[JackSpratts]

What's With Them Young Whippersnappers?
Terry Pedwell

Canadians illegally download 14 music CDs or other files from the Internet for every file they take from the web legally, a new recording-industry poll suggests.

The illegal downloading has cost retail music stores more than half a billion dollars in lost sales since 1999, a study by Pollara for the recording industry estimates.

While some observers believe Internet piracy is a widespread phenomenon, most illegal file swapping is done by younger Canadians, the Pollara report sys.

Canadians between 12 and 24 years of age are responsible for 78 per cent of illegal music downloading, even though they make up only 21 per cent of the population, it says.

The effect of the piracy, however, does not stop at just music or movies, suggests a study from another polling firm.

Canadians between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more willing than other age groups to make illegal copies of software programs, cheat on exams or even shoplift, an Environics poll suggests.

Nearly 27 per cent of younger people surveyed said they would consider cheating on a test or exam, compared with 10 per cent of the general population.

Of those asked, 6 per cent of younger Canadians said they would leave a store without paying for a piece of clothing, compared with 2 per cent of the population at large.

“Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,” said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls.

“The ‘if it's there, it's free' thinking extends far beyond entertainment products and software to ideas themselves,” Mr. Henderson added, noting a rise in plagiarism in schools and universities.

The association launched a national campaign Thursday to protect and promote so-called “products of the mind.”

The campaign comes in advance of public hearings this fall on new federal copyright legislation, Bill C-60.

A number of legal experts have criticized the legislation, warning that it fails to protect the public interest and is primarily geared toward satisfying special-interest groups.

The University of Ottawa hosted a summit Thursday on Bill C-60, with representatives of both Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage, the two departments jointly responsible for the legislation.

Among the Pollara findings:

– 12 to 17 year olds are the most likely to strongly agree that “artists are too rich already so downloading won't hurt them.”

– 37 per cent of respondents used a CD burner to record music within the last six months, up from 18 per cent in 2001.

The Environics findings suggest:

– 60 per cent of Canadians aged 18-29 are willing to download music from the Internet without paying for it, compared with 29 per cent of the general population.

– Half of young people believe it's all right to illegally download music because others do it too.

Pollara's findings are based on a national telephone survey of more than 1,200 Canadians aged 12 and over between June 24 and July 12.

The firm says the results are accurate to within plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 out of 20 times.

Environics polled just over 1,000 Canadians aged 18 or over by telephone, and another 1,043 Canadians on-line in May, 2005.

It says the findings are accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 out of 20 times.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ry/Technology/


Latest Comments in the Conversation

Andrew White from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a terrible "article," it simply parrots the assertions of the CRIA with no fact checking.The CRIA is hardly a disinterested body.

Just a few points:

"The illegal downloading has cost retail music stores more than half a
billion dollars in lost sales since 1999, a study by Pollara for the
recording industry estimates."

There have been countless studies that question these kinds of assertions. One study done at the Harvard Business School concluded "Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales."

"Canadians between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more willing than
other age groups to make illegal copies of software programs, cheat on
exams or even shoplift, an Environics poll suggests."

Two things about this quote bother me. First, while not explicitly stated, there is a suggestion of a causal relationship between filesharing and these bahviours, which is absurd. Secondly, wouldn't this group represent the number of people actually taking exams? I'm not surprised that they are therefore more likely to cheat on exams, than, say, seniors.

"37 per cent of respondents used a CD burner to record music within the last six months, up from 18 per cent in 2001."

I shouldn't have to point out that using a CD to burn music does not correspond with copyright infringement. The internet has plenty of free or public domain mp3 available. Other uses are legitimate fair use, protected by Canadian law.

Its very disappointing to see an article of questionable legitimacy appear in a respected national newspaper.


Jason Prini from Ottawa, Canada writes: "Nearly 27 per cent of younger people surveyed said they would consider cheating on a test or exam, compared with 10 per cent of the general population."

Um... could that be because a higher number of young people are in school as opposed to the general population?

CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSALITY.

This report seems to be an attempt to mislead the public.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ry/Technology/





Breaking the Standards
Russell McOrmond

In the past, when customers purchased music, they knew they'd have no problems enjoying the music on any audio device of their choice. With records, you only had to worry about the speed, all 8-tracks would play in any 8-track player, all the way up to audio CDs which conformed to the Red Book standard (Compact Disc Digital Audio system, or CDDA), which would work in any brand of CD player.

But this has changed. Today, more and more audio CDs fail conform to Red Book standards. Instead, they're encoded in a so-called "copy control" format and because these don't conform to universally recognized standards, no one knows exactly how well, or otherwise, these CDs will perform on a wider variety of CD players.

Even if you can listen to a CD today, you don't know if it'll work at all in any player you might try to use at a later date. Whether a CD has scratches or deliberate defects, the effect is the same in that the media is less valuable.

It should be obvious that this technique can only harm sales in the longer term: many potential customers have decided to not buy CDs with this level of uncertainty, which itself will account for part of the decline in CD sales.

The market for downloaded music is worse than with the defective CD market. Online music 'services' marketed by lobby groups only work with very specific brands of audio playing software. This is achieved through the deliberate use of access controls where content is "locked" behind a technical protection measure, and the digital "key" is contained in specific brands of software. With iTunes, the keys are owned by Apple, meaning it can, and does, exclude competitors from creating devices able to play iTunes music. Puretracks, Archambaultzik and Napster use Microsoft Media formats, meaning Microsoft controls the market of devices which can play these songs.

The harm of tying the enjoyment of legally purchased music to specifically branded audio players has been lost on the industry.

Hilary Rosen, the ex-head of the RIAA, complained about the fact that music bought from iTunes wouldn't play on competing audio players. This is the intended purpose of the DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) she'd spent years lobbying the US government to protect under the DMCA, which p2pnet editor Jon Newton believes she may also have had a hand in crafting. And it's understood that was included in the copyright act she helped author for Iraq. As with the recent laughing at the activities of the recording industry, Hillary's unintended humour lost her considerable credibility.

I've written in the past how DRM won't deter people who want to infringe copyright, and how it's hard to understand how DRM is considered to be related to copyright at all. I won't repeat these arguments here. Suffice it to say that DRM only regulates the activities of law abiding citizens and can't achieve the claimed goal of reducing copyright infringement.

While the "Canadian" Recording Industry Association (CRIA) is lobbying Canada to import the same laws into this country, those who understand how the technology works have a hard time understanding why.

The recording industry cartel currently makes its money through a stronghold on the methods of distribution and marketing for recorded music. DRM technology providers will be able to easily replace that traditional roll, given the amount of market domination they'll achieve by controlling the keys to the digital locks. This means DRM vendors such as Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Matsushita, or Toshiba will eventually replace CRIA owners such as EMI (UK), Universal Music Group (France), Warner Music Group (WMG - US), or Sony BMG Music (US). (We should always remember how little "Canadian" content there is in the self-called "Canadian" recording industry association).

New Right of Access Control?

We need to be very clear about what's being lobbied for through the policy laundered 1996 WIPO treaties, and legal protection for "technical measures" which claim to protect copyright.

Legacy copyright holders are asking a massive expansion of the regulation of copyright to include a sui-generis right of access control (see also: In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, chapter 7: Anti- Circumvention Legislation and Competition Policy: Defining A Canadian Way? , Michael Geist, page 224).

Never before has the limited monopoly of copyright extended to issues of access.

When someone bought a book, most uses were entirely unregulated, including any method of access (with or without contacts or eye glasses, no matter what brand of light bulbs were used to light the room, etc) as well as other uses (books used to hold up furniture, etc).

Now the incumbent copyright holders want to, at least in the digital world, have the legally protected right to control all of these things, down to mandating the specific brands of tools which audiences would use to access works.

Equal copyright for young creators!

As a creator, I've been frustrated by the arguments used to justify expansions of the scope and term of copyright. As all creativity builds on the past, the limited scope and term of copyright needs to be understood as not being a limitation of the rights of creators, but as a recognition that the rights of future creators are protected by limiting the control of the past. Those who like to throw the term "theft" around should remember it applies far more correctly to expansions of the scope and term of copyright to the detriment of new creators than it does infringing the copyright of past creators.

The idea that "if some copyright is good for creators, more is better" is entirely false. It's far more correct statement is to suggest that copyright is to creativity like water is to humans; too little and you dehydrate and die, too much and you drown and die.

The idea that the limits of copyright are an expression of creators' rights isn't new. On September 27, I attended a Torys LLP Technology Law Speakers Series with special guest speaker Abraham Drassinower (Torys LLP). The lecture was entitled "Taking User Rights Seriously", and discussed how limits such as "fair dealings" and the limited term of copyright were necessary to equally recognize the rights of future creators.

Drassinower also discusses this theme in chapter 16 of In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law.

I'd like to expand this theme, suggesting a prohibition on the use of technical measures which limit access to specific tools would also be an expression of creators' rights.

I'm primarily the author of software, specifically communications software. For my software to be commercially valuable, obviously, it must be compatible with other software, allowing potential customers to substitute my software for that of my competitors.

I consider any technology or law which stops me from creating compatible software to be an infringement of my rights, and it's this direct attack on my creative rights which caused me to get involved in copyright reform to begin with. And it's this fight to protect my creative rights which led to my strong opposition to the 1996 WIPO treaties and Bill C-60.

Existing groups that claim to work to protect creators' rights such as the Creators' Rights Alliance aren't yet advanced enough in their thinking to recognize this attack against their rights. Not only are they not fighting against legal protection for technical measures, they're lobbying in support of it. This has meant independent creators who recognize these problems are not only not supported by these groups, we're forced to lobby against them.

An example of the type of dialogue was seen at Cinéfest Sudbury International Film Festival. I was a participant in an industry panel on digital distribution. For various reasons the panel ended up composed of independents including musicians, film and myself representing independent software authors. As independents we mostly agreed, except where it came to technical measures.

I expressed how I, as someone who was a competitor to and not a customer of either Microsoft or Apple, could not legally purchase content encoded in these file formats and enjoy them without circumventing a technical measure. I was bluntly told it was my choice to not be a customer of these companies, and that they believed they had a right to control what tools audience members used to access their works.

This isn't a valid choice. I believe their choice to be an independent creator should be protected, rather than being forced into becoming a passive audience member of the works of others, or an employee of the majors where employees do not enjoy copyright related rights at all. They were effectively saying I shouldn't be allowed to be an independent software creator.

How can it be that at least one member of this panel of independent creators thought that it was appropriate to entirely lock out independent software authors from being able to access his works? You would think that independents would support each other, not directly promote the existing monopolies in each market. While I was hit with one of the most offensive things that can be said to a creator, a complete rejection of his/her creativity, I realize that far too many people simply don't realize the consequences of what they are asking for.

In the current political debate we have photographers claiming they want "equal copyright" with other authors, picking the most expansive scope and term of copyright from the variety of different terms and scope of copyright offered. While I disagree that what they're asking for is "equal copyright" given photography (where the photographer is most often unknown) is very different than books (where author information is contained in the book), I have to wonder if the rhetoric of "equal copyright" can be used by independent creators.

As an independent software and non-software author I believe that our equal rights are expressed in the following ways:

· The public domain is critical for the rights of follow-on creators and must be protected at least as much as the private interests of past creators. The cultural recycling date, also known as the end of the term of copyright, must be clear. There are many cases where the author is not easily determined. In these cases, it 's inappropriate to start the term of copyright from the death of the author. The most easily determined date should start the countdown, such as the date a photograph is taken, music is recorded, or the date of publication for other types of works. Photography and software are clearly examples that should have a fixed term. Because of the confusion around who the "author" of a motion picture is, movies should also have a fixed term. I've personally gone as far as to suggest that for greatest clarity that all works should have a well documented fixed recycling date, and that the date of the death of an author should only be applicable to the copyright in unpublished works.

· The term of copyright should be reduced, including having different types of works having different terms. While books may have commercial value for 50 years, software often only has commercial value for five years, or even less. Newspaper articles should be recycled into culture quickly, allowing for follow-on creativity that uses these snapshots in time to explore our history. (See also: In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, Chapter 17, "Coming to Terms with Copyright" by David Lametti)

· The works of the government of Canada, paid for by the Canadian public, should be used to immediately enhance the public domain. Canada should abolish crown copyright, joining some of our trade partners such as the United States which does not have copyright on government created works.

· There should be a protected right for software authors to reverse engineer existing software to create compatible software. Copyright and patents should be excluded from interfaces, whether they be programming interfaces, user interfaces, communications protocols or interfaces with hardware.

· There should be an explicit prohibition against the use of technical measures to limit access to copyright works to specific tools. There should be a positive right to circumvent DRM for non-infringing purposes. This right must include the right to create, distribute and sell software (sometimes called a "device", a "product" or a "service" depending on context) to help other people to express these rights, and for these authors of multi-purpose tools to not be liable for any potentially infringing uses by third parties.

· "Fair dealings" should be expanded to more fully protect follow-on creators. Canada's "fair dealing" has been too narrowly interpreted by the courts, making it too hard for young creators to make fair use of the existing works that define their culture.

· Authors and audiences should have a protected choice within a full spectrum of options for the production, distribution and funding of creativity. What choices are successful should be decided by a free market, not by the government. One way to protect this choice is to ensure that collective societies can only be repertoire collectives, collecting royalties for authors who wish them to and from audiences who wish access to that repertoire. Collective societies should not be imposed on entire classes of works, effectively having the government dictate this narrow business model on all creators and audiences of a class of work.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1095





Eye-Popping Streaming Film Debuts
Xeni Jardin

What do high-definition video of seafloor volcanoes and avant-garde Japanese digital cinema have in common? They're both examples of the kinds of bandwidth-intensive information that can be streamed live from remote locations, over ultra-fast optical networks.

And both were demonstrated this week at iGrid 2005. The week-long computing conference, which showcases research in high-performance, multi-gigabit networks, was held at UC San Diego's new Calit2 (California Institute of Technology and Information Technology) facility.

"When you can stream content this high-resolution, you can start thinking about movie theaters as a place where live events can be displayed -- sports, fashion, politics, anything," said Laurin Herr of Pacific Interface, an Oakland-based tech consulting firm that produced the demonstration. "What color film did to audiences used to viewing black and white, what stereo sound did to audiences used to hearing mono, high-definition digital cinema will do to us."

Jaw-dropping demos abounded, promising just as much for scientists as for Hollywood.

One experiment on Tuesday featured the first-ever live, IP-based transmission of high-definition video from the bottom of the sea.

HD video cameras nearly two miles below the ocean surface and 200 miles off the Washington/Canada coastline relayed impossibly crisp live footage of sea life near 700-degree Fahrenheit volcanic thermal vents known as "black smokers" on the Pacific floor.

Back at iGrid, that 20-mbps MPEG2 video stream was projected in such high resolution that close-ups of tiny, translucent tubeworms the size of quarters filled the entire wall-sized screen. It was as if the theater itself became a gigantic microscope.

During a subsequent demo session, the cameras were aimed in the opposite direction -- at the scientists on board the ship above the ocean's surface. This time, high def proved to be a little too real for comfort when powerful ocean storms pitched and rocked the research vessel Thomas Thompson. The ship's crew were visibly woozy, but audience members more than a thousand miles away reflexively turned from the screen to avoid seasickness.

The ocean research expedition was a collaborative effort between the National Science Foundation, the University of Washington and other tech and research entities. The live, high-def IP-cast was distributed by way of NEPTUNE, an oceanographic observatory project that links undersea sites with fiber-optic/power cable, so that research video from the sea can be transmitted continuously to scientists, students or science television networks back on land.

IGrid included other "firsts" over fiber-optic links this week, including live international collaborations with streamed 4K (4,096-by-2,160-pixel) digital cinema content.

Technicians in Japan and the United States demonstrated live transmission of ultra-high-def digital movie workflow, using Silicon Graphics storage and visualization devices and prototype 4K digital projectors from Sony.

The 4K footage was compressed with a prototype JPEG 2000 encoder from NTT, then transmitted 9,000 miles from Keio University in Japan to the Calit2 facility over 1-GB optical-fiber networks.

The digital cinema experiments at iGrid demonstrated how filmmaking teams in multiple locations worldwide could receive, edit and mix sound with freshly shot 2K or 4K footage. A movie director might be seated behind his laptop in a Hollywood screening room, the cinematographer might be on location in Malta, and a sound production team might be in London; but by way of high-speed optical networks, video, sound and time-code data can move instantly to whoever needs it.

The movie industry in America is moving toward 2K digital cinema for theaters around the country. Earlier this year, a consortium of Hollywood studios and tech providers called Digital Cinema Initiatives released a long- awaited set of digital cinema specifications for both 2K and 4K, which remains in prototype. While 2K equipment manufacturers and some in Hollywood argue that the 2K standard is a large-enough leap forward in quality from 35mm film to make the cost of converting theaters to digital worthwhile, the iGrid demos left little doubt for many participants that 4K provides even greater possibilities -- including new forms of stereoscopic 3-D.

Another digital cinema demo featured the premiere of an avant-garde film that incorporated elements of traditional Japanese Noh theater. Actor/director Naohiku Umewaka's Birthday Cake was shot on 4K Olympus digital cinema cameras in Japan, then streamed live from Keio University's Tokyo campus to the Calit2 facility. The 4K video that filled the 20-foot-by-30-foot screen felt so lifelike that figures on screen sometimes seemed more vivid and real than those in the audience.

As the demos ended and the house lights again lit the theater, Calit2 director Larry Smarr smiled.

"This is the hardest thing to explain to people who haven't experienced it firsthand," he said, waving one hand toward a pile of cables that connected the digital cinema gear to fiber-optic links.

An early pioneer in internet infrastructure, Smarr served as director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 15 years, and fought for the construction of the first National Science Foundation backbone, which linked five NSF supercomputer centers in 1986 and eventually evolved into today's public internet.

"As amazing as all of this might look to us now, it's like Mosaic, or blink tag, or those first coffeepot webcams," said Smarr.

"If live 4K digital cinema from Japan is a clumsy first step for optical networks, I can't wait to see what the real applications will look like."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology..._top5#comments





Surveillance

Report: Government Needs to Get Air Traveler Screening Right
Leslie Miller

The government has spent millions since Sept. 11, 2001, to develop a system to ensure terrorists don't board planes. But they still can't get it right - and shouldn't do any more work on it until they do, an oversight panel said Friday.

The project, called Secure Flight, sounds simple: Match passenger names against terrorist watch lists.

But it isn't so simple. Secure Flight and its predecessor, CAPPS II, ran into repeated trouble since the Transportation Security Administration started work on them shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Government auditors gave the project failing grades - twice - and rebuked its authors for secretly obtaining personal information about airline passengers and then not telling the truth about it.

"They didn't know what they were doing," said James Dempsey, a member of the oversight panel and executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

A big part of the problem is that many people have the same or similar names. For example, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was told he couldn't board a plane because his name matched that of a member of the Irish Republican Army.

The TSA hoped to remedy that problem by getting more information about passengers to verify their identities.

Critics who viewed Secure Flight as a secret project to spy on Americans stalled its progress, but the authors of Friday's report said the project's problems run deeper than that.

"It's not a privacy problem," Dempsey said. "It's a mission, goals and methods problem."

The oversight panel said it wasn't sure Secure Flight could ever work.

"We cannot assess whether even the general goal of evaluating passengers for the risk they represent to aviation security is a realistic or feasible one or how TSA proposes to achieve it," the report said.

The TSA appointed security and privacy experts to the oversight panel.

"We asked for the criticism, we welcome it, and we'll take it under consideration as we move towards implementation," said TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. "We think that's good government, and we're confident the public will agree."

The TSA has decided not to include one of the program's most controversial elements: using commercial data to help verify passengers' identity before they're matched against the lists.

Von Walter said the Secure Flight oversight panel had nothing to do with that decision.

"We recognize there were privacy concerns about its use so we decided against it for this initial program phase," she said.

But Dempsey said commercial data wasn't even useful in verifying peoples' identity.

The report noted that the TSA frequently shifted its definition of what information it was collecting for what reason.

Over the course of its development, the TSA said the system would only look for terrorists, then said it would also look for violent criminals. The TSA also said it would only be used to match names against terrorist watch lists, then that it would be used for the far broader purpose of identifying terrorist sleeper cells.

The report also noted that the oversight panel wasn't told what kind of hardware and software would be used or how airlines would transfer passenger information to the government.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBDBZPGZDE.html





Torrent Gets US$8.75 Million In VC Money
Elle Cayabyab

BitTorrent, one of the world's most popular P2P clients, gained notoriety as a way for users to quickly download large files via the Web. Though the application has found legitimate uses, the company wants to distance itself from any association with piracy. Enter venture capital firm DCM Doll, who announced that they would be providing BitTorrent with US$8.75 million in funding in a bid for commercial respectability.

"We believe BitTorrent's cooperative distribution technology will become the leading platform for the legal and secure distribution of large-file content for a wide range of commercial purposes around the globe," said David Chao. "By substantially reducing technology costs, the BitTorrent model will enable organizations across many industries to quickly and efficiently distribute value- added digital content to their stakeholders and consumers in volumes that, until now, have not been realized."

Though BitTorrent reportedly claims up to 33 percent of all P2P traffic, its supremacy was hotly contested by the growing popularity of eDonkey, which recently closed its New York office, and could see competition from Microsoft Research's own P2P application, called Avalanche, if it ever sees the light of day.

BitTorrent COO Ashwin Navin notes that: "eDonkey and other P2P networks can have the entire piracy market because we're not interested in it at all," and defends BitTorrent as "inherently a bad tool for piracy, but it is an extremely elegant tool to make great content available on the Web." Despite the fact that the application was originally developed as a way to efficiently distribute Linux releases, file sharers quickly jumped on the technology as a way to improve the economics of sharing large files. Navin is also a bit off. BitTorrent is a favorite for those that engage in piracy, and furthermore, BitTorrent's recent addition of a built-in search for torrents only enhances that.

Neither BitTorrent nor DCM have publicly stated how a legitimate service would work, but industry insiders have been busy speculating on how the distributed peer-to-peer service could help movie studios and filmmakers make for-pay content available. For example, movies, music, games, and software would be gathered into one central portal and then distributed to consumers. Revenue could be generated either through ads or by charging a fee for the files. Google and Yahoo are also trying to provide entertainment content via the Web, with Google promoting its four-day online webcast of the sitcom "Everybody Hates Chris." DCM Doll is betting consumers would rather download than stream content, and with 45 million BitTorrent users worldwide, traffic will mean revenue. The entertainment industry has long been wary at the thought of using file trading to share content, and consumers may not be willing to use their limited upstream to help distribute something that costs money. It remains to be seen if DCM Doll's ploy will pan out; Hollywood doesn't necessarily subscribe to the old adage: if you can't beat them, join them.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050929-5363.html





Donnelley Agrees to Purchase Dex Media
Andrew Ross Sorkin and Vikas Bajaj

The R.H. Donnelley Corporation, the yellow pages company, said this morning that it would acquire a rival, Dex Media Inc., for $4.2 billion in cash and stock.

The deal would make R.H. Donnelley the nation's third-largest publisher of telephone directories behind Verizon and SBC with over 600 directories that have a combined circulation of 73 million and serve more than 650,000 advertisers.

R.H. Donnelley, based in Cary, N.C., publishes telephone directories in 19 states, in some areas under the Sprint and SBC brand names. Dex Media publishes directories in 14 states under the Qwest brand name.

The yellow pages industry has undergone an enormous amount of change in the last several years. Many telephone companies, which had long produced their own yellow pages, have sold them to pay down debt taken on during the telecom boom of the 1990's.

The businesses were bought primarily by private equity firms, which were attracted by their stable, and large, cash flows. Two such firms, Carlyle Group and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, led the acquisition of Dex from Qwest Communications International in 2003 and the firms have agreed to vote in favor of the acquisition by R.H. Donnelley. The deal with Qwest has paid handsome rewards. The firms, which each paid about $775 million in cash as part that deal, have recouped all of their money, and today their combined stake is worth about $2.2 billion.

Still, the business is not without risks. Publishers face increasing competition from Yahoo, Google and other Internet companies that focus on directory and classified advertising. Both R. H. Donnelley and Dex have growing Internet operations, and the merger is expected to give them more scale to compete nationally.

"This combination will create a company with the scale, innovative products and services and proven business processes to lead our industry into the era of integrated local commercial search, encompassing both print and digital platforms," David C. Swanson, R.H. Donnelley's chairman and chief executive said.

Under the terms of the deal, R. H. Donnelley will pay $12.30 in cash and 0.24154 of its shares for each share of Dex. That equates to $27.58 a share based on R. H. Donnelley's closing share price on Friday. The sale price is slightly below Dex's share price on Friday of $27.79. The stock rose more than 15 percent last month. R.H. Donnelley will also assume $5.3 billion in Dex's debt.

After the acquisition, which the companies expect to close in the first three months of 2006, former shareholders of Dex will own 53 percent and owners of R.H. Donnelley will own the rest. Dex will have six directors on the new board and R.H. Donnelley will have seven. The deal has to be approved by regulators.

Mr. Swanson will be chief executive of the new company and George Burnett, who is now the president and chief executive of Dex, will be chairman of the board.

R. H. Donnelley was advised in the deal by J. P. Morgan Chase and Bear Stearns; its legal counsel was Jones Day. Dex Media was advised by Lehman Brothers; Merrill Lynch provided a fairness opinion. Latham & Watkins provided Dex with legal counsel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/bu...donnelley.html





In DVD Format Split, Paramount Goes 2 Ways
Ken Belson

Recognizing that a split over the format of the next generation of digital video discs is deepening, Paramount Pictures said yesterday that it will make DVD movies in the Blu-ray format as well as in the HD DVD standard.

Paramount is the first major studio to say publicly that it will produce DVD's in each of the two formats, which both promise high-definition pictures, enhanced audio and five or more times the storage space on a disc. Until now, the big Hollywood studios have supported one format or the other.

However, the chance for an agreement to use one format dimmed earlier this year when negotiations stalled between Toshiba, which makes the HD DVD standard, and Sony, Panasonic and others in the Blu-ray group. Since then, companies on both sides have promised to start selling DVD players that use their respective formats as early as this winter.

The studios, retailers and others had hoped to avoid a showdown between the competing formats because it is costly to make and sell two sets of discs.

Other studios may follow in Paramount's path. In addition to Paramount, Warner Brothers and Universal have backed the HD DVD format, while Sony Pictures, Disney, 20th Century Fox and Lion's Gate have come out in favor of Blu-ray.

The plans to produce two types of machines and movies for both formats suggests that there may not be a clear resolution to the battle anytime soon, according to industry executives.

The president of Paramount Pictures, Thomas Lesinski, said in a statement that Sony's inclusion of Blu-ray technology in its PlayStation 3 videogame console when it is released next spring was an important factor in his studio's decision. With that technology inside, the game machine will effectively double as a Blu-ray DVD player.

Mr. Lesinski called this a "key advantage" for the Blu-ray group.

He added that the studio made its decision to produce Blu-ray DVDs based on "new data on cost, manufacturability and copy protection solutions." Paramount, Warner and Universal, as well as Microsoft, Intel and disc manufacturers, have said that the HD DVD discs can be produced more cheaply and more reliably than Blu-ray discs. Disc manufacturers have also said privately that the HD DVD format discs are far closer to being ready for mass production than Blu-ray discs.

In response to Paramount's announcement, Toshiba said it remained committed to bringing HD DVD to market.

In a statement, the company said that the Blu-ray group "still needs to answer the tough questions about how they plan to deliver on their promises." This includes whether it will allow all manufacturers to make Blu-ray players and whether the Blu-ray group will set a date for delivering their high-capacity discs.

Paramount did not say how many movies it initially plans to release in the Blu-ray format, or which titles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/bu...Qfl8hv86//Q8qQ





By Tearing Open That Cardboard Box, Are You Also Signing on the Dotted Line?
J. D. Biersdorfer

Pay attention next time you rip open a cardboard box - you may be entering into a contract without realizing it.

A recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinforced the right of companies, in this case Lexmark International, the printer maker, to legally limit what customers can do with a patented product, given that the company spells out conditions and restrictions on a package label known as a box-top license.

Clickable license agreements are common practice in software, where the buyer agrees not to tamper with the code or copy the program. But slapping postsale regulations on patented goods could deny buyers the ability to make modifications or seek repairs on other products as well. Box-top licenses could also theoretically hinder third parties from offering replacement parts or supplies for fear of a patent-infringement lawsuit (meaning, for example, that a lighter might have to be refueled only with the manufacturer's brand of butane).

In the lawsuit, the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, a trade group of companies that sell refilled printer cartridges, claimed that Lexmark was engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices by promising price discounts on its laser cartridges if the customer promised to return the empty cartridge to Lexmark.

Lexmark's packaging for laser cartridges sold under this system (called the Lexmark Cartridge Rebate, or the Prebate program) includes a label on the outside of the box stating: "Opening this package or using the patented cartridge inside confirms your acceptance of the following license agreement." Cartridges that are not part of the Prebate program and not subject to the restriction are available to customers as well, but without the discount. At the time of the case, Lexmark estimated that cartridge returns had increased 300 percent since the Prebate program began.

Lawyers for the remanufacturers' association argued that Lexmark deceptively suggested that the notice on the outside of the package created an enforceable agreement with consumers to return the used cartridges, and that the promise of a price discount was false because Lexmark could not control prices charged by retailers. Lexmark also uses an electronic chip on the cartridges to communicate with the printer, which refuses to operate with cartridges that lack the chip; the association cited that as an unfair business practice.

The court ruled in Lexmark's favor on Aug. 30, citing the previous case of Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medipart Inc., a 1992 Circuit Court decision in a medical equipment case that allowed patent owners to limit the use of their products after sale. The court also concluded that Lexmark's pricing claims were accurate and that ACRA failed to establish that Lexmark's cartridge chip amounted to unfair competition.

Some frugal printer owners wondered if the decision would make it illegal to refill their inkjet cartridges at home, a concern that a Lexmark spokesman dismissed.

"Lexmark's cartridge return program deals exclusively with laser printer toner cartridges. It does not involve any inkjet products," said Tim Fitzpatrick, the vice president of corporate communications for Lexmark, who said that the program almost entirely involved business customers. "The court's decision was very specifically about this program," he said.

Fred von Lohmann, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and author of a 2004 amicus brief supporting ACRA, said he was more concerned about future implications of the decision.

"This certainly sent a very strong message to patent holders generally, and Lexmark in particular, that you can use these labels in order to restrict what your customers can do with the product after they buy it," he said.

Mr. von Lohmann gave several hypothetical examples of how box-top licenses could be used, including automobile manufacturers who might put a label on a new car stating that by opening the door for the first time, the new owner agreed to use only the manufacturer's replacement parts and to avoid modifying the car. "Owners of patents would love to be able to control what you can do with a product after you buy it," he said. "That's new. The rule for most of a century has been, 'You buy it, you own it.' "

Lexmark was recently involved in another lawsuit against a North Carolina-based company, Static Control Components. In the case, Lexmark sued under provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to keep Static Control from reverse-engineering Lexmark's cartridge chips so that remanufactured cartridges from other vendors would work in Lexmark printers. Static Control ultimately won the copyright fight after the United States Supreme Court declined Lexmark's petition in June.

Ronald S. Katz, a lawyer for Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, which represented ACRA in the suit, said that while the continuation of Lexmark's return program would not put companies that reclaim and refill laser printer cartridges out of business, "it basically makes it harder for them to compete." The trade association, he added, is not pursuing the case further.

Although legal analysts who followed both lawsuits expressed concerns that Lexmark was trying to create a cartridge monopoly for its printers, the ruling in the Static Control case does allow that company to keep making chips that communicate with Lexmark's printers.

"This is about customer choice," said Mr. Fitzpatrick of Lexmark. "The court has ruled in favor of customer choice." A footnote in the court's written opinion stated that the decision would not preclude a consumer from raising challenges to the box-top contract.

In his supporting brief, Mr. von Lohmann argued that the decision in the medical equipment case, which was cited in the Lexmark case, was wrongly decided. "The courts started saying, 'Well, you bought it, you own it - unless they put a condition on it that you agreed to when you bought it,' " said Mr. von Lohmann.

He cited the 1873 case of Adams v. Burke, in which a coffin-lid manufacturer attempted to restrict where its patented product could be used. "The courts correctly said that's ridiculous," Mr. von Lohmann said. "When you buy a coffin, you can plant the guy wherever you want. It's none of the patent owners' business once you bought that coffin and where you put it in the ground."

But would the coffin case have come out differently if the manufacturer had put a label on the outside? "That's the concern," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/bu.../03inkjet.html





Propaganda

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal
Robert Pear

Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.

In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the "declining science literacy of students," was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in the writing of the article, which praised the department's role in promoting science education.

The auditors denounced a prepackaged television story disseminated by the Education Department. The segment, a "video news release" narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children "gets an A-plus."

Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

The television news segments on education and on Medicare did not state that they had been prepared and distributed by the government. The G.A.O. did not say how many stations carried the reports.

The public relations efforts came to light weeks before Margaret Spellings became education secretary in January. Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the secretary, said on Friday that Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as "stupid, wrong and ill-advised." She said Ms. Spellings had taken steps "to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again."

The investigation by the accountability office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the report in which investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.

The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, articles or records of other services invoiced by Mr. Williams, the report said.

In March, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said that federal agencies did not have to acknowledge their role in producing television news segments if they were factual. The inspector general of the Education Department recently reiterated that position.

But the accountability office said on Friday: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."

The office said Mr. Williams's work for the government resulted from a written proposal that he submitted to the Education Department in March 2003. The department directed Ketchum to use Mr. Williams as a regular commentator on Mr. Bush's education policies. Ketchum had a federal contract to help publicize those policies, signed by Mr. Bush in 2002.

The Education Department flouted the law by telling Ketchum to use Mr. Williams to "convey a message to the public on behalf of the government, without disclosing to the public that the messengers were acting on the government's behalf and in return for the payment of public funds," the G.A.O. said.

The Education Department spent $38,421 for production and distribution of the video news release and $96,850 for the evaluation of newspaper articles and radio and television programs. Ketchum assigned a score to each article, indicating how often and favorably it mentioned features of the new education law.

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money may be used to produce or distribute a news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/po...rticle_popular





To Surf Web While Aloft, Fly Foreign (for Now)
Alexei Barrionuevo

On nonstop flights from Copenhagen to Seattle, as many as 50 passengers are using their laptops to check e-mail, surf the Internet, even send pictures - all at 35,000 feet.

The 261-seat planes belong to Scandinavian Airlines, one of several non-American carriers using an in-flight, high-speed Internet service called Connexion, developed by Boeing for its own commercial jetliners. The high use on the trans-Atlantic Scandinavian flights is somewhat unusual because they tend to be filled with tech-savvy Microsoft employees, who are even carting special noise-canceling headsets onto the planes to use Boeing's satellite-based system to make free voice-over-Internet phone calls.

But SAS's experience highlights a stark reality for American business travelers: to make an office in the sky these days you have to fly a foreign airline. After five years of intense marketing, Boeing is still struggling to bring the Internet to domestic airlines, whose financial woes and concerns about added weight on planes are making them reluctant to invest in hot spots in the sky. That is limiting potential productivity, perhaps, but it is also providing at least a few hours of escape for business managers from their 24/7 connection to the home office.

For Boeing, which once appeared poised to make its satellite-based Internet system a big business, time is running out to win over the American airlines.

It decided recently to cut 100 positions at Connexion, or about 15 percent of its work force, by early next year. And new competitors, including Verizon Wireless, are refining less-ambitious technologies that some airlines find more palatable investments amid surging fuel prices and the constant threat of bankruptcy.

While American carriers continue to be hesitant, European, Asian, even Middle Eastern airlines - which rely heavily on business travelers, particularly on long-haul flights - are taking the plunge in increasing numbers. Boeing has signed up 13 foreign airlines since 2003, with 9 already offering the service to customers on 84 planes, soon to be 100. Boeing has also signed 630 corporate agreements to make it easier for companies' employees to use the service.

"The U.S. carriers are feeling a lot of competitive pressures from our customers," said Laurette T. Koellner, president of the Connexion division at Boeing.

But thus far, domestic and foreign carriers have viewed the potential for Internet service much differently. While the American airlines, with their much greater concentration of leisure travelers, have focused on cutting costs on domestic routes, "a lot of foreign carriers see this as a way of increasing the appeal of their premium international service," said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. "U.S. carriers are just starting to think about that strategy."

For the Chicago-based Boeing, the hesitancy in its home market has hindered the growth of Connexion, once central to Boeing's push to diversify from its near total dependence on commercial jets and military systems. The number of planes that foreign carriers are willing to outfit with Connexion, which costs an estimated $500,000 to $600,000 a plane, is relatively small compared with what Boeing expected back in 2001, when it landed commitments from three American carriers to outfit a total of 1,500 planes.

Even with the recent progress, Ms. Koellner acknowledged that Boeing's current commitments, officially published at around 250, were "nowhere near" what was envisioned in 2001. The business has yet to turn a profit for Boeing, and probably will not until at least 2008, she said.

If American carriers cannot be won over, Ms. Koellner said the company believes that Connexion could still succeed by focusing on more of the 2,200 long-haul planes based outside the United States. Boeing is hedging its bets further by trying to bring high-speed Internet service to ships as well. Teekay Shipping, which transports over 10 percent of the world's seagoing oil, began using the Connexion service in June.

The tanker industry, with some 40,000 ships crisscrossing the globe, could make up as much as one-third of Connexion's business in the future, Ms. Koellner said.

Four years ago, oceangoing vessels were the last thing on Connexion planners' minds. Steered by Scott E. Carson, the Boeing sales guru who currently leads its resurgent commercial division, Connexion signed up United, Delta and American Airlines in June 2001. They agreed to outfit 500 planes each - a total of 1,500 planes, or 11 percent of the world's fleet - and take small equity stakes in the business. Airbus, Boeing's European rival, quickly countered by buying a 30 percent stake in Tenzing, a Seattle maker of in-flight Internet systems, thinking it would enable it to provide onboard e-mail in 500 planes by 2003.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks delivered a body blow to the domestic airline industry and ended lofty plans for Internet use in the sky. That November, the domestic partners all withdrew from Connexion, citing cost concerns. Boeing announced plans to cut Connexion's work force by a third; Tenzing, a month earlier, said it would lay off nearly half its staff.

Connexion had a single customer still committed: Lufthansa. Rather than pull the plug, Boeing did an about-face in its strategy, focusing instead on the international market.

Some of the American airlines are concerned that Boeing's satellite-based system will add too much weight to the plane at a time when jet fuel prices have tripled since 2003, to about $2.40 a gallon. Boeing's system adds 600 to 800 pounds to the plane. To save on fuel, United States airlines are doing everything from toting less water to replacing glass mirrors with plastic ones.

Jeff Green, a United Airlines spokesman, said weight was a chief reason United decided to form a partnership with Verizon instead. Verizon's ground-based system, while offering slower connection speeds, makes use of existing components in the seat-back air phone and adds a little under 100 pounds to the plane, said James R. Pilcher, director of marketing for Verizon Airfone.

Verizon's system, which has not yet received a license from the Federal Communications Commission, will not be available on flights until about 2007, and it will not work more than 200 miles from land.

Meanwhile, American, Continental and Delta have no plans to add connectivity to any of their planes. "We are still reviewing it but it has not been on the front burner," said Benet Wilson, a spokeswoman for Delta Air Lines, which sought bankruptcy protection last month.

But some foreign carriers are finding that business travelers are hungry for the service, even at prices ranging from $9.95 for 30 minutes to $29.95 for the whole flight.

A survey by the Innovation Analysis Group in San Diego recently found that more than half of all frequent fliers say they are willing to pay for an in-flight Internet connection, even if their company will not reimburse them.

"We are seeing," said Addison Schonland, a principal at Innovation Analysis, "that this technology will probably pay for itself faster than anything else on board."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/bu.../04boeing.html





Musicians Tell How To Beat System

Web sites instruct fans on how to beat copy-protected CDs

Major labels Sony BMG and EMI are releasing more and more new CDs that block fans from dragging their tunes to iPods.

Now, in the most bizarre turn yet in the record industry's piracy struggles, stars Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters and Switchfoot -- and even Sony BMG, when the label gets complaints -- are telling fans how they can beat the system.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment now regularly releases its new U.S. titles on CDs protected with digital rights management (DRM) that dictates which file formats consumers can use to digitally copy the music. MP3 is not one of those formats. The DRM also limits how many copies of the files consumers can make.

EMI Music is testing a similar initiative for wide-scale use by 2006.

But these decisions are not sitting well with some of the artists whose CDs have been secured. A number of leading acts are using their Web sites to instruct fans on how to work around the technology. (Others, including Jermaine Dupri, have expressed support for anti-copying efforts.)

For now, the copy-protected discs work only with software and devices compatible with Microsoft Windows Media technology. Apple -- the dominant player in digital music -- has resisted appeals from the labels to license its FairPlay DRM for use on the copy-protected discs.

The DRM initiatives are generating complaints from fans, many of whom own iPods. The message boards of artist fan sites and online retailers are filled with complaints from angry consumers who did not realize they were buying a copy-protected title until they tried to create music files on their home computers.

One solution artists offer to iPod users is to rip the CD into a Windows Media file, burn the tracks onto a blank CD (without copy protection) and then rip that CD back into iTunes.

Columbia Records act Switchfoot, whose latest album, "Nothing Is Sound," is copy- protected -- and debuted at No. 3 on The Billboard 200 last week -- recently took copy-protection defiance one step further. Band guitarist Tim Foreman posted on a Sony Music-hosted fan site a link to the software program CDEX, which disables the technology. The post has since been removed.

"We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy," Foreman wrote in the September 14 post. "It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat and tears over the past two years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding new technology."

To add some minor injury to insult, EMI Christian Music Group had to recall copies of "Nothing Is Sound" that were shipped to Christian retailers. Under an agreement with Sony BMG, the EMI imprint handles manufacturing and distribution of Switchfoot to the Christian market. The EMI discs have incorrect DRM settings that do not allow consumers to rip or burn secure tracks.

Switchfoot is not the only band upset by copy protection.

"I'm completely frustrated," says Jason Brown, president of Philadelphonic, a management company that represents Tristan Prettyman. The artist's Virgin Records debut, "Twentythree," is among the albums in the EMI copy-protection trial. "Copy control as it stands right now is in its 1.0 phase. It was rushed through and into a system that wasn't prepared for it."

Sony BMG says it is not trying to prevent consumers from getting music onto iPods. Fans who complain to Sony BMG about iPod incompatibility are directed to a Web site (http://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp) that provides information on how to work around the technology.

The company, which has sold more than 13 million copy-protected discs to date, is urging people who buy copy-protected titles to write to Apple and demand that the company license its FairPlay DRM for use with secure CDs.

EMI is not quite so helpful. A source says the company will not instruct consumers on how to work around copy-protected discs.

Sony BMG, EMI and Apple officials all declined comment. However, both majors have said that increased CD burning has forced their hands on copy protection.

But artists and consumers are bristling at the notion of being caught in the middle of this test of wills. Some managers express doubt about the Sony BMG and EMI strategy in dealing with Apple.

"Anything that smacks of corporatism, people don't like," says Jamie Kitman, president of the Hornblow Group USA, manager for Capitol Records act OK Go, which was considered for, but ultimately left out of the EMI trial. "There's no doubt this has the whiff of punitive activity."

What is more, artist managers are upset that the security is so easily beaten -- in the case of Sony BMG, with the company's assistance -- that it makes a mockery of content protection.

Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group are taking a wait-and-see approach to copy protection. Neither has announced plans for secured U.S. commercial releases.

"The bad thing is that you are almost promoting what you are trying to protect against," Brown says. "You are upsetting the fan that went out and purchased the record."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/1...eut/index.html





Hackers Could Cripple Mobile Phone Networks, Study Says

Hackers could clog and cripple mobile phone service in U.S. cities by inundating networks with text messages, a study found.

New methods of sending text messages to cellphones using the Web and e-mail, while facilitating communication, also have made it easier to overload mobile networks, the study said.

Hackers, who infiltrate computer networks, could flood Manhattan's mobile phone system by sending 165 messages a second. Although cellular-phone service has failed in disasters such as the Sept. 11 attacks, text messaging has largely been reliable and an important part of communicating, the study said.

"Sophisticated users using a complicated apparatus might be able to exploit this," Patrick D. McDaniel, one of the Pennsylvania State University computer scientists who led the study, said Wednesday.

Text messages and mobile calls travel over the same channels, so separating them on different channels would help, the study said. Carriers also could limit the rate at which messages are transmitted and limit the number of recipients for any one message sent from the Web.

The study "states what we in the industry have known for years," said Nancy Stark, a spokeswoman for Verizon Wireless, the second-largest U.S. mobile phone service provider. "We deal with this issue all the time with spam and thwarting that threat on the network." Spam is a term for unwanted e-mail, typically sent by commercial interests.

Sprint Nextel Corp., the third-largest U.S. wireless and local-telephone company, has safeguards that flag unusual activity, a spokesman said..

Hackers would have to use multiple computers to attempt such an attack, the scientists said. A large-scale assault could come if hackers take over a moderate-size collection of computers, according to the study.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...ck=1&cset=true





The Piracy Arms Race: File-Sharing Networks Battle Content Creators For Survival
Jon Healey

Although Val Thomas and Jed McCaleb have never met, their careers have been locked in a hostile embrace for much of the last two years.

From his office in midtown Manhattan, Thomas commands a virtual army of more than 4 million simulated humans that feed a steady diet of fake songs, films and other digital goods to unsuspecting downloaders. One of his prime targets has been the eDonkey file-sharing network, a hotbed of online piracy.

Just a few miles away in lower Manhattan, Jed McCaleb and his colleagues at MetaMachine Inc. defended eDonkey against attack, making it a more efficient and reliable file-sharing tool. In effect, they created markets that were hard for Thomas' cyber army to overrun.

Thomas and McCaleb have been central figures in a race pitting far-flung crews of youthful engineers against the multibillion-dollar entertainment and software industries. That tussle is an important part of the entertainment industry's crusade to convince people that digitized movies and music have value too and shouldn't be enjoyed free.

The outcome of that fight could transform the entertainment industry because "peer-to-peer" systems such as eDonkey enable perfect copies of songs and movies to be shared with millions of people around the world.

"This is unlike traditional analog piracy," said P.J. McNealy, an analyst at American Technology Research. "The scale is so much more massive. It's not like historical piracy levels, where it's a threat to 15 percent of their sales. It's more like a 75 percent to 99 percent threat."

Big money is at stake. Record labels say file sharing was partly to blame for a prolonged slide in compact disc sales, and studio executives have grown accustomed to finding their movies online soon after they open in theaters. Although users of file-sharing networks don't pay to swap music or movies, the companies that distribute the software can make millions by selling advertising on their programs.

The entertainment industry has been making inroads against file sharing in court. Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled in June that companies could be sued for copyright infringement if they encouraged people to bootleg.

That decision has prodded a growing number of companies in the file-sharing field, including eDonkey, to yield to the industry's threats of lawsuits. Last week, Sam Yagan, MetaMachine's chief executive, told a Senate committee that the company would change its software to stop users from downloading illegally.

But the industry's courtroom victories might not reduce online piracy. Instead, downloaders simply might switch to services that are more difficult for the industry to sue, just as they did after the pioneering Napster file-sharing service started filtering out pirated hits.

Hence the labels and studios' need to leaven their legal assault on file sharing with a technological one. And that's where Thomas comes in.

The beefy 42-year-old is chief technical officer of Overpeer Inc., a subsidiary of Loudeye Corp. that is paid by the entertainment industry to combat illegal downloading with an army of computerized drones. From an office overlooking the New York Public Library, Thomas unleashes millions of fake files into popular networks such as eDonkey, Kazaa and Gnutella every hour.

The fakes look real enough, but they're nothing but dead air or song fragments. Thomas aims to drain the fun out of file sharing by forcing users to wade through megabytes of junk before finding an honest-to-goodness pirated file -- if they ever do. It's like trying to find a needle in a virtual haystack.

"We are not attempting in any way, shape or form to shut down a peer-to-peer network," Thomas said. "What we try to do with our technology is prevent the copyrighted material from being distributed over those networks, and only the copyrighted material."

McCaleb, 30, is the lead programmer at MetaMachine, the company behind the immensely popular eDonkey file-sharing software. He and his programming team work on makeshift desks in a one-room office on West 21st Street, in a row of aging commercial buildings.

Fascinated by the power and potential of peer-to-peer technology, McCaleb and his crew designed their software to help users find and download what they're looking for, without tangling with bogus or broken files.

McCaleb wasn't motivated by a zeal for free goods, a grudge against Hollywood or a chip on his shoulder about copyright law. Instead, he was enchanted by the thought of uniting millions of people's computers into a giant, shared resource.

"Napster was just such an awesome idea," McCaleb said in an interview last year. When asked what made Napster so appealing, he said, "It wasn't free music at all. It was the fact that you were essentially summing up all these people's hard drives and making this massive, massive hard drive. That was cool."

Many file sharers don't accept that they're breaking the law, no matter what the courts say. They say they're just sampling things before buying them, or taking a flier on a song or movie that isn't worth owning. And numerous file-sharing advocates contend that free downloading is boosting sales -- particularly for lesser-known musicians.

Thomas shares some of McCaleb's sentiments, saying that peer-to-peer computing is "a sweet technology. It really is. But it's being misused." Both men are eager to see the entertainment industry use programs like eDonkey to distribute legitimate copies of their works and build businesses around file sharing.

They just don't agree on how to get there from here.

EDonkey lets users search for and download files in a way that's fundamentally different from earlier efforts such as the original Napster and Kazaa. The software verifies each segment of a file as it downloads, and it has built-in safeguards against files whose contents don't match their names.

That difference kept Overpeer and its competitors -- most notably ArtistDirect Inc. subsidiary MediaDefender of Los Angeles, Macrovision Corp. of Santa Clara, Calif., and SafeNet Inc. subsidiary MediaSentry Services of New York -- from launching attacks on eDonkey. As a consequence, the spoof-free landscape of eDonkey contrasted sharply with the choking overgrowth of bogus files on Kazaa, helping the former grow at the latter's expense.

The situation changed in early 2004. After about three months of work, Overpeer's programmers came up with a way to throw its virtual army and bogus files at eDonkey users. Company executives declined to describe their techniques, saying they did not want to tip their hand to pirates.

Over time, though, it became clear that the spoofs were not as effective against eDonkey as they had been against Kazaa. Anti-piracy firms say that eDonkey remains the most popular file-sharing network on the planet, with millions of people running it and related programs at any given moment.

In the summer of 2005, eDonkey programmers noticed something weird happening as they checked the software's search function. When they typed random words into the search box, McCaleb said, they would occasionally get a strange mishmash of files -- all coming from the same set of eDonkey users.

"They've somehow poisoned the network a bit," effectively hijacking the program's search function, McCaleb said.

The attack, whose source is unknown, was evidently designed to stop eDonkey users from finding certain copyrighted works. The problem, McCaleb said, was that it also disrupted searches for legal files whose names included some of the same words as the protected ones.

Within a few days, McCaleb's team circumvented the problem. Overpeer executives declined to discuss the company's techniques or say whether their outfit was behind the attack.

Despite the technical challenges, Overpeer executives say they're making a measurable dent in piracy, at least for the items they're hired to protect. But they think it's better to give people the chance to buy what they want on file-sharing networks than to rely exclusively on anti-piracy technology.

The idea of trying to convert pirates to buyers is gaining momentum, Morgenstern said, with the company conducting several trials with curious copyright owners.

The major record labels are backing two copyright-friendly approaches to file sharing, Mashboxx and a new version of iMesh, that substitute authorized versions of songs for pirated MP3s.

In an interview last year, McCaleb contended that those efforts would not be able to compete with file-sharing networks that continue to allow free, unfettered downloading.

"All the filtered networks in the world won't address the problem of copyright violation if no one is using them and everyone just migrates to the nonfiltered networks," McCaleb said.

Still, MetaMachine's Yagan said in a recent interview that his company had no choice but to embrace filtering after it received a cease-and-desist letter from the Recording Industry Association of America last month.

To both Yagan and Morgenstern, the key for the entertainment industry is to find a way to use file-sharing networks effectively, rather than just to neuter them.
As Morgenstern put it, "All you have to do is hang out with teenagers to realize the revolution is upon us."
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology





Calling The Tune

Music firms are emboldened, but risk strangling the golden goose

THE music business has long wailed that internet piracy is destroying its business.

Now, it is fighting back on two fronts—first, by driving illegal operators out of business; then by driving as hard a bargain as possible with those firms selling legal downloads. Indeed talks between Microsoft and the major music firms have just broken down because the software company thinks the music business is demanding unreasonable levels of royalties.

Things are going better for the major record labels on other fronts. Last week the founder of a popular “peer-to-peer” (P2P) file-sharing program, Sam Yagan, told a Senate committee that his company will soon stop operating in its current form. He explained that eDonkey—which accounts for around half of all P2P traffic—can no longer afford to fight the music industry in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in June against two other P2P firms, Grokster and StreamCast, which declared that such applications are illegal if they induce users to violate copyright.

As expected, the music industry is now using its legal victory to hound commercial P2P operators out of business. Last month the music industry's trade body sent them threatening letters. WinMx, another P2P network, appears to have shut down, while eDonkey says it plans to start making its users pay for music. Grokster is reportedly on the verge of selling itself to a company called Mashboxx, which has a similar strategy to go legitimate. In Australia last month, a court ruled against Kazaa, another popular file-sharing service, and ordered it to use filters to stop the trading of copyrighted content.

Nobody, however, including executives at the major labels, believes that file- sharing is defeated. When the industry forced Napster, the first big file-sharing network, to shut down in 2001—it has since relaunched as a fee-based service—a host of free alternatives sprang up immediately, and that is what will now happen again. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, says Mr Yagan, the new P2P services will simply move offshore and underground, and will offer more anonymity. In fact, the Supreme Court's decision is likely to encourage a move towards free, “open- source” P2P applications. Since they do not make money from advertising or bundling software, they are less vulnerable to the accusation that they are illegally inducing piracy for their own benefit.

In the first half of this year, digital-music sales from mobile-phone “ringtunes” and legal download services such as Apple's iTunes more than tripled compared with last year, and now represent 6% of total music revenues, according to industry estimates released this week. That rapid growth has restored confidence to the music industry, as have its victories in court.

So much confidence, indeed, that some of the major labels are urging Apple's iTunes service—the epitome of success in online music sales so far—to shift to variable (ie, higher) prices from the consistent $0.99 per track it currently charges in America. That would be a mistake. Despite its rapid growth, the legal market for music on the internet is still in its infancy. Apple's boss, Steve Jobs, believes that higher prices would stifle legal sales and encourage P2P-based piracy. Microsoft might even deserve better treatment, too. Since the major labels' legal stick will never be completely effective against P2P, it is vital that they also offer an attractive carrot.
http://www.economist.com/business/di...ory_id=4492917





FTC Seeks to Halt Alleged Spyware Site

Agency says Kazanon file-sharing software packs hidden programs that can't be removed with standard utilities.
Grant Gross

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has asked a U.S. District Court judge to halt the operations of a Web site that allegedly installed spyware and adware on customers' computers while promising free software to allow anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing, the agency has announced.

The FTC, in a complaint filed in September, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to permanently halt downloads from Odysseusmarketing.com, saying that the company's "stealthy" downloads constitute spyware and violate federal law. Odysseus Marketing is based in Stratham, New Hampshire.

Head to Head

The FTC's complaint alleges that Odysseus Marketing's Kazanon software, which claimed to allow users to "download music without fear," did not make file sharing anonymous, as it advertised that it would. The software was bundled with spyware called Clientman, which secretly downloads dozens of other software programs, the FTC said.

The "secretly" downloaded software could degrade computer performance and memory and could replace search-engine results at sites such as Google and Yahoo with those from copycat sites, the FTC said. Some of the downloaded software generated pop-up ads and transmitted data from users' computers to Odysseus Marketing servers, the agency said.

Odysseus Marketing operator Walter Rines disputes the FTC's allegations. Computer users who downloaded his software had to agree to terms and conditions that told them adware came bundled with the free peer-to-peer product, he said. The adware did generate pop-up ads, but his company did not distribute spyware, he said.

"It was harmless software," he said. "I'm aware of the [FTC] filing, but what they're alleging is absolutely wrong, top to bottom."

Hidden Threat?

Clientman can crash the Internet Explorer Web browser, and it attempts to collect personal information, such as user names and passwords, from several Web applications, according to Computer Associates International, a computer security software vendor.

The FTC accused Rines and his company of hiding its adware notice in the middle of a two-page end-user license agreement buried on the Odysseus Web site. The FTC also alleged that the defendants deliberately make their software difficult to detect and impossible to remove using standard software utilities. Though the defendants purport to offer their own "uninstall" tool, it does not work as an uninstaller but instead installs additional software, according to the FTC's complaint.

The Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group, applauded the FTC's action against Odysseus Marketing. CDT had complained about Odysseus Marketing in a spyware report to the FTC in February 2004, CDT said. The FTC has filed complaints against three companies identified in the CDT complaint.

"The FTC has been going after companies that defraud consumers by installing unwanted and dangerous spyware on their computers," CDT Deputy Director Ari Schwartz said in a statement. "We applaud the commission for its continued efforts to crack down on spyware distributors. Unfortunately, they still have a lot of work to do."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122868,00.asp





File-sharing crackdown

University Network To Block Outside Peer-To-Peer File-Sharing
Ashley Zaleski with reporting by Katherine Foutch

On Monday morning, the Information Technology Services Web site reported that in order to preserve communications bandwidth for use by other applications, the university network would stop transporting the inbound and outbound Internet traffic of three peer-to-peer file-sharing programs. Intra- campus transport for these applications would not be affected.

ITS news states that the network is now reconfigured to identify and “drop” information packets created by Gnutella, E-Donkey and DirectConnect.

Once identified, packets from the three applications will simply be dropped rather than being forwarded as usual.

ITS Assistant Vice Chancellor Matthew Hall said that from an operations and financial perspective, file sharing programs affect the rate of bandwidth growth and the security of our network as viruses may be injected.

Hall said that through June and July this summer, the ITS department informally tested to see how people used the network connections. It let people use the network freely and came to the conclusion that something had to be done.

“I’m not trying to facilitate morality, but it was just getting out of hand,” Hall said. “Sometimes one-third of the network facilities were used for illegal file sharing. Why would we permit that?”

According to ITS news, network traffic analyses indicate that communication from Gnutella, E-Donkey, and DirectConnect programs are consuming as much as 37 percent of the capacity of Vanderbilt’s connection with the Internet.

Since early Tuesday morning, after only eight hours of monitoring, the ITS department blocked 1.1 million in and outbound attempts to use the Gnutella program.

Hall indicated that the file sharing issue goes beyond broadband width and security.

“Musicians work hard to get themselves into mainstream culture,” Hall said. “If people enjoy their music without compensation, what’s in it for them to continue their work?”

Student Frank Cioppettini had a lawsuit brought against him by the Recording Industry Asscociation of America.

“One file was uploaded for people to take music from and someone downloaded one of my songs. RIAA saw this and they contacted Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt then turned off my internet.” Cioppettini said. “I stopped using file sharing. Vanderbilt had to prove to the RIAA that they contacted me and I contacted them back through e-mail.”

Students reported mixed reactions to the changes. However, many were unaware any changes had been made.

“Changes like these that affect most of the student body need to be better publicized. I know a lot of students will have strong opinions on an issue that could affect students daily,” sophomore Ashley Paschall said.

Hall and ITS representatives do not overlook the face that students will react to these changes. From their perspective, these actions will move to preserve the music industry and the integrity of Vanderbilt students as consumers.

“It’s a non-issue to me,” Hall said. “A core group will respond angrily, but I think the majority will go on with their lives unaffected.”
http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/vne.../43434dc82e614





U. of Ga.: Hacker May Have Student Info
AP

University of Georgia said a computer hacker may have accessed the names and Social Security numbers of at least 1,600 current and former employees.

The university was working with state and federal authorities to investigate the breach, which was discovered Sept. 19.

"To this point there has been no evidence, direct or indirect, that any of this information has actually been misused," said Arnett C. Mace Jr., the school's provost.

University officials say 2,429 Social Security numbers were exposed, but there was some repetition and the number of affected people is expected to be smaller.

Last year, a hacker broke into a UGA computer and may have accessed credit card information for about 32,000 students. The university never caught the hacker, but was not aware of any misuse of that information, said Tom Jackson, a UGA spokesman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092900392.html





Der Wormens!

Art:
Worm

Alias-Namen:
No Alias Found

In-the-wild:
Ja

Zerstörerisch:
Nein

Sprache:
English

Plattform:
Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP, Server 2003

Verschlüsselt:
Nein

Merkmale:
C4X
Allgemeine Risikoeinstufung

This memory-resident worm propagates by dropping copies of its component file BASE.EXE to shared folders used by popular peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing applications, thus making the worm copy available for download to unsuspecting users. It saves its dropped copies using several file names. Note that this worm can drop several copies of BASE.EXE to the said folders.

It is composed of two (2) .EXE files: BASE.EXE and WINLASS.EXE. Upon executing BASE.EXE, it creates a folder named System in the system root folder. It then connects to a Web site to download and execute WINLASS.EXE.
http://de.trendmicro-europe.com/cons...ame=WORM_BAS.A





Digital Music Sales Soar; Industry Hopes Downloads Eventually Offset CDs' Decline
Charles Duhigg

Could digital music sales be the recording industry's salvation? Not yet, not by a longshot. But legal downloads are way up, according to domestic and international numbers released Monday.

Over the last six months, sales of music over the Internet and via mobile phone downloads have tripled internationally and grown by 169% in the United States compared with the same period a year earlier, the Recording Industry Assn. of America and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry reported.

But those sales were not enough to offset a declining music market. The value of music shipped or downloaded in the U.S. in the first half of 2005 fell by 2.7% to $4.98 billion from $5.12 billion in the previous year, according to the recording industry association. Internationally, phonographic federation tallies show that sales of recorded music fell 1.9% to a retail value of $13.2 billion.

Legal music downloads still account for only a tiny fraction of music sales. In the first half of 2005, legal digital sales constituted 3.9% of the U.S. music market and 6% of the international market.

Still, some music executives and analysts are bullish on digital downloads, which they predict will eventually offset declines in CD and cassette sales.

Record company executives point to Japan, where mobile phone users spent $128 million on music-related downloads during the last six months, according to the federation. Representatives of the four major music companies have all said they expect mobile downloads of songs and videos to increase in the U.S. and Europe.

"Music is becoming more and more important worldwide," said Larry Haverty, who oversees a media portfolio at Gabelli Asset Management Inc. "Sales of physical formats are still falling, but within the next two to three years I think you'll see downloads push the market to new heights."
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology





Digital Music Wholesaler Plans Public Offering
Charles Duhigg

Digital Music Group Inc. has registered to raise as much as $36 million in an initial public offering that would make it one of the first independent digital music wholesalers to sell stock.

But the financials of the fledgling company, which provides digital music to Apple's iTunes Music Store, Wal-Mart Music and Yahoo Music, didn't strike much of a chord with some analysts. In the six months ended June 30, the firm lost $866,172 on revenue of $223,672, according to the Thursday filings.

"It appears to me there is a kernel of opportunity here, but it is premature to go public," said Phil Leigh, president of Inside Digital Media Inc. "They are running some serious risks."

Others agree, pointing to data compiled by Jupiter Research showing that sales of digital music only make up about 2% of the U.S. musical market. Observers note that Digital Music Group faces well-funded competitors, and that the major record labels, which own licenses for most of the music sold in the U.S., work directly with online stores rather than through wholesale distributors.

"Digital distribution is a very low-margin business," said David Pakman, managing director of a group that owns the Orchard, a competitor to Digital Music Group. "This market is growing quickly, but it certainly isn't mature. It's best to have repeated profitable quarters and to demonstrate real growth before taking anything to public investors."

Representatives of Sacramento-based Digital Music Group declined to comment.

Although the company said in filings that it had secured rights to sell more than 200,000 recordings in digital format, it also disclosed that thus far large retailers had agreed to sell only 17,000 of those.

According to Digital Music Group's filing, I-Bankers Securities Inc. is underwriting the company's offering, which is planned to trade on Nasdaq under the symbol DMGI. A representative of I-Bankers said the firm's entire sales staff was based in Italy.

Digital Music Group was created in April when executives from Digital Musicworks International and Rio Bravo Entertainment agreed to merge some assets. Neither company is well known in the digital marketplace. Digital Musicworks is headed by Mitchell Koulouris, a 13-year veteran of Tower Records who previously headed a company publishing computer magazines.

Others agree that the digital boom will continue to be pushed by increasing awareness of legal download services, innovative online search tools that let users find new music and, in some markets, greater demand for mobile phone downloads and ring tones, which allow consumers to change their ring to a song.

But even increased legal downloads may not be enough to buoy the industry. Some music companies have bickered with Apple Computer Inc. over the company's rigid iTunes pricing policy: 99 cents a song. In the United States, iTunes accounts for 82% of legal downloads.

"Record companies were built by charging $12 for a CD," said Mike McGuire, a researcher with Gartner Media Industries. "Now people can just buy one track for 99 cents. Even if you sell more songs, the revenues are smaller. Music labels will need to become smaller and flatter to survive."

Music executives also have pointed to the upsurge in legal downloads as evidence that anti-piracy efforts are working. The recording association and record companies have sued more than 14,800 computer users in the United States since 2003.

Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne Online Media Measurement, isn't so sure.

The major record companies "want anti-piracy efforts to be like speed traps: You might not get caught, but they'll slow you down," Garland said. "But most people don't know anyone who has been sued. People are illegally downloading as much music as before."
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology





Microsoft Breaks Off Talks With Record Labels
AP

After weeks of negotiations, Microsoft Corp. has suspended talks with the four major record companies over the licensing terms for a new online music subscription service, according to people familiar with the talks.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant broke off the discussions on Friday, citing an impasse with the record companies over royalty rates, these people said Tuesday.

One of the sources, who works closely with Microsoft and has been involved in company discussions on the possible venture with the labels, confirmed the negotiations had ended, but said Microsoft remains committed to the idea of a subscription service.

Microsoft spokesman Adam Sohn declined to comment.

Microsoft already sells song downloads on its MSN Music Internet site but had been seeking to develop a subscription service. Such services typically offer users unlimited number of tracks for download, and in some cases, for use on compatible portable music players, for a monthly fee.

Several online retailers already offer online music subscription, including Yahoo Inc., Napster Inc., RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody and MusicNet. Their fees vary, but range between roughly $5 to $15 a month, with some charging users extra to move songs to portable players.

The collapse of the talks between Microsoft and the major record labels, reported by The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, represents the latest skirmish between retailers and record labels over pricing in the developing digital music market.

Last month, Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs publicly criticized the recording industry, saying some major labels were ``greedy'' for pushing Apple to hike prices on the iTunes Music Store.

Record label executives have scoffed at the suggestion they're being greedy. Last month, Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. said at an investors' conference that Apple's 99-cent price for single tracks -- the service charges variable prices for some of album downloads -- ignores the issue that not all songs are the same commercially and, like any other commodity, shouldn't be priced the same.

``The labels have complained basically that they're not making enough money on downloads, that they prefer subscription services,'' said Phil Leigh, a digital music analyst in Tampa, Fla.

``Microsoft is saying on behalf of themselves and, indirectly, on behalf of the rest of the subscription (services), `If you want a subscription offering, if you want the better recurring revenue from subscription pricing, then give us a better price.'''
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...l/12816707.htm





Trade ya

Army Investigating Web Postings of Grisly War Photos
Josh White

U.S. Army officials are looking into allegations that soldiers have been trading gruesome digital pictures of war victims in Iraq and Afghanistan for access to an amateur pornography Web site, but officials said yesterday that there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.

The allegations surfaced last week, when the East Bay Express, a weekly newspaper in the San Francisco Bay area, published a story about graphic photographs that appeared on one section of the Web site. The photographs, which show the bodies of several people killed in shootings, explosions, or fires, include crude captions, some of which mock the dead.

Pentagon and Army officials yesterday issued strong statements condemning the taking and posting of such photographs, but said there is little evidence to authenticate them and few ways to pursue a criminal investigation. While some of the photos appear to show U.S. soldiers in uniform near mutilated bodies, it is unclear where or when the pictures were taken.

The Web site's creator said yesterday that about 30,000 members of the military are registered on his site, several thousand of whom have sent him photographs or comments from their official military Web addresses. Many of the photographs depict life in Iraq, while only a few are extremely graphic, he said.

"It's an uncensored view of the war, from their perspective," said Chris Wilson, 27, of Florida, who began accepting the photographs from soldiers overseas as payment for access to pornography on his Web site. "It's a place where the soldiers can express themselves without being filtered by the Bush administration," he added.

Those who submit photos of war casualties could be breaking military rules against "unbecoming" conduct and also could be in violation of government regulations regarding use of the Internet. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have access to the Internet, largely at Internet cafes, and many have digital cameras.

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said investigators have been examining the photos for clues to their origin, adding that commanders in the field are emphasizing that taking and posting such photos is unacceptable.

"If accurate, these are gruesome depictions of deceased people in Iraq, and that violates the standards of our values, training and procedures that we ask military personnel to observe and obey," Boyce said. "It is very difficult to establish they are in fact being submitted by soldiers, where they were taken, who they were taken by, and the circumstances surrounding them."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has decried the photographs and called for a Pentagon investigation. An official said the images could inflame insurgents and give other nations the mistaken impression that many Americans are gloating over casualties of the Iraq war.

"What we're most concerned about is the safety of our own soldiers," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's legal director. "It only tarnishes our image even further and serves as fodder for the insurgents and terrorists."

Wilson, who said he supports the soldiers and the war, said users must search out the corpse photos, which are not displayed prominently on the site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092802254.html





I'd like to know where the riverboat sails tonight
To New Orleans well that's just fine alright
`Cause there's fighting there and the company needs men
So slip us a rope and sail on round the bend

Bernie Taupin

















Until next week,

- js.


















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

October 1st, September 24th, September 17th, September 10th,

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. Questions or comments? Call (617) 939-2340, country code U.S.. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


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