn't a little room with one door.
It's a big drafty warehouse with many entrances, exits, windows and cracks.
That fewer Americans admit to downloading music through Peer-to-Peer (P2P) services like Kazaa doesn't necessarily mean they aren't doing it. It could mean they're just not admitting it. They also could be sharing music through other electronic channels, including E-mail.
Moreover, the biggest music "piracy" problem isn't American teenagers. It's the many parts of the world that have the same computers and fewer laws.
The RIAA knows this, of course. It also must know a few other things that put downloading into better perspective.
First, the industry shot itself in the foot when it tried to kill singles and force fans to buy whole $18 CDs for the one or two songs they really wanted. The fact millions of fans now pay to download singles makes it clear individual songs are still what sells popular music.
Second, one of the main reasons the RIAA insisted it had to start blasting downloaders out of the water last summer was that CD sales were plummeting - by almost 11%, the RIAA said.
Well, Nielsen Soundscan figures for the year are out, and they show CD sales in 2003 were 687 million, compared to 693 million in 2002.
The 2003 total was boosted by a strong fourth quarter, but still, that's an overall drop of less than 1%, which is hardly apocalyptic in a rough year when purchases of everything from cars to movie tickets were also down.
One reason many folks feel no guilt about downloading is that they think record companies behave like weasels.
The business isn't offering much of a rebuttal.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...p-134296c.html
Until next week,
-
js.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current Week In Review.
Recent WIRs -
January 3rd,
December 27th,
December 20th,
December 13th
Jack Spratts Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts at lycos.com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.