Anonymous File Sharing Network Not So Anonymous After All?
Posted Eric Bangeman
Two Japanese computer users suspected of trading movies and games were recently arrested according to Japanese police. What makes this case especially interesting is that they were accessing a supposedly- anonymous file-sharing network via a program called "Winny," which purports to hide the user's identity from the rest of the network. The network based on Winny has around 250,000 regular users and is popular because of the anonymity it supposedly offers. Along with the two men arrested, the home of the developer of Winny was raided by police.
Winny is reportedly based on probably the best-known anonymous file-sharing application Freenet. This network provides anonymous untraceable sharing by dividing up files and distributing them across different computers. The network is also cryptographically secured. However, Freenet's creator, Ian Clarke, has questioned any close connection. "From what I have seen of Winny (which isn't much) it is more likely that they have borrowed a few ideas from Freenet," Clarke writes in an online posting. "But it is unclear whether Winny uses a Freenet-style routing algorithm, or implements any of Freenet's crypto."
Since the advent of legal action against file traders, anonymous and other closed networks have become more popular for trading music, movies, and programs. The arrests in Japan mark the first time someone has been nabbed for using one of these networks. As more legal pressure is brought to bear on the practice of file sharing, dedicated traders will look harder for means of obscuring their identity. However, as the arrests in Japan demonstrate, true anonymity on the Internet is difficult - if not impossible - to find.
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1070383658.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kazaa's Premiere
Nicole Manktelow
An Australian surf movie and a Bollywood blockbuster have premiered as the first full-length feature films to be available - legitimately - via the peer-to-peer file-sharing application Kazaa.
Surf movie maestro Jack McCoy's Tahitian odyssey, To' Day of Days, (To' is pronounced 'toe') can be downloaded for $US4.90 ($6.80). It joins the Hindi language film Supari, a thriller by director Padam Kumar, which costs $US2.99.
The two films will provide Kazaa's owner, Sydney-based Sharman Networks, with important examples to woo other filmmakers and prove itself as a bona-fide distribution network.
Kazaa claims 60 million users and the mantle of being the world's most downloaded software, but its file-sharing abilities are most loved for allowing users to swap files, including pirated content, freely.
This leaves the company with the formidable challenge of gaining the trust of the broader entertainment industry that, while warming to digital content, has shown little tolerance for file- sharing systems.
While Sharman Networks claims no control over the content its users share among themselves, it does have access to a copy-protection technology from partner Altnet.
"We work with Altnet to create a market for licensed content, promotion and distribution ... it's everything we want to be in the future," says Sharman Networks' marketing director, Michael Liubinskas.
The company recently launched a $US1 million advertising campaign targeting the entertainment industry in the US, Britain and Australia, and in particular attempting to change perceptions of Kazaa users. One advertisement placed in US print media included the line, "They are not pirates. They are your customers."
Not yet convinced, the Recording Industry Association of America has so far declined to test the protection technology.
Using the system, protected movies may be swapped and shared between users as freely as any file on a peer-to-peer network; however each user will be asked to pay a licence fee (billed to a credit card) when they run the downloaded file.
This payment mechanism was an important consideration for filmmaker McCoy before he released To' Day of Days.
"That was absolutely one of my major issues. I was wondering, once it is out there, is it going to be out there forever?"
McCoy has produced, directed and photographed 23 films, many considered surfing classics. The Avalon-based filmmaker is now finishing his latest epic Blue Horizon, which has been sponsored by the clothing giant Billabong.
"We are developing plans to release the new movie online. Billabong is thrilled," McCoy says.
McCoy has been selling To' Day of Days on video and DVD from his website for about a year.
"The e-commerce experience for me has been with fans overseas who have not been able to get my films and have to get in touch," McCoy says. With Kazaa, he believes his film is already reaching a new audience, especially with a free four-minute extract from the full movie.
At 400MB, the full-length version is targeted at those on broadband connections. Big files are no problem according to Kazaa's Liubinskas. "We have had success in selling 800MB games," he says.
The film Supari, released online thanks to a distribution agreement between filmmaker Aum Creates and Altnet, has so far achieved 200 sales via Kazaa, says Liubinskas. "People are paying for it," he says.
As well as the film, there are production footage and trailers, the soundtrack and music video clips from the feature, which can be bought for US90 cents ($1.25).
"Both films are really big steps for us," says Liubinskas, who adds the company is hunting for more licensed content.
"We have someone sourcing Asian films and someone sourcing French films now. We're already in discussions with the BBC ... they have a charter to distribute all the content they create but they can't have 25 channels."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...351783049.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Getting Real About the DVR Threat
Diane Mermigas
Television broadcasters, who increasingly find themselves adrift in a multichannel media world, have only themselves to blame and may have only a few years to salvage or leverage their grass-roots franchises.
That is the pragmatic warning from SG Cowen analyst James Marsh in a new report, "Will the Current Ad-Supported TV Model Be Zapped by DVRs?"
Unlike the growing number of Wall Street research analysts who have similarly accepted and focused on how rapidly growing digital video recording technology will compromise broadcast revenues and profits, Mr. Marsh has put his money where his mouth is.
Because he expects a balance sheet threat to materialize by 2005, Mr. Marsh has downgraded four broadcast-related companies and lowered financial performance estimates for the seven media concerns he tracks.
Mr. Marsh made the uncommon move of lowering the ratings on four major broadcast groups- Hearst-Argyle, Gannett, Tribune and Univision-to "market perform" from "market outperform." He also lowered his long-term estimates for growth in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for those four media companies and three others in his coverage group-including New York Times Co., E.W. Scripps and Emmis Communications-despite what will likely be a profitable cyclical quadrennial year in 2004.
The rollout of DVR-type technology, hastened by its integration in cable set-top boxes as a weapon in cable's battle with satellite for subscribers, will reach critical mass with 11 percent penetration of U.S. television households by 2005 and 15 percent by 2006, Mr. Marsh said. By that time sponsorships and product placement, or even long-awaited deregulation, will offset the rapid loss of spot television advertising revenues.
"The broadcasters who do not own the bulk of the programming they air [namely affiliate groups] will be most at risk during this transition period," he said.
As a result, five-year earnings growth for TV station groups could fall from as much as 10 percent to as low as 4 percent, Mr. Marsh said.
"As penetration levels rise, we see commercial ad skipping among DVR subscribers to blunt top-line growth as ratings for commercials diverge from program ratings," he said. "While we don't think DVR technology will destroy ad-supported television entirely, it will be increasingly difficult for broadcasters to rein in highly fixed cost structures before their cash flow and revenues growth rates slow."
But the scariest part about all of this is the lack of response from broadcasters, which do not share Wall Street's emerging sense of urgency about how DVR-type technology is being adapted more quickly and undercutting their ad-supported economics more quickly than previously expected.
In fact, Mr. Marsh had intended to devote an entire section in his Nov. 11 report to broadcasters' responses and solutions, only to find there wasn't much when they were asked.
"It's reminiscent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," Mr. Marsh said. "It scares me a bit because some of the businesses are in a very awkward position. Especially the affiliate groups. After all, the only programming they own is their local news, and they are hard-pressed to do product placements.
"No one seems to be taking it very seriously, but I think behind the scenes they have to be very nervous."
Mr. Marsh's forecast and assumptions leave little room for argument: Once DVR technology reaches mass-market proportions, five-year TV ad revenue growth will drop to 3.8 percent from 6.5 percent.
During the same period, total ad-supported TV ratings will remain flat despite share shifts to cable from broadcast. Advertising CPMs (costs per thousand impressions) grow only 3 percent annually, just ahead of inflation. All the while, the average revenue growth of various ad-supported TV platforms remains relatively low even before factoring in the impact of DVR ad skipping. Mr. Marsh forecasts average annual revenue growth of 4 percent for the Big 4 networks, 5.6 percent for national spot, 5.3 percent for local spot, 9.2 percent for cable networks, 9.4 percent for local cable and 6.2 percent for syndication.
With DVR users skipping an estimated 60 percent of commercials-what Mr. Marsh contends is a "conservative estimate"-the collective impact represents a threat to revenue and cash flow growth that cannot be offset, even by the most rigorous cost containment or deregulation.
"The tactics once employed by broadcasters to assure their profitability will lose their effectiveness," he said. Suddenly, the popular programs the broadcast networks paid a premium to maintain on their schedules as prime-time lead-ins, lead-outs and anchors of nightly schedules are no longer effective. Viewers recording their favorite shows, such as "Friends," while failing to sample new series such as "Single Guy" destroys the entire broadcast network economic system, Mr. Marsh said.
As if Mr. Marsh's straightforward assessment weren't scary enough, it comes amid a prime-time television season fraught with still more unexpected downside.
http://www.tvweek.com/deals/112403dicolumn.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sharing and Stealing
Jessica Litman
Wayne State University Law School
Abstract:
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation and mass dissemination of a wide variety of works. Until recently, most means of mass dissemination required a significant capital investment. The lion's share of the economic proceeds of copyrights were therefore channeled to publishers and distributors, and the law was designed to facilitate that. Digital distribution invites us to reconsider all of the assumptions underlying that model. We are still in the early history of the networked digital environment, but already we've seen experiments with both direct and consumer-to-consumer distribution of works of authorship. One remarkable example of the difference consumer-to-consumer dissemination can make is seen in the astonishing information space that has grown up on the world wide web. The Internet has transformed information and the way we interact with it by creating an easily accessible, dynamic, shared information space. Its success derives from the fact that information sharing on the Web is almost frictionless; individuals are free to post information they learned from others without having to secure their permissions. This paper proposes that we look for some of the answers to the vexing problem of unauthorized exchange of music files on the Internet in the wisdom intellectual property law has accumulated about the protection and distribution of factual information. In particular, it analyzes the digital information resource that has developed on the Internet, and suggests that what we should be trying to achieve is an online musical smorgasbord of comparable breadth and variety. It proposes that we adopt a legal architecture that encourages but does not compel copyright owners to make their works available for widespread sharing over digital networks, and that we incorporate into that architecture a payment mechanism, based on a blanket or collective license, designed to compensate creators and to bypass unnecessary intermediaries.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery...tractid=472141
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery...er - 127KB PDF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Holiday Greetings: RIAA Files More Lawsuits
Roy Mark
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent early holiday greetings to alleged peer-to-peer (P2P) music pirates Wednesday, filing 41 more lawsuits claiming "egregious" copyright infringement. In addition, the principle trade group of the music industry said it notified another 90 people that it intends to file suits against them.
The RIAA defines egregious as distributing 1,000 or more "copyrighted music files for millions of strangers on the Internet to copy for free."
Since September, when the RIAA launched its legal campaign against individual file-swappers, the music industry has filed 382 legal actions. Almost 300 more P2P users have been notified of possible infringement violations.
The RIAA says it has secured 220 settlements with file-sharers, resulting from a combination of lawsuits filed, notification letters sent to those targeted for legal action, and individuals who had contacted the RIAA after learning that their identifying information was subpoenaed from their Internet service provider (ISP).
According to the RIAA, the lawsuits help to foster an environment that provides a level playing field for the growing number of legitimate online music services to thrive.
"The legal actions taken by the record companies have been effective in educating the American public that illegal file sharing of copyrighted material has significant consequences," said RIAA President Cary Sherman. "Consumers are increasingly attracted to the host of compelling legal online music alternatives."
Additionally, the RIAA said, more than a thousand people have filed "Clean Slate" affidavits, an RIAA amnesty program for P2P network users who voluntarily identify themselves and pledge to stop illegally sharing music on the Internet. The program has been attacked as misleading and in California, a lawsuit has been filed claiming the program is a deceptive trade practice.
Research from Peter D. Hart Research Associates released by the RIAA indicates the anti-piracy campaign is having an effect on illegal file-swapping. Hart's survey results from a November poll, among 802 Americans age 10 and over, show that 64 percent of those polled understand it's illegal to "make music from the computer available for others to download for free over the Internet."
That's up from 37 percent in November of last year, and for certain subgroups, the new awareness numbers are even higher, for example, 69 percent versus 16 percent among "regular Internet users."
The Hart data also claims that by a 52-20 margin, those surveyed feel there are now good legal alternatives to illegal downloading.
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/3116101
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Salute The Flag
Wendy M. Grossman
THE FEDERAL Communications Commission published new rules this week allowing over-the-air broadcasters to insert a “broadcast flag” into high-definition digital transmissions that would allow personal copying but block redistribution – at least, in the original high- definition format. All devices (such as VCRs and DVD players) that are capable of receiving digital TV broadcast signals that are sold after July 2005 will be required to have a tuner card that recognizes the flag. Getchyer unprotected TV equipment now, folks!
Seriously, the claim that is being used to justify this decision is that if broadcasters can’t protect their content from piracy they’ll move it off free-to-air networks and onto secured subscription channels such as HBO. Or, in the words of FCC chairman Michael Powell, introducing the new rules, “The widespread redistribution of broadcast TV content on the Internet would unnecessarily drive high-value programming to more secure delivery platforms.”
Now, let’s think about this. To whom is this a threat? Not the program makers: they’re saying they’ll simply move their distribution elsewhere. Not the cable/satellite channels who presumably are the fantasy recipients of this “high-value programming”. Be the first channel on your block to carry the new season of Friends! It’s meant to be a threat to ordinary TV viewers, who might have to pay more to see Survivor. The only network TV series that I can imagine on HBO is The West Wing.
These subtle differences are, by the way, generally lost on international viewers of American TV shows, even commentators for major newspapers outside the US and Canada. I remember reading an article in one of the British broadsheets that was based on the notion that people actually chose between watching Sex and the City and Friends (and condemning Americans for being so stupid as to choose the latter), with no understanding of the different contexts and business models in which they appear.
So really, the threat is to network broadcasters whose market share has been ebbing for two decades. Those folks have a lot of clout, of course, and to be fair I think it is important that we continue to have freely accessible broadcasting.
The immediate impact of the new rules seems likely to be minimal, at least in terms of existing equipment. It is already possible to download whole episodes of new TV shows less than 24 hours after their broadcast and sometimes even before, if someone intercepts the satellite feed. This is not going to stop instantly: the broadcast flag won’t, for the moment, stop you from recording the show and watching it yourself. The FCC proposes to make rules later that will define the boundaries of a “personal digital network environment”, a zone within which copying and redistribution will be permitted. We, of course, might like that PDNE to include all our own personal devices plus all our friends and families; the MPAA will doubtless want it to be confined to a single copy tied to a single device. But that’s some way down the path.
Where the rules will have more impact is on equipment that could be made now and that people want to buy now, but that the MPAA wants to block. SonicBlue was driven out of seeling the Replay device that would allow anyone with a copy of a TV show to hit a “Send” button to dispatch a copy across an ethernet connection to a friend of relative with the same device. I know someone who transfers copies of American game shows from the US to the UK this way (expatriates get nostalgic for the strangest things). Wouldn’t you prefer your high-def TiVo to have a built-in DVD burner? However, although it’s probably fair to say, as Paul Boutin does on Slate, that the broadcast flag is not the end of the world and the FCC in its rule calls the broadcast flag a “speed bump” rather than a total blockade, it’s important to remember that the most likely scenario is that it’s a first step. The MPAA is not being as stupid as the RIAA in that it’s not suing children for sharing files, but it still wants more digital control rather than less. The next point of attack will be what is now being called the “analog hole”. That is, the bypass that will continue to allow people to make analog copies (certainly no worse in quality than today’s, and possibly much better) of broadcasts and digitize and share those. A working group has already been set up to consider this problem, as has the EFF, “Cruelty to Analog”. Satellite and cable systems, which are more secure, also have an analog hole, so anyone wanting to defend the fair-use rights we still have is going to be facing a much bigger array of interests.
The really unfortunate thing about all this is that all discussion of the future of broadcasting has been diverted into the copyright wars. Where is the will to demand a quid pro quo? Let the broadcasters have their flag if – and only if – they continue to provide services of public importance. Like hard and international news, which erodes year by year in favor of celebrity gossip. Somewhere along the line “high-quality” has been hijacked to refer only to the quality of the picture, not its content.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=12919
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will the Broadcast Flag Break Your TiVo?
The FCC ruling explained.
Paul Boutin
Television fans accustomed to recording shows and watching them later are still trying to make sense of the Federal Communications Commission's Nov. 4 ruling, which says digital TV sets built after July 2005 will need to include an anti-piracy system called a broadcast flag, meant to keep high-definition digital broadcasts from instantly becoming Internet bootlegs. Broadcast-flag technology works like this: Digital TV signals that are broadcast over the air, rather than transmitted via cable or satellite, will include an invisible data tag—the broadcast flag—along with the picture and sound. By FCC fiat, any digital TV tuner built after July 1, 2005, must refuse to allow broadcast-flagged programs to be recorded in such a way that they can be redistributed in their high-definition format. You'll be able to record Letterman tonight and watch him tomorrow but you won't be able to e-mail a copy to your friends.
People have been taping and sharing TV shows for years, so why should the FCC care now? Chairman Michael Powell hopes to clear America's airwaves by pushing TV broadcasters from analog to digital, which uses scarce bandwidth much more efficiently. But Hollywood moguls who make the shows broadcasters want to carry have been reluctant to let them be sent through the air in HDTV format. It's a reasonable fear: A digital TV broadcast can be easily grabbed and saved to disk as a perfect copy of the original, which alarms the studios that produce the shows. Unless the broadcasters have a way to protect content, they won't be able to license or purchase shows, and if they don't have access to the shows, they won't be able to compete with cable and the satellite-TV folks.
But never mind the industry gossip. How will the broadcast flag affect your viewing? It'll be an annoyance for some, but it's not the end of the world some tech reporters predicted. Instead, it's more like the Big Four networks' last stand against their competitors.
Here are the FAQs:
Will the broadcast flag break my TiVo?
No. The FCC's ruling specifically requires that current consumer gear not be disabled by the broadcast flag. If you use TiVo or ReplayTV now, and you can figure out how to wire an analog line from a future digital TV tuner to your current personal video recorder (the required adapters will be selling like hotcakes), you'll still be able to record and play shows as usual. The trade-off is that your recordings won't be in the new high-definition format—they'll be converted to the same analog-signal-quality your TiVo now records.
What about the new high-definition digital recorders? Will they allow me to time-shift shows, skip commercials, or pause live broadcasts?
Yes. One of the biggest myths about the broadcast flag is that TV networks are pushing the flag to end time-shifting and to force viewers to watch the commercials. In reality, the flag's purpose is to stop file-sharing, not time- shifting. ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, want to protect their audience-share by offering programming that's as good as what's on HBO without having it go straight to KaZaA.
Will I be able to trade high-definition episodes of Everybody Loves Raymond with other people?
No. That's exactly what the broadcast flag aims to stop, which is why the major networks will wait until the restriction is in place before making the switch to digital broadcasting. But you'll still be able to make and trade lower-resolution recordings if you keep the gear you use today. That's the surprising loophole in the broadcast-flag scheme: Copyright holders seem willing to put up with bootlegs on the Net, as long as they aren't bit-for-bit high-definition copies. The flag isn't so much a roadblock as a speed bump.
Is it true the new video recorders won't be compatible with my existing DVD player?
Yes. The copy-protection scheme for broadcast-flag shows will require a different data format that isn't backwards-compatible with the current standard. A show recorded on a 2006 digital video recorder won't play on older DVD players. Hopefully new DVD players will be rejigged to accommodate the broadcast flag so you can record a show in your living room and play it in your bedroom, but it's not yet clear how (or whether) that will work.
Isn't that kind of annoying?
Absolutely. It's a good example of the problem with anti-piracy mechanisms: They often disrupt perfectly legal viewing habits as a side effect. For example, the Macrovision copy protection on all new VHS players, mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1999, sometimes scrambles rental tapes that, in theory, it should play normally.
I get my television via cable or satellite. Does the broadcast flag apply to me?
No. Cable and satellite are regulated separately from traditional through- the-air broadcasts, so your set-top box won't be watching for the flag. Cable-satellite copy-protection mechanisms are negotiated individually between the maker of your television's tuner, such as Sony, and the content providers, such as Time Warner.
But if you're a cable-viewer seeking an excuse to fume at the Feds, take heart. The FCC has mandated that all televisions of more than 13 inches must include a digital tuner by 2007. You'll have to pay an extra couple of hundred bucks for one in your next set, even though you'll never use it.
Is there any TV gear I should stock up on before it's illegal?
Yes. Buy a high-definition TV tuner-card for your PC before July 2005. After that you may only be able to get a crippled one, and these new cards will capture, record, and play digital broadcasts in lower resolutions. The reason for the ruling: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.
Won't that happen anyway?
Probably.
Where can I read the details of the broadcast-flag ruling online?
The FCC's full report and order are available in both Word and PDF format but might be hard to grok. If it's too geeky, the Center for Democracy and Technology has posted a broadcast-flag primer that translates government-speak into English.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091723/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paper
Stopping Digital Copyright Infringement Without Stopping Innovation
Mark A. Lemley
Suing actual infringers is passé in copyright law. In the digital environment, the real stakes so far have been in suing those who facilitate infringement by others. Copyright owners tend not to sue those who trade software, video, or music files over the Internet. Indeed, such suits are so rare that the RIAA’s recent announcement that it would sue some actual infringers sent shock waves through the legal community. Instead, copyright owners sue direct facilitators like Napster,[4] makers of software that can be used to share files,[5] those who provide tools to crack encryption that protects copyrighted works,[6] search engines that help people find infringing material,[7] and quasi-ISPs like eBay or Yahoo Auction.[8] All of these suits rely on theories of secondary liability, focusing on those who provide services or write software that can be used in an act of infringement.[9]
In addition, there is a new theory of what might be called “tertiary” liability that seeks to reach those who help the helpers. Cases in this vein include lawsuits filed against those who help others crack encryption, for example by providing links to software that can be used to crack encryption,[10] the copyright lawsuit against backbone providers for providing the wires on which copyrighted material flows,[11] the claims filed against the venture capital firm of Hummer Winblad for its role in funding Napster,[12] and (with an unusual twist) the malpractice suit against the law firm of Cooley Godward for advising mp3.com that it could assert defenses to copyright infringement.[13] The anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provide for one particular type of tertiary liability (for providing tools that circumvent encryption protecting a copyrighted work and that can be used to infringe the work’s copyright),[14] and there have even been suggestions that there should be a new tort of contributory violation of the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions, which should perhaps be termed quaternary liability for copyright infringement.[15]
Further, a number of doctrines that were designed to protect these secondary and tertiary “facilitators” – the “safe harbor” for online service providers,[16] the restrictive standard for contributory copyright infringement for equipment providers announced by the Supreme Court in the Sony Betamax case,[17] and the requirement that vicarious infringement be limited to cases of direct financial benefit[18] – are under attack. The ALScan and Perfect 10 cases undo much of the benefit of section 512’s protection for Internet service providers.[19] Napster rewrites the rule of Sony in a way that significantly limits its application.[20] And both Napster and Fonovisa have all but eliminated the requirement of direct financial benefit in vicarious infringement.[21] It’s also worth noting that the doctrine of the corporate veil, which protects investors from liability in most areas of law, appears not to function in copyright.[22] And proposed legislation would go even further in regulating the behavior of those who do not themselves infringe, injecting Congressional oversight into how software and consumer electronics are built[23] and permitting content owners to unleash destructive hacks of computer networks without fear of liability.[24]
http://intel.si.umich.edu/tprc/paper...novation. htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Covert P2P Network Fails To Hide Users
Two users of a Japanese file-sharing network that promised anonymity have been arrested.
Staff, John Borland
A Japanese peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network which claimed to keep user identities untraceable has failed to work -- two users in Japan have been arrested.
The developer of the P2P software has also had his home searched by police, according to a report in the Mainichi Daily.
There are around a quarter of a million users of the supposedly anonymous file-trading network, called Winny, which rides on the more well-known Freenet network.
Such networks differ from other file trading software, such as Kazaa, in that they claim to be able to hide the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of users. It is not known how the police managed to track down the two users, or why criminal action is being taken against them. In other countries, P2P users have been hit with civil lawsuits instead.
The creator of Freenet, Ian Clarke, has cast doubt on whether Winny uses Freenet's full identity-cloaking features or its cryptography, according to a report in New Scientist.
Freenet is an open-source project and is the most prominent of a growing number of projects aimed at giving people the ability to communicate online without being tapped, traced or monitored.
The software marks an attempt to create a network that exists as a parallel Internet, where content of any kind can be uploaded and downloaded without any way to track who created a given "site".
Unlike other peer systems, Freenet has a built-in method of pushing content between different computers, so that a given file can migrate around the network between different people's hard drives until it is stored near regions where it is most often used.
The arrested are two men, aged 41 and 19, said the Mainichi Daily report. Among other charges, the older man is accused of sharing the Hollywood movie "A Beautiful Mind" while the teenager is being held for making the game Super Mario Advance available online.
Several companies, including game maker Nintendo, are pressing charges against the pair. This is the first known case of legal action being taken on users on anonymous file-sharing networks.
In Korea and Taiwan, lawsuits have been filed against users of P2P networks. A copyright body in Taiwan is suing three users of file sharing networks, while in Korea recording companies are threatening to do the same.
In both countries, creators of file sharing software have been brought to court, but defendants are arguing that they are not responsible for what people choose to share. Both cases involve homegrown P2P networks sharing local-language music.
In Taiwan, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has sued three P2P users who are said to have shared files on the locally-popular Kuro and Ezpeer networks.
Unlike internationally popular networks such as Kazaa, both Taiwanese services are fee-based.
The Recording Industry Association of Korea (RIAK) is said to be mulling suing end users of free-use P2P software Soribada.
Soribada's 4.5 million users have lost the recording industry millions in revenue, claimed the RIAK. The makers of the software have been slapped with a $16,300 (£9428) fine, despite claiming that they are not responsible for the actions of its users.
In the US, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has targeted hundreds of P2P users for legal action.
There is some evidence that the controversial RIAA lawsuits against ordinary computer users are making a dent in the file-swapping world. According to Web analysis firm Nielsen/NetRatings, weekly usage of the Kazaa software in the United States plummeted from a high of 7 million people in early June to just 3.2 million people in late October.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,3...9118255,00.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AOL Site Blocked For Bypassing Proxy
Mahmood Saberi
The AOL site has been blocked for the last four days as it was advertising a proxy 'tunnelling' service for $20, an informed source told Gulf News yesterday.
Call centres have received calls from people complaining that they cannot access the site. "They will also not be able to access their email on AOL," he said.
In simple terms what the tunnelling service helps you to do is bypass the Etisalat proxy service, which refuses access to URLs if they are on a list of banned sites. The proxy also blocks you if a content check of the site you are accessing turns up objectionable material.
If you try to access such sites, you get a cryptic message on the screen saying, 'Blocked Site, Access denied'.
Etisalat subscribers are advised not to utilise the service for "any other criminal or unlawful purpose such as, but not limited to vice, gambling or obscenity or for carrying out any activity which is contrary to the social, cultural, political, economical or religious values of the UAE."
However, systems connected to dedicated lines were found to have access to the site. Asked what happens if the proxy server blocks a site by mistake, the staffer said an e-mail should be sent to
watch@emirates.net.ae and if there is a mistake, it will be unblocked.
Gulf News found another email address on the website on which complaints can be sent:
custserv@emirates.net.ae. Sources said hackers could get around the proxy connecting to an international server.
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...ticleID=103693
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amnesty Accuses Vietnam Of Silencing Online Dissent
Amnesty International accused the Vietnamese government of using national security as a pretext to silence cyber-dissidents and stifle freedom of expression on the Internet.
In a new report, the human rights group said the crackdown was the result of the communist regime's concern over use of the Internet by political dissidents to circulate opinion. "In Vietnam, pushing the 'send' button can result in dire consequences including years in prison and family and friends put under 24-hour surveillance," Amnesty said Wednesday. The 34-page report by the London-based organization coincided with Wednesday's one-day annual human rights talks in Hanoi between the European Union and Vietnam. Since 2001 at least 10 people critical of government policies have been arrested for exchanging e-mails with overseas Vietnamese, posting articles critical of the government on the Internet and expressing dissenting opinions. Six of these cyber-dissidents have been sentenced to long prison sentences after unfair trials, Amnesty said. Others are awaiting trial. "These arrests attest to a sense of paranoia among the leadership of the government who feel under threat and fear a 'peaceful evolution' which could threaten the current supremacy of the Communist Party of Vietnam," it said. Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesman Le Dung, however, dismissed the "biased and erroneous" report, saying only people who violated the law were punished. Hanoi maintains tight control and surveillance over the Internet, to which around 2.5 million people out of a population of 80 million have access, mainly through Internet cafes. Websites critical of the authoritarian, one-party system are firewalled, while Internet cafe owners have also been instructed to prevent their customers from accessing "subversive and poisonous" material. Amnesty called for the immediate and unconditional release of all "prisoners of conscience detained solely for peaceful expression of their opinions". The organization highlighted the case of two nephews and a niece of imprisoned Catholic priest Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly, a lifelong critic of Vietnam's religious rights record. Nguyen Vu Viet, Nguyen Truc Cuong and their sister Nguyen Thi Hoa were jailed in September for three to five years for emailing information about their uncle and the religious situation in the country to US-based activists. Amnesty says their appeal trial is due to take place on Thursday. In December last year, Nguyen Khac Toan, a 48-year-old former soldier and businessman, was also jailed for 12 years on espionage charges for passing information to overseas Vietnamese groups about protests by farmers in Hanoi. And in June this year 35-year-old businessman Pham Hong Son was handed a 13-year sentence after he posted an article about democracy on the Internet. It was reduced to five years on appeal following an international outcry. Amnesty also pointed to the paradox between the government's desire to harness the Internet for socio-economic growth and its censorship activities. "The Vietnamese government appears unwilling to recognize that the Internet can only be a tool for development and prosperity if the right to freedom of expression and information is respected fully in both law and practice."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031126/323/eeyk6.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chinese Man Tried For Online Subversion In Shanghai
An unemployed man was tried for "incitement to subvert the state" after he published an article on the Internet accusing China's ruling communist party of corruption, a human rights group said.
His message also called on the party to "protect the rights and interests of the weaker classes as well as those of retired workers and people expelled from their homes." Sang Jiancheng's trial began Wednesay at 9:00 am (0100 GMT) and ended two hours later with no verdict announced, the Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said. The Shanghai Intermediate People's Court charged Sang, 61, with subversion for posting incendiary material on the Internet. He was arrested in November last year. The charge is commonly used by Chinese authorities to punish anyone who is seen as opposing the government. Court officials were not immediately available for comment. The subversion trial was the first of its kind in Shanghai since Lin Hai was tried on the same charges in 1999 for expressing his political views, the rights group said. China has heightened its crackdown on cyber-dissidents this year, with four people accused of state subversion condemned to between eight and 10 years in prison in May. Other Internet dissidents are likely to be convicted before the end of the month, in southwestern Sichuan and northern Shaanxi provinces, as well as Beijing, according to the rights group.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031126/323/eez5k.html
Leading Chinese Internet Dissident Jailed For Four Years
Prominent Internet activist Jiang Lijun was jailed for four years after being convicted of subverting state power by planning to set up a pro-democracy party, his lawyer said.
"The verdict was handed down at 2 pm (1100 GMT) this afternoon. Jiang is very calm," Jiang's lawyer Mo Shaoping told AFP on Friday. "He pleaded innocent and we need to talk more to decide whether we will appeal." Jiang's wife, Yan Lina, who was in the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court for the six-minute sentencing hearing, called the verdict "incorrect and unfair". Jiang was detained in November last year, suspected of being a ringleader of online pro-democracy activism. According to Mo, he was convicted for advocating democracy on the Internet and for intending to organise a political party known as the China Freedom Democracy Party. Reflecting his prominent status, he has been kept in Beijing's Qincheng Prison which has previously held China's last emperor Pu Yi and several senior-level Communist Party officials. Jiang is reportedly a close confederate of other Internet activists, including Liu Di, a Beijing student who was also arrested a year ago after posting democracy essays online. The case of Liu, a 22-year-old psychology student known by her online alias of "Stainless Steel Mouse," has proved a hard nut to crack for China's law enforcers. Prosecutors bounced it back to police earlier this month, telling them to come up with better evidence. China's government -- happy about the Internet's economic potential but concerned about its political implications -- seems to have launched a clamp-down on online dissent in recent months.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031128/323/ef58e.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Army Quietly Opens JetBlue Probe
Ryan Singel
The Pentagon, which has remained tight-lipped for the past two months about its part in the JetBlue passenger data scandal, told an oversight committee last week that the Army Inspector General's office is looking into whether the Army violated the Privacy Act when it hired a contractor to use airline passenger records to study base security.
The announcement comes just weeks after Governmental Affairs Committee chairwoman Susan Collins (R- Maine) and ranking member Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking whether the Pentagon had complied with federal data protection rules and whether an investigation had been launched.
The Army has not responded to the senators' questions, though they expect to be notified in writing of the new investigation later this week.
The Army's investigation is likely the third federal inquiry into possible violations of law stemming from JetBlue's handing over almost 5 million passenger records -- in violation of its own privacy policy -- to a defense contractor. That contractor, Torch Concepts, then augmented that data with Social Security numbers and other personal data which it bought, with JetBlue's permission, from data giant Acxiom.
However, civil liberties advocates, such as the director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program, Barry Steinhardt, were not trumpeting the quiet announcement.
"If the Army was really serious about public oversight, they would respond to our Freedom of Information request," Steinhardt said. "We'd like to think people want to know what the actual purpose was of getting JetBlue's logs."
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61374,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rules to Address Holes in Software
Major tech companies work to formalize guidelines for steps to take when security flaws are detected.
Joseph Menn
As the cost of securing data against malicious attacks continues to escalate, big technology companies and security researchers are stepping up efforts to control the spread of information about software holes that make computers vulnerable to hackers.
Yet they fear they are not moving fast enough to avert a wave of lawsuits and legislative action that could impose strict rules on corporate software buyers, criminalize the work of some security researchers or hold companies like Microsoft Corp. liable for attacks on their customers.
"It's not a matter of if but when there will be new regulation," said Vincent Weafer, senior director of incident response at Symantec Corp. in Cupertino, Calif., which makes anti-virus and other security software.
Overall data security, which wasn't very good to begin with, has been getting worse as software is designed to do more things and connect more people. Hackers and other researchers have been finding flaws with increasing frequency, and saboteurs are exploiting those flaws by designing viruses, worms and other programs at ever faster rates.
That's why most security researchers agree not to publicize the holes they find until target software makers come up with patches and distribute them to customers.
Now some of the biggest names in technology are trying to formalize the process by crafting guidelines to govern when security holes are disclosed and the corresponding patches are released. Working under the auspices of the Organization for Internet Security, Microsoft, Symantec, Oracle Corp. and other companies are hammering out rules they hope will pressure bug finders not to publicize their findings until it is deemed safe for them to do so.
"We think it will improve the situation," said Scott Culp, senior security strategist for Microsoft.
The guidelines, which don't have the force of law, lay out nearly a hundred steps for what a person should — and shouldn't — do after finding a hole. They also govern the appropriate responses for the company that wrote the faulty software.
At first, the plan says, a hacker should notify the software maker and refrain from publicizing the vulnerability. The software company, in return, is supposed to keep the hacker informed as it conducts tests and develops a patch, a process that should take about a month.
Then another month is supposed to elapse before the hacker may broadcast details about the problem he or she found.
If no software patch can be developed, according to the Organization for Internet Security, those details should never be released.
So far, the guidelines have won over few hackers who work for small companies or on their own.
"It's retarded," said Dave Aitel, a respected hacker and veteran of the National Security Agency.
Aitel and others complain that companies will falsely claim they can't construct a patch, leaving hackers no opportunity to publicize the flaws they find.
"The only people who will benefit … are the vendors, the criminals and" malicious hackers, Eric Raymond, a leading technical author, wrote to the Internet security group.
If a patch does come out, experts fear, talented virus writers will study it and work backward to find the underlying problem. Then they'll write a malicious program to exploit it, as they did with the Blaster worm this summer.
Meanwhile, many systems administrators will be reluctant to install the patch for the month before they know the underlying problem, since many patches turn out to have bugs themselves.
"The net result is that attackers will have a head start," said Byrne Ghavalas, a researcher with Network Security Consulting Services in Reading, England.
Still, big tech companies feel they have to do something. They fear Congress will pass laws holding them responsible when hackers breach the software they create, an approach being advocated by the National Academy of Sciences. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), chairman of a House subcommittee on information technology, recently warned that the next time a major Internet virus strikes, Congress will be under extreme pressure to do something dramatic.
In the meantime, lawsuits and threats of legal action are piling up. A Los Angeles woman is seeking class-action status for her 2-month-old suit against Microsoft, arguing that it ran afoul of a new California law requiring companies to let customers know when hackers gain access to personal information.
More commonly, software companies are threatening to sue hackers who expose holes in their products. Hewlett-Packard Co., SunnComm Technologies Inc. and GameSpy Industries Inc. all have issued threats under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 5-year-old law that prohibits distribution of some software code based on reverse-engineering. HP and SunnComm withdrew their threats after an outcry from security experts; GameSpy succeeded this month in forcing an Italian researcher to delete references to GameSpy bugs from his Web site.
"This is a battlefield," said Jennifer Granick, a cyber law specialist at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society.
In response, some hackers are trying to pool their resources by creating a trade group.
Thor Larholm, a 23-year-old researcher at security consulting firm PivX Solutions of Newport Beach, said his as-yet-unnamed group would have as many as 800 members when it is announced around the end of the year. Their top priority is to fight the guidelines from the Organization for Internet Security, and they might lobby Congress on related issues as well.
Larholm said that if the OIS rules were enshrined in law, they would threaten the livelihoods of some hackers who make a legitimate living finding security holes and then helping to fix them.
"If you are required to tell the company the vulnerability, how can you possibly negotiate" a price for your efforts, said President Bob Weiss of Password Crackers Inc., a North Potomac, Md., firm that helps companies recover information hidden on their machines.
With fewer business opportunities, some hackers may migrate to the black market, where they can earn $5,000 selling programs that take advantage of an unpublicized hole to spammers, organized crime figures and other unsavory customers, said Mark Loveless, a BindView Corp. security researcher and former malicious hacker.
But he said the larger worry was that new laws, proposed legislation and the OIS guidelines were combining to undermine the security of computer networks.
"It all points to the direction of less information," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1,838200.story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball Throws Web a Curve
Mark McClusky
Among the major professional sports leagues in the United States, Major League Baseball has consistently been the most innovative in covering its games and promoting its league online. In the past three years, MLB and its interactive division, MLB Advanced Media, has introduced dozens of online products, from radio shows to live video feeds of most major league games.
But during this off-season, MLB is on a quest to assert what it considers are its exclusive rights to transmit real- time information about its games online. And some of its partners aren't buying it.
The battle is being waged over what are commonly called gamecasts: real-time descriptions of baseball games, including who's batting, what pitches are thrown, the game situation and the outcome of each pitch. These online presentations of games are a standard feature of many sports websites, from MLB's own site, to ESPN.com, SI.com, Yahoo and CBS Sportsline.
"If someone is communicating information about a game in real time, on a pitch-by-pitch basis, that's an exhibition of that game," said Bob Bowman, the CEO of MLB Advanced Media. "There's no difference, in our eyes, between exhibiting a game using text and graphics and doing it on radio or television."
Using that argument, MLB says that it is entitled to a license fee, or that some other accommodation needs to be reached regarding gamecasts. What it is sure of is that anyone doing a gamecast needs to secure the rights to do so from MLB.
However, some of the other sites and companies involved in producing these sorts of gamecasts disagree. ESPN subsidiary SportsTicker has recently agreed to use statistics provided by MLB in their updates, but ESPN emphasizes that the agreement covers just SportsTicker and has nothing to do with its gamecasts.
"Our recent agreement is a small piece and a reflection of a positive, wide-ranging relationship with MLB, not a statement of either side's legal rights," said ESPN in a statement. "To characterize it as anything more is an overstatement."
The legal issues around sports-score updates are cloudy. In 1996, the National Basketball Association sued STATS Inc., a provider of real-time statistical information, and Motorola, the pager manufacturer, to prevent them from offering real-time information on NBA games while they were in progress. This information included the time remaining in the game, the score and who was in possession of the ball.
The case was first heard in district court in New York, where the court held that STATS and Motorola were using the NBA's proprietary data -- the real-time data of the games -- to make a profit in violation of New York state law.
But the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later overturned that ruling, stating that since the underlying facts of the game, such as the score, aren't copyrightable and since STATS and Motorola had spent their own time and money collecting that data, the service could continue.
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,61119,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blind Eye To Piracy
Chris Jenkins
NEARLY one fifth of Australians had knowingly bought pirated computer and video games and would do so again if the price was right, a new study has found.
The findings come from the Cost of Counterfeiting Study conducted by the Allen Consulting Group on behalf of the Business Software Association of Australia (BSAA), the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA) and the Australian Toy Association (ATA).
The study contained research done by ACNielsen on consumer attitudes to piracy. It found that 18 per cent of Australians would knowingly buy pirated goods if they were cheaper than the genuine article. More (40 per cent) would buy pirated goods if they were 75 per cent cheaper than the original, while half would take pirated goods that were free.
The study found that 17 per cent of households interviewed had knowingly purchased pirated software of games.
A broader study by Allen Consulting found the Australian toy, software and interactive games industries lost $667 million in sales to counterfeiting during 2002. The study estimated the Australian software industry lost $446 million in sales in 2002, with $142.5 million in supplier profit lost, along with $11.9 million in profit for software retailers.
BSAA chairman Jim Macnamara said Australia's software piracy rates were higher than comparable markets such as the US, New Zealand and the UK.
"While Australia's copyright enforcement has been improved, it is still inadequate to significantly reduce the rate of software piracy and more stringent enforcement is needed to protect businesses and consumers," he said.
Losses from game software piracy would mount along with the growth of the games industry, IEAA president Michael Ephraim said.
The study found that $100 million in games sales was lost to counterfeiting in 2002, along with $21.8 million in profits to suppliers and $4.3 million in profit to retailers.
"The biggest problem area, in terms of counterfeit game production, is the backyard operator that sells games at markets or distributes them to friends and family," Mr Ephraim said.
The toy industry claimed $132 million in sales was lost to counterfeiting.
http://australianit.news.com.au/comm...E15306,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music Industry Rejoices Over File-Sharing Victory
Bill Heaney
A decision in the legal case against a 22-year-old man surnamed Chung who shared music files over the Internet without the permission of record labels was hailed by the music industry yesterday as a landmark in the fight against online piracy.
"This case proves that peer-to-peer file-sharing infringes copyright," International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) Taiwan branch secretary-general Robin Lee told the Taipei Times in an interview yesterday.
The music industry has claimed since 2000 that peer-to-peer Web sites break the law as they allow subscribers to download music via the Internet without paying royalty fees to the rights holder.
After successfully closing only one Web site -- Napster -- the industry changed tack earlier this year and started going after site users.
"We will use this case to let everybody know that users of peer-to-peer Web sites are breaking the law, and we will bring more cases to court if peer-to-peer doesn't stop," Lee said.
In Taiwan, the IFPI -- which represents 12 local and international record companies -- launched three cases against individuals, and two against the peer-to-peer Web sites Ezpeer.com.tw and kuro.com.tw .
The decision against Chung is the first result in the court cases. Last week, the prosecutors office of the Panchiao District Court decided to defer prosecution in the case against Ezpeer subscriber Chung after he admitted that he infringed the copyright law and agreed to publish an apology in the local press. The apology appeared last Friday.
Chung also signed agreements that he would not use peer-to-peer Web sites again, or share music files without the prior permission of rights holders. Under the deferred prosecution framework, Chung could be dragged back in front of the courts if he breaks the agreement and starts sharing files again.
One legal expert said the decision was important, but not final.
"This represents some kind of victory for the music industry," said Liu Yen-ling, a copyright lawyer with Winkler Partners in Taipei. "It shows that prosecutors at least think Chung is guilty, but it is not a complete victory."
The news comes as Taiwan's music industry struggles to survive. Taiwan's legitimate market in recorded music has dropped dramatically in value from NT$12 billion in 1997 to NT$4.9 billion last year, according to IFPI figures.
Meanwhile, peer-to-peer sites are raking in the cash. Kuro charges its 500,000 users NT$99 per month, netting the company NT$600 million per year. Ezpeer charges NT$100 per month with 300,000 members, which means NT$360 million per year.
Officials from Ezpeer and Kuro were not available for comment yesterday afternoon, but both have repeatedly claimed that their services are legal as they do not store songs on their servers, or charge subscribers to download music.
Consumers in Taiwan can buy music over the Internet without fear of prosecution. Earlier this month, iBIZ Entertainment Technology Corp launched a music download site in Taiwan in cooperation with 14 record labels, charging between NT$10 and NT$30 for each song.
Chunghwa Telecom Co's Hinet Internet service and computer giant Acer Inc have also negotiated deals for music sites, and five other companies are in discussions, IFPI's Lee said.
"If you go the legal way, the record industry will support you," he said yesterday.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/.../27/2003077458
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
File-Sharing Site Calls Suit Futile
Bill Heaney
The nation's most popular file-sharing, or peer-to-peer, Web site yesterday tried to play down a criminal indictment launched against it by the Taipei District Public Prosecutors' Office, citing failed attempts to close similar sites in the US.
"Peer-to-peer sites have been prosecuted before and have been found not guilty," Philip Wang (???), spokesman for Kuro.com.tw (???), told the Taipei Times yesterday.
"Given this trend, even the US federal court is taking the position that the technology itself is no different from a Xerox machine. It is the user's behavior that infringes copyright," he said.
Wang's comment goes to the heart of the peer-to-peer dilemma. While the technology itself may be neutral like a knife -- a useful tool for cutting vegetables that can also be used to kill -- site owners are allowing millions of people to copy movies, music and software without paying for it, which is crippling the entertainment industry, officials say.
On Thursday, the prosecutor's office filed charges against Kuro's management team and one subscriber under the amended Copyright Law (????). Wang said that his company had not been served legal papers as of yesterday evening.
Music industry representative body the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) was celebrating the move yesterday.
"Our position is that this is great," IFPI Taiwan branch secretary-general Robin Lee (???) said yesterday.
"This proves that peer-to-peer is illegal and infringes copyright. It also shows that Taiwan's copyright laws conform to global standards," he said.
"It also means that Kuro and Ezpeer should close down their businesses," Lee added.
But cases against peer-to-peer sites have been notoriously difficult to prosecute. Napster, the world's first peer-to-peer site, was declared illegal and closed in 2001, but in April this year, the Los Angeles District Court dismissed cases against Web sites Grokster and Morpheus, ruling that their peer-to-peer technology could be used to share files like movie trailers and non-copyright music legally, as well as to download music files without the record labels' permission. It could not be proven that the site owners had direct knowledge of its users' infringement, the ruling said.
This ruling is currently under appeal, but it forced the music industry to change tactics and go after individuals. Since September, the Recording Industry Association of America has sent out 400 warning letters, received affidavits from over 1,000 former file-users and more than 200 settlements, Agence France Presse reported Wednesday. The same day, the association launched 41 new lawsuits and sent out 90 new warning letters to file-sharers.
Taiwan is following suit and has filed charges against five individuals, the most recent one on Thursday with Kuro against Chen Jia-hui (???), who allegedly had stored 970 illegally copied song titles on her computer's hard disk.
"We want to take this chance to give peer-to-peer users a warning that they need to reconsider what they're doing and give up their membership of peer-to-peer sites," Lee said.
International IPR experts welcomed the news of the prosecutions yesterday.
"The Internet is the new frontier," Jeffrey Harris, co-chair of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei's Intellectual Property Committee.
"The law in Taiwan is quite clear. Offering to sell unlicensed products over the Internet is against the law," he said.
But Harris' counterpart at the European Chamber of Commerce Taipei expressed concerns that there might be better ways to tackle IPR violations.
"If you look at these cases, there's a lot more sensationalism to them than actual results," John Eastwood said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/fron.../06/2003078502
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canadian Distributor May Sue Song Pirates
Most don't know they're doing anything wrong
Kathryn Greenaway
When you download your favourite song from the Internet for free, it's the same as stealing a CD from a music store.
That's the message music retail and distribution giant Groupe Archambault Inc. wants to get across to song pirates anyway it can -- even if it means suing them.
According to statistics supplied by Groupe Archambault, three million people download music from the Internet in Canada every week, most of the time for free.
A survey taken last year revealed that only nine per cent of the people who download for free know they're breaking the law.
"It's ridiculous that only nine per cent of pirates realize that piracy is illegal," Archambault CEO Natalie Lariviere said this week.
"We need to do something about this and we need to do it now."
Groupe Archambault may file lawsuits against pirates, following the lead of the Recording Industry Association of America which began filing lawsuits against pirates in the United States last Spring.
Lariviere called for other leaders in the music retail business to follow suit. "This is the first I've heard of this from Archambault, but I assume they will present their proposal to RMAC (Retail Merchants Association of Canada) when we meet next week," HMV president Humphrey Kadaner said this week.
"As an active member of RMAC, HMV will, of course, give due consideration should such a proposal be put forth."
Lariviere said it would be impossible to stop every one of the millions of pirates with lawsuits but "we think that a series of lawsuits without warning will make many people think twice. . . . Theft is theft.
"And the perpetrators should be aware of the possible consequences of their deeds."
Freeloading on the Internet has eroded CD sales, which fell 12.7 per cent in Canada over the past year.
Archambault is raising awareness through anti-piracy messages, which began appearing on TV and in newspapers this week.
Groupe Archambault also plans to launch a music download site in time for the holidays.
It would function along the same lines as the recently launched puretracks.com, a portal where consumers pay a fee to download songs.
"We have to be able to give (consumers) an alternative (to piracy) and offer them a well-stocked catalogue," Lariviere said. "Otherwise they will quickly revert to their old ways."
http://www.canada.com/regina/news/st...8-F71CF5758BE5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music at Your Fingertips, and a Battle Among Sellers
Bob Tedeschi
COMING to a music download store in 2004: Yo-Yo Ma's Shostakovich Quartet No. 15 and Bob Dylan's second show at Amsterdam.
So go the predictions of some music industry executives, who say that as music labels and retailers compete more aggressively online, they will offer more obscure titles and recordings of live performances that could find a paying audience through downloads but make no financial sense to distribute on CD's.
This is but one of a handful of trends likely to emerge next year in the paid digital download arena, industry executives said. With hundreds of millions of investment and marketing dollars flowing into the sector, it could be the most active online commerce category. And with the activity comes a risk that it could resemble the Internet bubble of 1999, though on a smaller scale.
The first area of resemblance, analysts and executives predict, will be in the sheer number of online music stores that sell downloads, which will continue to build through the early part of next year, only to contract beneath the weight of excessive marketing spending and slim profit margins.
There will be fewer paid download sites running a year from now than there are today, said Josh Bernoff, an analyst at Forrester Research, a technology consulting firm.
The reason, Mr. Bernoff said, is that music tracks that are downloaded digitally generate tiny profits. Apple pays roughly 70 cents to the labels for each song it sells for 99 cents, Mr. Bernoff said, and, based on Apple's projections of sales of 100 million songs by April - the first 12 months of its iTunes service - "you're talking about $30 million in gross margin, not counting all the advertising or the costs of running the store."
"That's brutal, and this is the company with the dominant market share."
Peter Lowe, Apple's director for marketing of applications and services, agreed that it was hard to make money selling music downloads. But, he said, iTunes is close to break-even. Still, he acknowledged that one reason Apple was in the business was to drive sales of its iPod music player and to help the company position itself as a cutting-edge brand.
Those attributes may not apply to other entrants in the field. Nonetheless, other companies are certain to join the competition for music fans looking to start downloading songs, or to switch from peer-to-peer services like Kazaa and Morpheus, as the music industry fights piracy.
In addition to Apple's iTunes, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, Napster of Roxio, MusicMatch, BuyMusic.com, BestBuy and others, online music stores from several other companies are expected to start in the coming weeks and months. JupiterMedia, a technology research firm, predicts digital music downloads will be a $1.1 billion marketplace next year and $3.2 billion in 2008. According to Nielsen SoundScan, the biggest paid download sites sold $3.2 million worth of individual tracks in October alone, more than double the number sold in July.
While some sites will stick to the business of selling downloadable songs, others will gravitate toward multiservice offerings along the lines of iTunes and Rhapsody (
www.listen.com), where radio stations sit a click away from the store, or MusicMatch, where users listening to the site's jukebox can click on an icon for the current song and buy the track.
Sean Ryan, vice president for music services at RealNetworks, expects the services next year to include some form of subscription download service. Such an offering, he said, would combine the flexibility of the so-called streaming services - where users listen to unlimited numbers of songs on demand, but cannot download them - and the portability of downloaded tracks.
"The idea is that consumers can download as many songs as they want," Mr. Ryan said, "and move them from one device to others, but at the end of 30 days, if you don't pay the subscription fee, the songs go away.
While the technology exists to offer such a service, Mr. Ryan said there were a number of issues to work out, including how much to charge. "But I think we'll see such a service by the end of next year."
"And that's where this gets interesting," he added. "You've got a portable music player that can fit 10,000 songs on it? Come on. No one will spend $1 a track filling it.''
But portable players, he said, "become totally useful'' when it is possible to rent an unlimited number of tracks for a flat fee. Mr. Ryan and other executives said consumers would also enjoy a greater range of tracks next year, as the download sites expand beyond pop music, and as artists migrate toward a growing revenue opportunity. Classical and jazz tracks will begin to proliferate, and Mr. Ryan said, live, archived performances from popular musicians will see new life online.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/te...rint&position=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
China's First Lawsuit Involving Virtual Game Assets Awaits Judgment
Shanghai. (Interfax-China) - An online gamer has filed a lawsuits against online game operator Beijing Arctic Ice Science and Technology (BAIST) concerning lost virtual assets, a BAIST official surnamed Qiu told Interfax in an interview. This is China's first lawsuit involving virtual assets from an online game.
The gamer, surnamed Li, is a veteran player of 'Redmoon,' an online game operated by BAIST. Li claims to have spent thousands of hours and more than RMB 10,000 (USD 1,208) in the past two years playing the game, and has so far obtained over 30 attractive game items. This February, Li reported to BAIST that another player had stolen all of the armor and weapons in his inventory of items. However, BAIST refused to disclose the personal information of the player Li accused of theft.
Subsequently, BAIST allegedly seized another of Li's accounts and deleted all the items in that account on June 10. Moreover, ten days later, items in a third account owned by Li were also deleted. Li claims that this third account held items he had bought from other players for a combined RMB 840 (USD 101.47).
After the two parties failed to reach an agreement through negotiations, Li filed the lawsuit with the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court. The court hearing has already concluded, with the judgment to be announced soon.
"The major argument in this case is the value of virtual game items," said Qiu. "Game items are something you obtained in the game. Their value only exists in the games, not in real life."
"We understand the feelings of the player. However, we need to protect the rights of the majority. It is difficult for us to distinguish if a complaint is reasonable or not because of technical issues and the immense number of complaints we receive everyday."
Qiu went on to explain that the loss of virtual game items and IDs happen for various reasons. Some players report the loss of items purposely, when they have actually lost nothing. Some players sell the same virtual item to several different people at once. In addition, Trojan programs, illegal game patches, and hacker programs can also cause problems.
"All we can do now is wait for the court's judgment," Qiu added. "No matter what the result turns out to be, this case will have a significant impact on China's online gaming industry."
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Chi...d=5671688&req=