Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review – February 7th, '04

[JackSpratts]

Quotes Of The Week

"This is the way constitutional rights are lost. Not in the thunder of a tyrant's edict, but in the soft judicial whispers of deference." - Justice David Sills.

"So 10 percent is non-infringing? That sounds like a lot of non-infringing files to me." - Judge John Noonan.

"The recording industry should give their PR people a bonus for creative prevarication." - Adam Eisgrau.





The Eagle Is Grounded

While America works to protect intellectual property, everyone else is innovating.
Thomas Goetz

In the late 1960s, the US cargo shipping industry was in trouble. The 2,000-vessel fleet that ruled the seas after World War II had dwindled to fewer than 900. New technologies - containers, automated loading - were taking hold on foreign ships while America clung to old methods. As a result, other countries were transporting nearly 80 percent of worldwide traffic.

So the government threw a lifeline: the Merchant Marine Act of 1970, which provided new protections and massive subsidies for the industry. As President Richard Nixon described it, the act would "replace the drift and neglect of recent years and restore this country to a proud position in the shipping lanes of the world."

It didn't work. Today, US carriers handle barely 2 percent of international cargo. The industry is dominated by nations like Panama and Liberia, so- called flags of convenience, where regulations are lighter and costs lower.

The US fleet was a classic victim of the efforts to save it. Rather than adapt to new economics, the American industry suffocated under overregulation and protectionism. Now the job gets done - goods move efficiently from place to place - but it's a rogue's business, rife with ne'er-do- wells and pirates.

The US is in danger of repeating the mistake, this time with intellectual property. In the face of new technologies and competition, the US is toughening patent and copyright protections. It's leaning on other countries - and its own citizens - to play by ever tighter rules. But if it's not careful, the US will drive its intellectual property offshore into a shadow world that, like shipping, is replete with piracy and rogue states.

That world is fast approaching. As the thicket of protections for IP industries - primarily agriculture, pharmaceuticals, media, and software - grows in the US, alternative ways of thinking are flourishing overseas. Researchers in Australia and India are sidestepping agriculture patents held by the likes of Monsanto and DuPont to develop competitive technologies and foods (such as a high-protein potato) that are, by design, open and unrestricted. In pharmaceuticals, India is skirting patents to create generic AIDS drugs that are orders of magnitude cheaper than those made by the transnational drug companies (see Lawrence Lessig's column on page 83). Media industries, meanwhile, are besieged by millions of MP3 traders and DVD bootleggers in open revolt against copyright protections.

And then there's software. Entire nations are making the leap to Linux. Last year, China began installing the open source operating system on 500,000 computers, with perhaps 200 million more machines on the way. That's bad for Microsoft but good for Linux, as China's vast pool of programming talent turns to developing the software further. (As a monopoly, Microsoft has the same market effect as a spurious patent or overregulation - reducing innovation and increasing prices.)

Taken together, these developments demonstrate how an alternative culture is arising in our midst - or rather, outside it. They reflect the gulf between IP owners, with their rigid sense of controls, and those who would seek to use that intellectual property with all the flexibility afforded by technology - the Internet, in particular. And that's not just a difference of opinion, it's a technological generation gap. As Intel chair Andy Grove recently told The Washington Post, the US needs to reassess its conception of intellectual property "for an era that is the information age as compared to the industrial age."

But so far, IP owners are doing all they can to lock in their old entitlements, pushing for increasingly restrictive laws and enforcement. The result: laughably broad patents (Monsanto claims to have rights to any and all genetic modifications to soybeans, for instance); the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (for five years used as a club to ward off technological innovations in software and media); and lately, patents awarded for software (even though it is already protected by copyright law). The MPAA and RIAA are even seeking permanent antitrust exemptions from Congress to more effectively defend against technology's inevitable progress. The shipping industry tried that one, too.

This conflict sets the stage for a trade war on an unprecedented scale. Last fall's World Trade Organization talks at Cancún failed in part because poor countries walked out in protest over US and EU intransigence on agriculture and drug patent issues. That's just a sign of the strife ahead; those poorer nations could become the next flags of convenience for a more liberal conception of intellectual property.

There's still time to avoid the shipping industry's fate: American IP owners can stop demanding maximum and extreme protections. The US Patent and Trademark Office can stop taking a head-in-the-sand approach - last summer it strong-armed the World Intellectual Property Organization into canceling a discussion on open source projects - and instead use the WIPO to forge a global policy that works for all nations.

By taking a flexible approach to IP, companies could capitalize on the next wave of innovation rather than shirk from it. But wait too long and this ship will have sailed.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...w=wn_tophead_7


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Homes and offices raided.

Record Industry Enforcer Raids Kazaa Offices
Sam Varghese

The enforcement arm of the Australian record industry has raided the premises of Sharman Networks and its proprietor, Nicola Hemming, in what it says is a bid to stop illegal copying of music through the Kazaa network.

Yesterday, Music Industry Privacy Investigations obtained court orders allowing its investigators to obtain documents and other electronic records about Kazaa's activities in Australia. Twelve premises were raided in three states this morning.

The premises of Brilliant Digital Entertainment and those of three universities - the University of Queensland, the University of New South Wales and Monash University - were among those raided.

Among other premises raided were those of Akamai Technologies AAP, NTT Australia, Telstra Corporation and NTT Australia IP. MIPI said proceedings had begun in the Federal Court after a six-month investigation.

MIPI said evidence had been obtained during the raids which would be used in the court proceedings.

Court action commenced in Sydney as Kazaa operates from offices in the suburb of Cremorne even though it is registered in the Pacific island of Vanuatu.

MIPI general manager Michael Speck said the action had been taken "to stop the illegal use of music through use of the Kazaa network."

"Kazaa has built a large international business through encouraging and authorising the illegal copying of music users of its network. It authorises this copying without seeking the licence or permission of the owners and creators of the music, nor does it pay any royalties to either the owners or creators of the music," he said.

The matter will return to court on Tuesday.

Sharman Networks described the actions as “a knee-jerk reaction by the recording industry to discredit Sharman Networks and the Kazaa software, following a number of recent court decisions around the world that have ruled against the entertainment industry’s agenda to stamp out peer-to-peer technology."

“There is no doubt this is a cynical attempt by the industry to disrupt our business, regain lost momentum, and garner publicity. The assertions by plaintiffs are hackneyed and worn out. It is a gross misrepresentation of Sharman’s business to suggest that the company in any way facilitates or encourages copyright infringement."

“Sharman bought the Kazaa software two years ago with the express purpose of building it into a legitimate channel for the distribution of licensed, copyright protected content which in turn financially benefits artists. This model has already proven to be successful.”

MIPI is established and funded by record companies and music publishers and acts as an anti-piracy arm for these organisations. It is affiliated with the Australian Record Industry Association.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...854054236.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Landmark P2P Case Back in Court Today
John P. Mello Jr.

"What the entertainment companies are trying to do here is overturn the rule that the Supreme Court gave us when those companies attacked the VCR," Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told

Big Music and Big Movies will square off once again with Internet file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus today in a California courtroom over what the "bigs" say is rampant copyright infringement taking place on those networks.

A lower court dismissed contentions that the owners of the services should be held responsible for copyright infringements perpetrated on their networks. Now the industry hopes a federal court of appeals in Pasadena will take a more favorable view of its arguments and topple the lower court's ruling.

"There is no genuine dispute that the raison d'etre of [these] networks is the unlawful exchange of copyrighted songs and movies," the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) argued in a brief filed with the appeals court. "The harm to [us] continues to be enormous."

Grokster and Morpheus have "unlocked the door to every video and record store in the country and invited every person to come in and copy as much as they want, in flat violation of [our] copyrights," the brief said.

But an attorney for the peer-to-peer (P2P) services sees the situation differently. "What the entertainment companies are trying to do here is overturn the rule that the Supreme Court gave us when those companies attacked the VCR," Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told TechNewsWorld.

"They're saying that if you're a technology company, you have a responsibility to redesign your product so they're happy with it," he contended.

"That's never been the rule before," von Lohmann continued. "If it were the rule, there would have never been a VCR, there would have never been a photo copier, there would have never been an Internet because those are technologies that the entertainment companies are unhappy with."

Needless to say, the entertainment companies see the motivation of the P2P networks seeking protection behind the so-called Betamax decision as less than genuine. "They have wrapped themselves in the flag of technology and the Betamax case, and we just think that that garb does not fit them at all," Cory Ramos, an attorney with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in New York City, told TechNewsWorld.

"Baloney," declared Wayne Rosso, former president of Grokster and currently CEO of Optisoft, the developer of Blubster, Piolet and MP2P Technology. "It's a technology," he told TechNewsWorld. "It's the same as coaxial cable. It's a network."

However, according to the brief filed with the appeals court by the MPAA and RIAA, that's an inaccurate assessment. The brief claims Grokster and Morpheus failed to establish in the lower-court case that they have no control over their networks.

"They maintain regular systematic control of the system and their business," the brief argued. "It was undisputed, for example, that [they] currently filter or block certain material available over their networks, [such as] pornographic works, viruses and bogus files."

"Instead of employing their filtering to stop piracy," the brief continued, "[they] turned a blind eye to detectable acts of infringement for the sake of profit."

"The recording industry should give their PR people a bonus for creative prevarication," Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United in Washington, D.C., told TechNewsWorld. "In other words, they're simply not telling the truth."

Any filtering on the network is done by individual users, not the makers of the P2P software, explained Eisgrau. "The members of P2P United have no central ability to control what individual users who have installed their software on their individual computers do with that software after it gets installed," he said.

"If the recording industry put 10 percent of the effort that it has put into telling untruths to policymakers about the nature of this technology into finding a creative solution for the marketplace, then artists would already be realizing revenue," he added.

At the hearing today, each side will be given 30 minutes to present its case and answer questions from the appeals panel of three judges, who could take several months to issue an opinion in the matter.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32754.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A sad day in the history of civil liberties.”

Internet Cafe Ordinance Sparks War of Words
Mike McKee

A California state appeal court ruled Thursday that cities aren't violating the First Amendment by forcing Internet cafe owners to implement extreme security measures, such as security guards and video surveillance cameras.

But the decision, upholding an ordinance ostensibly aimed at curbing gang-related violence, drew an unusually sharp dissent from one justice, who accused the majority of blessing Orwellian "Big Brother" governmental oversight.

"The majority opinion represents a sad day in the history of civil liberties," 4th District Court of Appeal Justice David Sills wrote. "They see no infringement on privacy when a video camera is, literally, looking over your shoulder while you are surfing the Internet.

"This is the way constitutional rights are lost," he continued. "Not in the thunder of a tyrant's edict, but in the soft judicial whispers of deference."

Sills called the majority ruling an "emasculation" of the state right to privacy and an "infringement" of speech and press rights.

Faced with rising gang activity at Internet cafes -- the number of which had grown from three to 22 in two years -- the Orange County city of Garden Grove in 2002 placed a moratorium on more cafes. It also prohibited minors from visiting the cafes during school hours, required uniformed security guards on Friday and Saturday nights, and demanded the installation of video surveillance systems.

Cafe owners filed suit, claiming violations of their free speech and privacy rights. Orange County Superior Court Judge Dennis Choate agreed, saying the ordinance was overly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to avoid First Amendment problems.

But the Santa Ana-based 4th District disagreed on both grounds, saying that the city's "time, place and manner restrictions" on First Amendment activities were narrow and were adopted for legitimate governmental reasons.

"Given the well-demonstrated criminal activity observed at cybercafes, and their tendency to attract gang members," Justice Raymond Ikola wrote, "the court should not have second-guessed the city council's judgment and discretion."

Justice William Bedsworth concurred.

In his dissent, Justice Sills argued that the city's ordinance isn't warranted because violence had been reported at only five Internet cafes.

"That leaves 17 cybercafes which have experienced no serious problems, a fact which should be enough to require this court to affirm the trial court's injunction, not overturn it," he wrote.

Sills also accused Garden Grove of "picking on" Internet cafes, and said the court's majority had chosen to "fob off" onto private citizens the government duty of providing police protection.

"No city council would dare require private security guards for private residences or restaurants," he wrote, "even though -- I repeat -- there is just as much reason to impose such requirements if one sticks to the rationale of the majority opinion."

The justices' sniping in the ruling was extraordinarily tart, with the majority using footnotes to counter various of Sills' allegations, which included that they countenanced a Big Brother atmosphere and encouraged laws more restrictive than those of many communist countries.

In his most pointed jab, Sills cited a failed effort by Malaysia to register the names and identity card numbers of all Internet cafe customers.

"Apparently," he wrote, "my colleagues are willing to countenance infringements on the rights of cybercafe users which even the government of Malaysia is too ashamed to enforce!"

"Wow!" the majority responded in a footnote. "We will not respond in kind. We prefer to debate the issues on the merits."

Plaintiffs lawyer Ronald Talmo, a Santa Ana solo practitioner, couldn't be reached for comment.

But M. Lois Bobak, a partner at Orange's Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart who represented the city, was pleased with the decision.

"The ruling validates the city's underlying goal of trying to reduce the potential of crime at cybercafes," she said, "particularly crime involving minors."

Asked about Sills' dissent, Bobak said, "It's obvious that there was some pretty spirited debate among the justices."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1075219841269


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

China Is Asked to Explain Subversion Laws
AUDRA ANG

More than 100 scholars, lawyers and democracy activists wrote a letter on Sunday to China's legislature and its highest court, urging them to clarify the country's subversion laws to prevent official abuse, a human rights group said.

The letter, which will be submitted March 1 to the National People's Congress and the Supreme Court, said current subversion law was "unclear and limits the people's right to speech and freedom," according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy.

"The definition and logic behind the laws are vague and makes room for abuse of the law," the center said, citing the letter.

China's communist government usually applies subversion laws to people pushing for political reform by signing petitions, posting Internet articles, distributing fliers or participating in demonstrations.

The letter came days after Amnesty International reported a "dramatic rise" in the number of people jailed in China for expressing opinions on the Internet.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/7850605.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hollywood Mogul Plays by Technology's Rules
John Markoff

The decision by Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios, to walk away from his partnership with Michael D. Eisner and the Walt Disney Company is the clearest indication yet that Mr. Jobs is becoming the personification of the digital media mogul.

The collapse last Thursday of the Disney- Pixar negotiations over a new distribution agreement appears to have been a clash of egos and business interests. But it was also very much a sign of the changing balance of power between the conventional media giants and the entrepreneurs wielding digital technologies that are rapidly changing the way media content is made and distributed.

Compared with the ambitious but often unfocused visions of executives in the dot-com boom, like the largely failed strategy behind the merger of AOL and Time Warner, Mr. Jobs is familiar enough with digital technology to see not only its capabilities but also to recognize its limitations.

And so in the case of the iPod portable music player and iTunes online music store by Mr. Jobs's Apple Computer, an easy-to-use hand-held computer and an accessible network database are transforming not music itself, but the way music is distributed.

The success of Mr. Jobs's digital film studio, Pixar, has come not from upending the business of distributing movies, but from employing computers as powerful creative tools for movie animators steeped in the traditional art of storytelling.

For all his talk of revolution over the years, Mr. Jobs has taken a disciplined, evolutionary approach to the media industry that has been remarkably successful: Apple is the leader in the music download market and Pixar's "Finding Nemo'' is one of the most financially successful animated films.

"With his fingers in music and film and computers, it is obvious that Steve can now hold his head up with the other moguls," said Danny Hillis, a former computer scientist at Disney's Imagineering division and now the chief technology officer of Applied Minds, a technology and consulting company in Glendale, Calif.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/te...pagewanted=all


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Internet Companies Trying To Turn Music File-Swapping Into Legitimate Business
AP

The music industry is giving all it's got to the fight against unauthorized file-sharing. But if you can't kill the beast, why not tame it?

Some Internet companies are turning peer-to-peer file-sharing into a legitimate business - and at least one major label, EMI Music, is taking the technology seriously.

The idea: Even when fans copy files from other music lovers' computers, record companies and artists can still make money.

Legitimate peer-to-peer, or P2P, file-sharing has attracted mostly small labels, and it's likely to stay a niche market. But at last month's huge Midem industry conference in this Mediterranean resort, an EMI executive urged people to give it a chance.

"We want to learn how to embrace P2P," said Ted Cohen, EMI's senior vice president for digital development and distribution. He believes it will take a year for the tide to change.

Services like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store have demonstrated that people are willing to pay to download music over the Internet, but such services do not use peer-to-peer technology but rather distribute music from a central server.

In a P2P system, a music fan grabs tunes directly off another fan's computer. Such systems lower distribution costs because files are available from multiple locations. They also save companies money on bandwidth.

Much of the time, using P2P system amounts to piracy. And because of unauthorized services like Kazaa, P2P has become something of a dirty word in the recording business.

The industry has even filed lawsuits against P2P companies and their users. Lawyers are headed back to court ty as the labels, music publishers and film studios attempt to persuade an appellate panel to overturn a ruling that cleared Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. of liability. The entertainment industry also has a pending lawsuit against Kazaa's parent company, Sharman Networks Ltd.

Among companies trying to convince the music industry that P2P doesn't have to be all about piracy is Wippit, a Britain-based music subscription service.

For about US$50 a year, subscribers can download any of Wippit's tunes using P2P and save them in as many places they like - an idea that makes many big recording companies nervous. Other services limit copying.

Most of the 200 recording companies that have signed on to Wippit are independent, and there are huge gaps in what music is available.

But EMI, whose artists range from the Rolling Stones to Coldplay, is set to debut most of its catalogue on Wippit in February, said Wippit's chief executive, Paul Myers.

Myers says he's in talks with the four other major labels, and he hopes that two of them will join his service next month, though the deals aren't finalized.

"With the majors, there's a fear within those companies of the word 'peer-to-peer'," Myers said. "There's still a fear it's out of control."

PlayLouder, an Internet service provider for music lovers that's set to debut in Britain later this year, also will offer file-sharing. One of its investors is the influential indie label Beggars Group.

Mark Mulligan, a senior analyst with Jupiter Research in London, doubts that Wippit and PlayLouder can ever become mainstream because major labels are too worried that people will use them to make unlimited copies.

But "I think they're both major parts of the puzzle," he said. On the Internet, "one size does not fit all. Online consumers want to have different options."

Another file-sharing option may come from a German company, 4FriendsOnly.com, which teamed with the Fraunhofer Institute, the German research center that developed that MP3 music format, which is widely used for file-sharing.

Their service isn't available yet, but the idea is that fans should get a commission if they pass on tunes to friends who buy them. Fans who get a recommendation could listen a few times before access to the song ends - unless it is purchased.

Chief executive Jurgen Nutzel, who was showing the technology at Cannes, said people who might be less tempted to burn extra copies of songs for friends if they could get a commission instead.

"We hope we'll find customers who have an interest in friendly behavior, because they want to earn money," he said.

In the United States, Shawn Fanning, who pioneered music file-swapping on the original Napster, is reported to be working on Snocap, a P2P venture that would make money for the recording companies.

There's also Altnet, which is taking advantage of peer-to-peer technology - but in a way that disturbs many recording companies because it partners with and distributes music through Kazaa.

Fans who search for songs on Kazaa get the authorized files on Altnet marked with an orange icon, alongside the regular shares in blue. After downloading an Altnet item, another click gets a license and information on payments due. It uses concert tickets, DVDs and even laptops to encourage people to trade authorized files.

Derek Broes, the company's executive vice president, says that by pouring licensed content into the system, legal files will eventually outnumber the unlicensed ones.
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/...1075862029.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Morpheus4 Software Released Today Connects Users of All Major Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Networks
Press Release

Morpheus Users Will Now Have Simultaneous Connectivity to Users of Kazaa, iMESH, eDonkey, Overnet, Grokster, LimeWire, Gnutella, G2 and Others, All Through Single 'Super' Application

StreamCast Networks, Inc., creators of the popular Morpheus peer-to-peer file-sharing software, today announced the release of Morpheus 4, a radically-enhanced new version of the application including early access to the new NEOnet technology platform. Morpheus 4 is available for free download at www.morpheus.com .

Users of Morpheus 4 will enjoy finding more content than ever before with direct connectivity to users of other peer-to-peer clients including Kazaa, iMESH, eDonkey, Overnet, Grokster, Gnutella, LimeWire, G2 and others, truly uniting millions of worldwide peer-to-peer users and including new features such as free VoIP voice chat permitting users to talk to others globally at no cost.

"Morpheus 4 is the best file-sharing program on the planet," StreamCast Networks, Inc. Chief Executive Officer Michael Weiss commented. "Before now, file-sharing software only allowed users of a particular peer-to-peer network to connect together. Now, Morpheus allows users to connect the networks together. We expect to see huge demand, as the creation of Morpheus 4 represents a new frontier for peer-to-peer technologies and brings us one step closer to a unified global exchange network for sharing everything from the user's own music, movies, photos and software without the need for Web publishing and other intermediaries."

Additional features in Morpheus 4.0 include:

* No spyware
* Integrated access to public proxy networks -- provides greater user
anonymity
* Hashed IPs -- conceals the user's IP address within Morpheus
* Privacy options to prevent others from snooping on users
* Integrated anti-virus protection with user's virus scanning software
* Advanced parental controls
* Built-in media organizer
* File-Shredder to completely delete unwanted files



"With the decisions handed down by the U.S. Courts, Morpheus remains the only U.S. based legally sanctioned peer-to-peer file sharing application. It was logical for us to take this next step in expanding the application's reach to millions of users," Weiss added. "By maintaining the features that have made Morpheus a P2P powerhouse -- including our spyware-free environment and proxy-server capabilities that help protect anonymity -- Morpheus is now truly 'The One' for P2P software. Morpheus 4 is ideal for content providers who want to efficiently distribute their digital media to an on-line audience of millions."

About StreamCast Networks, Inc.

StreamCast Networks, Inc., creator of the Morpheus software, is a leading global communications technology company that is revolutionizing Internet-based digital media and information distribution via new technologies that enable users to communicate with one another on an unprecedented global scale. Users have downloaded over 119 million copies of the Morpheus application software, according to figures provided by CNET's download.com .
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040203/latu029_1.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Key Online Music Piracy Ruling Reviewed
Susan Kuchinskas

A federal appeals court Tuesday heard arguments in an entertainment industry appeal of a case that may decide the fate of file sharing on the Internet.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena reviewed the appeal of a lower court's ruling that cleared file-swapping services Grokster and Morpheus of copyright infringements occurring on their networks.

The appeal stems from a suit filed in 2001. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers Association of America (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association (RIAA) sued Kazaa, Grokster and Streamcast Networks, owner of Morpheus, for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. In April 2002, the court ruled in favor of Grokster and Streamcast. The claims against Kazaa and its acquirer, Sharman Networks, were separated from this suit and are still pending.

In his decision in that Los Angeles district court case, Judge Stephen Wilson wrote, "Just as in Napster, many of those who use (Grokster and Morpheus) software do so to download copyrighted media files, including those owned by the plaintiffs and thereby infringe Plaintiffs' rights of reproduction and distribution. Thus, for purposes of these motions, plaintiffs have established direct infringement of their copyrighted works by some end-users of Defendants' software."

However, Wilson was guided by a landmark 1984 Supreme Court ruling that said use of new technology to infringe copyrights did not justify an outright ban on that technology. Wilson said Grokster and Morpheus couldn't control how people use their software.

Brian O'Neal, a spokesperson for Streamcast Networks, said that the Morpheus software is very useful for a wide variety of legal distribution.

"I may not know how to build a Web site, but I have information I'd be happy to share with other enthusiasts," he said. "[With Morpheus], I can choose to put it in a shares directory that's safe and secure. This concept of distributed computing is far more efficient [than the central file server model] -- you don't rely on the power of a gatekeeper."

No executives from the RIAA, NMPA or MPAA were available for comment. A statement released by the MPAA said, "This case is not about Plaintiffs embracing or opposing technological innovation. It is about the conduct of businesses that intentionally misuse commonly available Internet 'peer-to-peer' technology to profit from copyrights they do not own for works they did not create."

The industry associations argue that, since Grokster and Morpheus block some files, such as viruses, they can and should block illegally shared files as well.

Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, a lobbying organization for file-sharing software vendors, said that statement is deliberately misleading, because filtering for pornography or other material is set up by individuals on their own computers.

"It's not dynamic software that on its own scours the content that people send back and forth," he said. "It's not centralized."

The P2P claque is feeling confident. Said Wayne Rosso, the former president of Grokster who's now CEO of file-sharing networks Blubster and Piolet, "Every judge in the world seems to understand our technology and how the law applies to it -- except for the RIAA and the movie industry. ...These guys can cry all they want to, but they're going to have to adjust to this brave new world."

Unfortunately, it's not over till it's over. P2P United's Eisgrau said the record industry is already lobbying congress to pass legislation to stop file sharing. And that would be a shame, he said. "Letting the law become the instrument of one parochial organization is really bad policy."
http://news.earthweb.com/bus-news/print.php/3308021


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Selling, not sharing.

Ex-Microsoft Employee Sentenced To Prison
Reuters

A former employee of Microsoft was sentenced on Wednesday to 21 months in prison for obtaining software meant for corporate use and selling it for personal profit, local authorities said.

Wilson Delancy, 36, was ordered to pay more than $4 million in restitution to the world's largest software maker for buying stolen software from another former employee, Kori Robin Brown, in order to sell it for personal gain, John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, said in a statement.

Brown was sentenced to 17 months in prison last November for stealing software meant for corporate use. Because the products were sent via mail, Brown and Wilson were convicted of mail fraud.

The fraud scheme was initially uncovered during a crackdown on criminal theft of software at Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., headquarters late last year.

Microsoft has hired investigators and made changes to its internal ordering system in order to prevent future incidents, said Microsoft spokeswoman Tami Begasse.

"It's not new or current behavior," Begasse said.
http://news.com.com/2100-1014-5150016.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Microsoft wins Lindows fight in the Netherlands
Jan Libbenga

Resellers of the Linux distribution Lindows in the Netherlands were ordered today to stop selling the product. Amsterdam judge Rullmann agreed with Microsoft that in many ways Lindows is "profiting from the success of Windows" by infringing the Beast of Redmond's trademarks.

Within eight days Dutch resellers have to stop promoting and selling any Lindows product. The Californian company isn't even allowed to advertise in the Low Countries any longer and, even more remarkable, the judge has ordered Lindows to make its Web site inaccessible to Benelux-based web users.

Dutch resellers are disappointed by the verdict. However, reseller Mensys said that Dutch consumers will still be able to buy the product from retailers in neighboring countries. "So far, Microsoft hasn't challenged German resellers," CEO Menso de Jong told The Register. "And if Microsoft wants to block access to the Lindows site, I suggest users try the Google cache."

Still, the ruling is a major set back for Lindows. Last year Microsoft won a temporary restraining order in Sweden which prohibits Lindows.com from use of the marks 'Lindows', 'Lindows.com' and 'LindowsOS', pending a later decision on alleged trademark infringement. A judge in Finland also barred Linux vendors from using the Lindows name.

Microsoft also started legal action in France, Belgium and Luxembourg against Lindows.com and Lindows OS resellers.

Lindows CEO Michael Roberson hasn't responded yet to the latest ruling, but told reporters earlier that "Microsoft is using lawsuits as a battering ram to smash Linux, to prevent it from reaching retail stores".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/35221.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peer-To-Peer Networks Must Be Preserved
Dan Gillmor

PEERING TOWARD PROFITS: Last week, Lindows began offering Lindows Live, a free online version of the Linux operating system. But the company isn't the only one offering the software: Its users are becoming part of the distribution process.

That's because Lindows (www.lindows.com) is using peer-to-peer networks, where users share online content with each other. They're the same networks that music and movie moguls call dens of piracy. There's another side to these peer-to-peer services, as I hope a federal appeals court panel understood when it heard an important case Tuesday in Southern California.

It's not about copyright infringement for Lindows. It's about saving money in an entirely smart and, so far, legal way, says Michael Robertson, Lindows founder and chief executive. By his estimate, the company is saving tens of thousands of dollars a month in bandwidth costs over what it would have had to pay, using standard systems, to serve the same number of people.

Bandwidth is the capacity of the data pipes that carry information around the Internet.

Charges for bandwidth can soar for those who provide content to others, especially when the data consists of larger files such as software applications and video. Maintaining a server computer to which lots of people come to download files can be expensive if the demand is high. The most popular Web sites spread their data around to some degree, using Akamai and other services that store copies of in-demand material closer to where the demand is. But even there the costs can be prohibitive.

``The more successful you are,'' says Robertson, ``the more it costs you.''

Lindows has a business plan to make money on ancillary services it offers with the Linux operating-system download.

Artists in the digital age face a much more difficult situation.

Modern digital tools are giving artists an unprecedented ability to make first-rate music, video and more. Under the perverse economics of standard Internet data delivery, they risk financial harm if what they create becomes too popular.

Peer-to-peer solves the problem, because the users themselves store the material and make it available to others. The more popular it is, the more likely it is to be on a computer near you -- and the less congestion you'll cause in the overall network even as you've spared the originating site entirely.

Several companies are trying to commercialize peer-to-peer by creating proprietary systems that store material widely, deliver it on demand and keep track of where everything is going. ESPN's online arm uses one of these to get video to its customers.

But this is untenable for amateurs and companies operating at the financial fringe. The wide-open peer-to-peer networks, such as BitTorrent (www.bitconjurer.org) and Gnutella, among others, are the only good answer -- as thousands of artists have discovered.

Their success is one more reason to worry about the way the music and movie industries are trying to shut down peer-to-peer networks. Yes, some people use them for copyright infringement. But the copyright lobby would rather kill peer-to-peer or bring it under such tight control that it would be almost useless.

The arguments Tuesday before the federal appeals court panel could determine the legal future of peer-to-peer, though technology is outrunning the control freaks in any event. The copyright industry is trying to overturn a judge's ruling that the creators of peer-to-peer networks can't be held responsible for what people do with the technology as long as there are non- infringing uses.

As Robertson has shown, the legitimate uses are real. If this technology is lawyered back into the fringes or hobbled into uselessness, we'll lose something we need.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ss/7866625.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Google Slaps Booble
Janis Mara

Search engine giant Google has demanded that newly launched adult search site Booble take down its Web site, a Booble spokesman said Thursday.

Booble officials claim its site is a parody, while Google disputes this assertion.

Twenty-four hours after Booble launched on Jan. 20, the Google Trademark Enforcement Team e- mailed the company asking it to take down its site, a Booble spokesman said.

Trademark issues seem to be occupying a lot of Google's time these days. The company is also involved in a trademark dispute with American Blind and Wallpaper, which filed suit against Google in New York Tuesday alleging infringement.

The Booble imbroglio has become a cause celebre online, with forums such as Slashdot debating the legal issues.

The adult search site says Google sent it an e-mail that says in part, "This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark. Your Web site is a pornographic Web site. Your Web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's Web site...." The message also disputes that Booble.com is a parody because it does not create a composition that comments on the original.

The message concludes by asking Booble to disable the site, discontinue use of the domain name, transfer the domain name to Google, permanently refrain from any confusing or diluting use of the term "Google," and "cease and desist from using the Google trade dress."

"The Google demand letter as reproduced on the Booble site states a plausible argument as to why it is not a permissible parody," said Martin Schwimmer, a Mount Pleasant, N.Y. attorney specializing in trademark and domain name law.

A parody comments on the entity it is satirizing, Schwimmer said, but Booble in general does not do so. The one parody element Schwimmer noted is the bar beneath the search box, seemingly a takeoff on Google's "I'm feeling lucky" bar. The Booble version has various messages including "I'm feeling confused."

"This is a competitor. It's another search engine. It takes Google's logo and uses their layout, their white screen and colored letters, for the business of being a search engine," Schwimmer noted.

Booble does not use paid search as a revenue model, according to its founder, "Bob," a New York-based former Internet executive who refused to be identified further.

"That's fake," he said, referring to Booble listings that mimic the paid sponsorships on Google. "We get affiliate revenue from the adult sites we list," and that is the site's revenue model. Booble has a database of 6,000 adult-oriented sites.

"Do you really think anyone would confuse the two sites?" "Bob" countered in response to Schwimmer's comments, pointing out that Booble's top level page has a warning to those under 18 to leave immediately. Google has no such warning. "If I thought it was confusing, I would change it."

"Bob" said he started Booble as a joke and then got carried away, putting his own money into the venture. "I hope this is just the standard letter, the legal department did what they had to do and now will forget about it. But if they want a court to figure it out, so be it.

"We're using this as a platform to comment on what men are doing on the Web. Google is how people find pornography on the Internet. This is a parody of that. They claim we are defaming them by associating with them, but come on, get real!" "Bob" said.

Google representatives could not be reached for comment by press time.
www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/3306121


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EP Issues Report On Collective Music Societies
ILN

The European Parliament has issued a report on the importance and future of collective societies. The report argues that digital rights management technologies cannot replace the societies, which it argues ensure both equitable remuneration for creators and easy access by users to IP.

Report at http://www.shorl.com/hipryradrabrapre (save as pdf)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Georgia Stayed With Controversial Database Despite Governor's Statement
AP

In a crisply worded statement last October, Gov. Sonny Perdue said he was ending Georgia's participation in a multi-state crime database that tracks the personal details even of law-abiding citizens.

Yet several months later, the state still was pumping information into the database. Top Georgia law enforcement officials even attended a meeting of its members -- two weeks after Perdue's announcement.

State participation appeared to come to an end -- again -- on Friday when the administration, confronted with documents obtained by The Associated Press, said they were now pulling the plug for certain.

``We thought it already had (ended),'' said Dan McLagan, the governor's communications director. ``There was a miscommunication.''

Orders were given Friday to terminate the state's participation, he said.

The multistate database, known as Matrix -- short for the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange -- combines records submitted by the participating states with 20 billion database files held by a private Florida company called Seisint Inc.

Launched with $12 billion in federal funds in a response to the Sept. 11 attacks, it has been billed as a speedy way for law enforcement agencies to find records.

Privacy rights advocates are concerned about the inclusion of information on people not accused of crimes, as well as over the scope of the data, which could include marriage and divorce records and even fingerprints.

Georgia law enforcement officials were interested in the project when it was initially proposed and provided state sex offender and prison records for the database.

But last October, Perdue said the state was dropping out of the database. His announcement came after state Attorney General Thurbert Baker ruled the state could not share driver's license records with the database unless state law was changed.

``The state of Georgia will not transfer any additional information to the company responsible for the Matrix database,'' Perdue said in a statement issued Oct. 21 by his press office.

``I have held serious concerns about the privacy issues involved with this project all along, and have decided it is in the best interest of the people of Georgia that our state have no further participation in the Matrix pilot project.''

But records obtained by the AP under a public records request in Florida show that five Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents, including Director Vernon Keenan, attended a Nov. 5 meeting of the Matrix board of directors in Atlanta.

Minutes of the meeting show that Keenan told other participants that Georgia planned to continue sending data to the system, even though that appeared to contradict the governor's earlier announcement.

Still in the program are Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...al/7837750.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pentagon Kills LifeLog Project
Noah Shachtman

The Pentagon canceled its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person's entire existence.

Run by Darpa, the Defense Department's research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.


LifeLog's backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring, arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.

Researchers close to the project say they're not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn't provided an explanation for LifeLog's quiet cancellation. "A change in priorities" is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62158,00.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Teen found Fermi lab supercomputers a perfect place for tunes.

UK Teenager Sentenced for Hacking U.S. Research Lab
Bernhard Warner

A London teenager was sentenced on Monday to 200 hours of community service for hacking into the computer system of a U.S. physics research laboratory to store his personal collection of music and film files.

Joseph James McElroy, 18, of Woodford Green, told Southwark Crown Court in London that he hacked into 17 computer systems at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago over a two-week period in June 2002 to store and exchange hundreds of gigabytes worth of computer files with his friends.

The U.S. Department of Energy had sought 21,000 pounds ($38,000) in compensation for the breach, which forced technicians to shut down a portion of the computer network for three days, the court was told.

The government-funded laboratory does advanced research into subatomic particles, plus research on nuclear weapons.

In October, McElroy, a student at Exeter University in southwest England, pleaded guilty to violating Britain's Computer Misuse Act. The law, which covers a broad range of computer crimes from hacking to virus writing, carries a maximum prison term of five years.

Judge Andrew Goymer waived demands to repay the U.S. Department of Energy on grounds the breach at no point compromised the laboratory's confidential research data.

The laboratory, renowned for discovering the smallest elements of matter in the universe, has one of the largest computer facilities on the planet capable of storing vast amounts of research data.

For years, people have been hacking into corporate and university computer systems to store massive caches of film and music files when their own computers run out of disc space.

In such piggy-backing schemes, large institutions and corporations are chosen because the files can go undetected for long periods amid a sea of data.

A joint investigation between the Department of Energy and New Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit in Britain traced the break-in to McElroy in July 2003 after they identified his IP address, an identifier that matches computer users with their computer.

McElroy told police he was unaware the computers belonged to a government-funded research laboratory.
http://www.boston.com/business/techn..._research_lab/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Movielink Discounts Extended Viewing
Dinesh C. Sharma

Broadband video-on-demand company Movielink on Monday announced a service that will let its customers extend the time over which they can watch movies they've downloaded. Using the new MultiPlay feature, customers can continue to rent a movie for additional 24-hour viewing periods for up to 30 days after the initial download, typically at a reduced price, the company said. For example, the initial rental of "The Hulk" costs $3.99, and the charge for each additional viewing period is 99 cents. Prices for initial downloads and subsequent rentals vary by title.

Under Movielink's regular service, rental costs range from about $2.95 to $4.99 per film. Once a film is downloaded, customers have 30 days in which to start watching it; they can watch the film as often as they like--but only within a 24- hour period that begins with the first viewing.
http://news.com.com/2110-1025_3-5152034.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Profits Seen In Peer-To-Peer Networks

Saratoga Springs -- Wurld Media aims to team with film industry on new digital media delivery systems
Kenneth Aaron

You may think you've seen this movie before: dot-com player with a nice wardrobe and expensive office furniture talks about shaking up the Internet.

Thing is, Greg Kerber's company, Wurld Media Inc. of Saratoga Springs, figured out how to turn a profit in the e-commerce arena once. And now he is turning his attention to digital media, the latest, greatest frontier on the Internet.

"Digital media delivery systems is the future," said Kerber, Wurld's chairman and chief executive. He is a Wall Street expatriate who still favors French cuffs, despite the much more casual attire that his bank of programmers wears at Wurld's Putnam Street headquarters.

The company, which employs 37 now and expects to add 30 more by year's end, is cooking up a way to help companies pump content to users -- and ultimately harness the peer-to-peer networks popularized by Napster and vilified by record labels and Hollywood studios to deliver sanctioned downloads.

Think of the marketing potential, Kerber said, of people on the Internet saying, "This album rocks," to scores of total strangers, and not only being able to give them the album, but also to hand the record label a cut.

"In the future, it's going to offer great potential to the world," Kerber said of peer-to-peer technology.

Wurld Media has been through its near-death experience -- it lived through an episode in 2001 when it couldn't make payroll -- and actually managed to turn a profit off its BuyersPort e-commerce program for the first time late last year.

BuyersPort pays commissions to shoppers who buy things from affiliated Web sites. A BuyersPort member who orders, say, a box of Bic pens from Staples.com receives a cut of that purchase. Alternately, not-for-profit groups such as the Special Olympics use the BuyersPort service to capture commissions from their supporters.

While BuyersPort is on its feet now, Wurld endured reams of bad publicity when it first started up. Morpheus, a file-swapping program akin to Napster, installed Wurld's software on users' computers without their permission.

That wasn't supposed to happen, Kerber said.

And the company, chastened, not only worked on an industrywide code of conduct for such software, but won over its critics.

"Wurld Media is clean and a great example of truly fixing a wrong," said Haiko de Poel Jr., who runs a Web site devoted to affiliate marketing.

Wurld Media declined to divulge specific financial data (it's privately held, with most of the stock residing in employees' hands). But the company is trying to raise another $8 million to carry it through its digital-media rollout.

Kerber points to the ESPN Motion service offered by the cable-sports network as proof of his contention that there is money to be made in moving digital media to consumers. More than 2 million people have subscribed to ESPN's free service, which downloads video clips of sports highlights to users' computers.

Instead of the herky-jerky streaming video that most people associate with the Internet, these clips are crisp and clear.

But it takes lots of network firepower to get video clips to 2 million people.

With more homes having high-speed, always-on Internet connections, analysts are counting on services such as ESPN Motion to pick up steam. Jupiter Research, a Connecticut firm specializing in business and technology issues, said last week that 21.5 million U.S. households had broadband access in 2003 -- a number that will climb to 46 million by 2008 -- and spark more companies to offer digital content online.

Instead of relying on a big bank of computer servers to push content out, Wurld's answer is to let users' own computers do the work. After the content is moved from a central location to outlying machines, those computers send the files along to other machines on the network.

"You're getting the consumer to do most of the pushing for you," said Joseph Hatch, Wurld's vice president of business development.

Ultimately, Kerber wants to create "media communities" -- chat-room-like places where users tout, and trade, the latest songs, video games, movies or other digital content.

Wurld will build the network and collect a piece of the action. So do the media companies responsible for the content. The users will provide all the storage and get the right to swap files. How much people pay for the right to download all this stuff is up in the air, as is which media companies want to participate.

"We have been discussing things with people in the industry," said Kerber, who admitted he was not wise to the ways of Hollywood -- and the importance of turning lunch into part of the deal-making process -- when he first showed up.

But he is wise at other things, like business, said Scott Dinsdale, a former digital-strategy executive with the Motion Picture Association of America.

Dinsdale is now a consultant for Wurld, which he says can provide the word-of-mouth marketing vehicle that studios and record labels may turn to, if they see the money in it.

Their current system, Dinsdale argues, works pretty well. "If you can start using peer-to-peer as a more effective marketing vehicle for products that are either in theaters or DVD, then you are starting to raise some eyebrows," he said.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...ate= 2/4/2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where Do You Get Your Music?

Washington Post Download Survey


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

File-Sharing: Who's to Blame?
AP

A federal appeals judge on Tuesday questioned whether distributors of online file-sharing software should be held responsible for copyright infringement just because some people use the programs to swap copyright music and movies.

Arguing before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, entertainment company lawyer Russ Frackman cited the 1980s battle over Sony's Betamax video recorder, which was found to have legitimate uses that did not violate movie and television copyrights. Yet 90 percent of the content flowing through file-sharing networks is illegal, he said.

Judge John Noonan, however, wasn't convinced.

"So 10 percent is non-infringing?" Noonan asked. "That sounds like a lot of non-infringing files to me."

Answered Frackman: "If 10 percent is commercially sufficient ... then let them build their business on that 10 percent."

The case's outcome could determine whether music and film companies can hold distributors of file-sharing software liable for illegally swapped music and movies online.

Attorneys representing a cadre of entertainment companies and copyright holders fielded questions from the judges along with lawyers for two firms that distribute file-swapping software.

The hearing was held to consider an appeal of an April summary judgment by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles, who said Grokster and StreamCast Networks are not legally responsible for the swapping of copyright content through their file-sharing software.

On Tuesday, the judges focused much of their questioning on whether a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a copyright infringement case against Sony over its Betamax videocassette recorder can be interpreted to protect the file-sharing firms from liability.

That decision held that Sony was not liable for copyright infringement when people used its Betamax videocassette recorders to copy movies illegally because the technology had significant uses that did not violate copyrights.

Wilson applied the Supreme Court's decision in the Sony case when he ruled in favor of Grokster, which distributes file-sharing software by that name, and StreamCast, the firm behind the Morpheus software.

Frackman said Sony made money by selling the Betamax and could not control how consumers used it. But Grokster and StreamCast could filter the copyright content from their systems, like they do with computer viruses, but refuse to do so, because the free songs and movies are what draw their users and ultimately generate ad profits, he said.

"They give their software away for the very purpose of capitalizing from this ongoing relationship ... based on 90 percent infringement," Frackman said. "That makes Sony an impossible defense here."

Fred von Lohmann, a senior intellectual property attorney for San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation who argued on behalf of StreamCast, said the firms' software is used to swap live music by Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and Phish — songs which the artists have allowed to be freely distributed, he said.

"Two million songs by (The) Prodigy have been distributed with authorization," von Lohmann said. "The record is undisputed that these pieces of software are capable of substantial non-infringing uses."

Another member of the panel, Judge Sydney Thomas, questioned whether forcing the file-sharing firms to filter copyright content would ultimately do enough to quell file-swapping on the Internet.

"Aren't we just chasing the wind?" Thomas asked.

Frackman said Napster's failure as an illegal file-sharing enterprise because of legal action showed that courts play a major role in curbing such copyright abuses.

Legal experts said the panel could take months to rule. The 9th Circuit took about four months to return a decision in an appeal of the entertainment companies' suit against Napster in 2001.

A successful appeal would clear the way for the entertainment companies to pursue legal action against Grokster and StreamCast. The outcome of the appeal will also affect the entertainment companies' case against Sharman Networks, makers of the Kazaa program, which averages more users than any other file-sharing software.
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62161,00.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Broadband Broad Enough?

Telcos betting on "broadband lite" are sure to lose.
Michael Topic

The adoption of broadband has grown at an undeniably impressive rate, more or less unabated, in spite of the economy. So how come there is a growing band of less than impressed consumers asking "is this it?"

It comes down to expectations. Millions of broadband users grew up with TV: instantly on, full screen, quick-fire
channel flipping, uninterrupted service, 24/7. No muss, no fuss—and no waiting.

Now we’re asking these same consumers to put up with Web pages that load in minutes, not seconds; postage stamp-sized streaming video that starts and stops like rush hour traffic; and service levels that seem to vary at random. A flash file on a fancy Web page might need to load a couple of megabytes before it plays. If I want to see it within a second or two, I need tens of megabits per second of bandwidth. Most of us only have a few hundred kilobits per second, and then only if everyone else in the neighborhood is off line. For pure data delivery, it beats dial-up, but "that don’t impress me much."

Now that there’s a critical mass of broadband consumers, there’s talk about telcos returning to profitability through a "triple play": delivering voice, data, and television over the hundred-year-old technology that spans the last mile to our homes. Okay, let’s say they go head-to-head with cable, satellite, and terrestrial TV. It’ll need to be pretty amazing to get consumers to switch.

Star Wars creator George Lucas once said, "there are 24 frames per second in my films and none of them are optional." Telco TV over ADSL will have to deliver faultless, dropless playback. They might even need to promise it in binding consumer SLAs. When viewers channel hop, they won’t be willing to wait before they see the pictures move. Channel surfing has to be like TV: instant gratification.

With so much choice, consumers are going to need the equivalent of Google for audiovisual stuff, with preview thumbnails for the search results that load and play instantly. With so many shiny new wide screen plasma TVs in homes, HDTV will also have to be an option at some point. Given the current state of broadband provision, it’s very unlikely these performance goals can be met.

The digital television industry in Europe is already finding out that you can’t fill empty channels with reruns of old sitcoms and expect decent ratings. Offering a wide choice of genuinely compelling and relevant content matters to consumers. Telcos are going to have to commission new production or allow independent producers to distribute over their networks. I’ll believe that when I see it.

The fact is that if all I have is an ADSL line and there are three televisions in the house, the technology will be hard pressed to deliver a different video stream to each one, even with advanced compression like H.264.

There’s no getting around it. If companies want to profit from selling us voice, data, and video, they are going to have to install bags of bandwidth. Broadband as we know it is a transitional technology, designed to squeeze the last drops out of the investment in the last mile, not to satisfy real consumer needs. And it’s just too slow.

My money is on physics. Delivery via fiber to the home (FTTH), high-speed wireless meshes (WiFi and WiMAX), and purpose-built wireline data networks will always trump phone lines on steroids. Yet much of the investment in broadband provision still remains focused on sheep in wolves’ clothing: ADSL and cable modems.

Ironically, outlying rural areas are getting serious bandwidth long before more affluent urban areas, installed by community-based operators, because the established telcos won’t serve them at all. It seems that "rolling your own" is almost the only way to get ultra broadband service.

Like many people who couldn’t live without the Internet, the phone, and digital television, I want serious bandwidth and I want it now. The ultra broadband network is being built from the edge inward. Until it’s available to a critical mass of affluent, urban consumers, broadband won’t match the performance of analog television, or our good old phone system. Until it does, consumers won’t value it. The telco triple play may be a great strategy to return carriers to profitability, but not with today’s broadband.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comm...d=2717_0_3_0_C


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Broadband Comes Up From The Sewer
BBC

Thousands of Scottish homes could soon get high-speed internet access through the sewerage system.

Scottish Water has launched a pilot scheme in Rosyth and believes leasing sewage pipes to broadband providers could drive down internet costs.

It also avoids the problem of digging up streets to lay wires and could bring access to remote parts of Scotland.

Scottish Water said the first stretches of cables would be installed by the end of this week.

Commercial director Chris Banks said it is a project that has been in the pipeline for some time.

"Our partner Fibrelink is financing the network, the fibre that actually goes down the sewers, we are simply renting out the sewers to them," he said.

Information sewerage highway

"Fibrelink will then contract with various telecoms providers on a neutral carrier basis, that is we can facilitate anyone hooking up to this and they'll be making the charges.

"Where Scottish Water gains is we will take a percentage of the revenues that are generated through the fibre."

He added that with 24,000 miles of sewers there was the potential for the pilot scheme to be a widespread success.

Two miles of cable will be laid in Rosyth over the next 28 days for full testing to begin.

The concept and cable have been in use in Europe for six years and are said to have proved cost effective.

The starting point for the pilot will be Dunfermline waste water treatment works, where the cable will be fed in and floated down through the pipes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...nd/3452733.stm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mikerowesoft.com Row Rumbles On
Ananova

A Canadian teenager who surrendered his website to Microsoft in a row over copyright is selling a legal document they sent him, on eBay.

Mike Rowe, from British Columbia, has decided to put the 25-page document up for auction. He's keeping a second copy for himself.

The 17-year-old received the letter from Microsoft's lawyers earlier this month after he became embroiled in a row with the company over his mikerowesoft.com website.

Microsoft said the name infringed their copyright and wrote to Rowe offering him $10 in return for the domain. He wrote back demanding $10,000.

This week it was reported that Microsoft reached a settlement with the teenager who then surrendered the name to them.

A bid of $500 has been made for the inch-thick book containing copies of web pages, registrations, trade marks, and emails between Rowe and Microsoft's lawyers. The bidding ends on Feb 5.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ews.technology


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yahoo Composing Music Download Plan
Jim Hu and John Borland

Yahoo, rethinking earlier plans, is quietly exploring ways to develop a music download service as archrivals Microsoft and America Online place bigger bets on digital song sales.

According to knowledgeable sources, Yahoo bought music software developer Mediacode in December to help create a digital jukebox and media player--the key components in many music download services. The Mediacode team includes two founding members of Nullsoft, which created the popular Winamp music player and is now owned by AOL.

In addition, Yahoo also has begun kicking the tires of online music services as it rethinks its strategy, which hinges on streaming media, not downloads. For example, Yahoo has held discussions with Musicmatch, one of the largest Internet music services, in what could be a prelude to acquisition talks, according to sources familiar with the meetings.

Sources characterized the discussions as preliminary and said Yahoo has not yet made any offer. They added that Yahoo meets with companies often to discuss possible deals and has received inquiries in recent months from a handful of Web music services, including BuyMusic.com and Napster owner Roxio.

Yahoo declined to comment on any of these talks. "We do not seek to comment or speculate on market rumors," Yahoo spokeswoman Charlene English said.

Napster and BuyMusic also declined to comment. Musicmatch spokeswoman Jennifer Roberts would only say, "We talk to lots of companies, but we're just focused on running our business."

Jumping into music downloads would be a switch from Yahoo's past music strategy, which has focused on streaming audio and video through Launch, a subsidiary that it bought for $12 million in 2001. Yahoo also distributes Roxio's Napster music service, which lets customers buy music downloads and sign up for subscriptions.

Singing for their supper?
Launch depends on advertising to support a free version of its service, as well as subscription fees for a premium version. Yahoo does not report financial results for Launch, but sources familiar with the figures said the site is about break even.

Yahoo executives, including music division head and Launch co-founder Dave Goldberg, previously have disparaged music downloads as a money-losing business. Music-store companies have conceded that margins are slim to nonexistent, with sales consumed by licensing fees for record companies, delivery costs and credit card fees.

Few analysts expect music downloads to make money anytime soon. Apple Computer, whose iTunes Music Store dominates the market, makes its money on the sale of companion iPod music players and concedes the service is not yet profitable.

Still, many large companies, including Microsoft and Coca-Cola, now have plans to offer music downloads. America Online has also joined the game, taking a shortcut by bundling Apple's iTunes store with its online service. Even RealNetworks, which has bet on subscriptions through its Rhapsody product, recently launched a retail song store.

All of these companies argue they can't afford to stand still in a rapidly changing market where consumer demand is still being formed. If demand takes off, they are confident the services will become profitable. In the meantime, they can rely on music downloads as a "loss leader" to help sell related products, such as concert tickets, posters, T-shirts and even soft drinks.

Yahoo's management also is starting to see the value of a more comprehensive strategy, if only to defend against its own users defecting to rival offerings, sources said. "Theoretically, if you don't have it, they will go elsewhere," said a source familiar with Yahoo's plans.

For months, music insiders have been expecting Yahoo to up the ante in its music bet, a move they say would change the dynamics of the industry. As one the most highly trafficked sites on the Web, Yahoo is better positioned than most to sell music services. In addition, Yahoo could sell music through partnerships with high-speed Internet access providers such as SBC Communications.

"Yahoo seems to be a real obvious major player in the space," said Jeff Cavins, chief executive of Loudeye, which builds music stores for other companies. "Digital music for Yahoo is a natural way to create incremental revenue and profit."

Yahoo has made several stabs in that direction. Last year the company explored ways for Gracenote, a music database provider, to build software that would let Yahoo customers buy and play back digital songs, sources said. But the partnership never bore fruit, so Yahoo turned to Mediacode.

Mediacode, led by former Nullsoft engineers Ian Rogers and Rob Lord, has created software that lets people access their media libraries from multiple PCs. For example, songs stored on a PC at home can be played at work.

Finding the right match
Although Yahoo acquired Mediacode's engineers to build its own player, the company could hedge its bets by acquiring existing technology.

Musicmatch has attracted more than 160,000 paying subscribers, and it already has secured licenses to hundreds of thousands of tracks owned by the major record labels.

Musicmatch traditionally has guarded its independence, and said it doesn't require a partnership to grow. Still, it has suffered some recent setbacks.

In October, Apple dropped Musicmatch as its software provider for Windows iPod owners, opting to create its own application instead. Since then, Hewlett-Packard also dropped Musicmatch and decided to bundle iTunes with its computers.

Musicmatch said HP provided a much smaller customer base than Dell, its main distributor. It also has partnered with Coca-Cola in the United Kingdom.

"We've demonstrated our ability to be successful as an independent," Chris Allen, Musicmatch's senior vice president of marketing and strategic planning, said in an interview last week. "Our intent is to march forward along those same lines."
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5152860.html

[JackSpratts]

Boob Tube

For those of you who did not watch the Super Bowl last night or just plain missed the half-time show because you were taking a bathroom break/getting more guacamole dip/what-have-you, Janet Jackson briefly bared a breast during her half-time performance. Unfortunately, the CBS network was unable to cut-away before said nakedness was able to make it to the airwaves of national television. Such an obvious publicity stunt is not normally such a news worthy event here at Ars Technica, but what is rather amusing is that according to TiVo, viewers repeatedly hit their rewind-play-pause buttons to catch a short glimpse of Janet in all her glory. According to News.com.com.com (dot com):

TiVo subscribers hit rewind on the Jackson-Timberlake incident nearly three times more than they did on any other moment during the broadcast. That makes the moment the most rewatched ever during a broadcast in three years of measuring audience reactions, a TiVo representative said. The findings were based on an anonymous sampling of 20,000 TiVo subscribers who watched the Super Bowl.

Which leads to two questions: How anonymous is this "anonymous sampling" when TiVo has the unit's unique ID number associated with the subscriber? What sort of events (past and/or future) might possibly be more watched than the one that most of the nation just witnessed this past Sunday? - Matt Woodward
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/10...o%2002-04-2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No Longer 'Dot-Com Bowl,' But Game Still Super For Net
Stefanie Olsen

This year, Super Bowl fans will be reminded that digital song swapping, like grabbing a player's face mask, can mean a big penalty.

Six teenagers busted for illegal file-trading by the Recording Industry Association of America will be the stars of a 30-second commercial, called "I Fought the Law," aired Sunday during Super Bowl 38 on CBS. The advertisement kicks off Pepsi and Apple Computer's giveaway of 100 million downloads on the iTunes' legal digital-music service. People can find a code for a free file by buying a winning bottle of Pepsi.

"We're still going to download music free off the Internet," says one of the teenage girls in the commercial, referring to the giveaway. "And there's not a thing anyone can do about it."
http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5151146.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Libelous? Apple/Pepsi/RIAA Superbowl Ad Under Fire
Bill Royle

This is an interesting approach to the legality of this ad. Make sure to check the full story out, fresh from our friends over at P2Pnet!

On SuperBowl Sunday - February 1 - the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers will hold millions of Americans, and significant numbers of people in other parts of the world, in thrall as they fight for dominance.

A select few ad agencies paid fortunes to make sure their clients' products are in the faces of this gigantic captive audience.

But Apple Computers, who in the 1984 game launched Macintosh in what also became the first event ad, was significantly absent from the 2004 line-up, in spite of rumous that it was planning something big.

That's because this year, it teamed up with Pepsi-Cola. And the RIAA. And its iTunes "event ad" is more likely to be remembered in infamy than as a triumph.

It features 16 naive US teenagers 'persuaded' to appear as virtual criminals in a multi-million-dollar campaign put together by BBDO, a major New York advertising agency, promoting Pepsi-Cola and Apple Computers' iTunes, and backed by the RIAA, Big Music's public face.

The teenagers were identified by the RIAA as being alleged 'copyright violators' - 'alleged' because they never appeared before a judge. They, or their parents, settled out of court rather than risk much larger financial penalties had they gone head-to-head with the RIAA's heavyweight legal team, and lost.

The ad in question has Pepsi 'giving' away 100 million iTunes songs as a promotion. Waving bottles of soda, the stars - the 16 kids, names and addresses provided by the RIAA which sued them - let everyone know that's the way to go. No more 'illegal' downloads for them!

Annie Leith, 14, whose parents gave the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) $3,000 to avoid a civil lawsuit, is featured and she says she'll use some of her undisclosed ad fee to help pay for that.

Of the commercial, "It's all in good spirit," says Dave Burwick, chief marketer, Pepsi, North America.

Josh Wattles, however, doesn't think that adequately describes the spot. In fact, "Falsely attributing criminal conduct to someone is a slam-dunk libel in just about every state," he says.

"There's no calculus of relative harm to justify this kind of abusive, untruthful and cynical behavior towards minors no matter how complicit their misguided parents may have been in this deception."

He's the former acting general counsel of Paramount Pictures, a key architect of the MPAA's (Motion Picture Association of America) anti-piracy programs in the transition to videocassette distribution, and the former senior executive in charge of Viacom's music subsidiaries, The Famous Music Publishing Companies.
http://techfocus.org/comments.php?id...e%2002-04-2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hacking or Manslaughter: Equal Justice?
Bill Royle

Being a political junkie, I tend to pay attention to who is in trouble and who has been let off the hook. When I saw the case of South Dakota Congressman Bill Janklow, therefore, I stewed over it for quite a while.

You see, in the past 13 years Janklow has racked up 13 traffic citations. Notorious for his lead foot, Janklow made light of the issue on multiple occasions.

Now there's nothing to make light of. On August 16th, Congressman Janklow blew right through a stop sign at about 70 mph - hitting motorcyclist Randolph E. Scott and killing him. Janklow claims that as he hadn't eaten in hours, he suffered from a diabetic reaction. The jury didn't believe him, and he was found guilty of the following:

* Second-degree manslaughter
* Speeding
* Running a stop sign
* Reckless driving.

So what was his sentence? One hundred days in jail, and three years of probation. If he completes his probation without incident, the conviction will be wiped from his record. As well, after thirty days behind bars Janklow will be allowed to leave jail to perform community service. Perhaps he'll be cutting the judge's lawn.

Now take a look at these sentences for hackers Kevin Poulsen and Kevin Mitnick.

* Kevin Poulsen - convicted of 7 counts of mail, wire and computer fraud. Also, money laundering and obstruction of justice. All non- violent crimes, yet they brought him a 51-month sentence.

* Kevin Mitnick - convicted of 4 counts of wire fraud, 2 counts of computer fraud. Also, one count of illegally intercepting a wire communication. Again, all non-violent crimes, yet they brought him a 46 month prison term, and restitution in the amount of $4,125. As well, he was sentenced to three years of probation.

What's the lesson here? Do a white-collar crime, face serious time. However, Congressmen are allowed to kill people, for the price of only one hundred days.

What a justice system. Perhaps the most fitting quote (and the pot calling the kettle black, incidentally) came from Senator Ted Kennedy in 1973:

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

Think about it.
http://techfocus.org/comments.php?id...?%2002-04-2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Domain Enhancement Act
posted by scubacuda

The EFF encourages you to send a message to your representative in support of the Public Domain Enhancement Act, a bill that will allow works that no longer have commercial value to enter the public domain. From their website:

Creative works are supposed to end up in the public domain, where anyone can use them without fearing lawsuits from copyright holders. This freedom makes it possible for Shakespeare to be the world’s most performed playwright, and it allowed Disney to create films like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. However, some powerful copyright holders have stopped works from entering the public domain by repeatedly lobbying Congress to extend the length of copyright terms. This abuse of the law locks people out of their cultural heritage and puts an unfair tax on creativity.
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article....t%2002-04-2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Digital Music Revolution Changing The Tune

CANNES, France (AFP) - 2004 will be the year of a new generation of mobile jukeboxes and telephones that will revolutionise how the world listens to music.

You can't afford to scrimp on storage. Here's how to store anything, plus top 10 hard drives and external storage options.

If the latest technological breakthroughs showcased at the MIDEM international music fair over the

past week fulfill their potential, people worldwide will soon be tuning into their favourite songs and compiling albums via their cellphones and video-game consoles, or downloading music onto mobile jukeboxes.

A host of new digital music devices and services will be launched on the market this year. But there are still snags on the horizon. Europe's copyright red tape notably is slowing the flow of music tracks onto the new digital services, and not all new gadgets are compatible with each other.

The MIDEM fair saw movers and shakers in the music industry get down to serious talk with the giants of the cellphone, telephone service providers, Internet and electronic worlds about how they can make the new technology work for them as well as for music lovers.

MIDEM, the international music industry's most influential annual gathering in this Mediterranean resort town, was the venue for this first major get together between the music and hi-tech worlds. There was also a sense of urgency that industries need to move more quickly as technology as well as consumers' tastes can change rapidly.

On the piracy front, the music industry recognised it was too slow in reacting to the onslaught of illegal music Internet downloads. These fell to 800 million at the end of 2003 but were still the main reason for last year's 10 percent slump in album sales worldwide.

Luckily for the record business and musicians, the tide is starting to turn, mostly thanks to the runaway success of the first paying online music stores and digital jukeboxes.

For the music lover, this shift is also good tidings as the new online stores and cell phone operators plan to keep the price of downloading songs at around 2.2 euros for a hot single to 0.80 euro cents for less popular tracks.

Apple Computer's iTunes store was first out of the starting blocks in April 2003 and by January this year had notched up sales of over 30 million songs in the USA, Apple's Eddy Cue said at MIDEM. Apple's iTunes owes a lot of its success to the iPod jukebox, now the most-used music-playing mobile device with a third of the US market today.

The online music giants, however, still need to duplicate their US success in Europe where the complex network of rights agreements, different prices and record release dates is making it difficult for them to launch their one-store concept.

A pan-European agreement between record labels, music publishers and the various rights and royalty collection agencies that operate across Europe would be "the holy grail," Chris Gorog, chairman and CEO of the newly legalised Napster (news - web sites) online music service, said at MIDEM.

Early this year should see both the Apple and Roxio launches in Europe but the two companies were vague about precise dates. What is sure is that they will meet new competition when they finally arrive on the other side of the Atlantic.

Europe's largest online store OD2, founded by rock legend Peter Gabriel, announced a new beefed-up online service at MIDEM. SonicSelector, a simple, on-demand music platform compatible with Microsoft's Windows media Player9, has already been signed up by Italy's Tiscali Internet service provider and Coca Cola's new online MyCokeMusic store.

In addition to being able to choose from the growing number of online music stores, music-lovers will also be spoilt in choice for mobile jukeboxes.

Apple's iPod and its mini little brother, which are not compatible with Microsoft Windows, are being joined by a host of 'lookalike' gadgets. UK phone carrier O2's own branded music player, which will cost 181 dollars or less if bought along with a cell phone, is one of many.

Or people may prefer to use mobile phones. The next generation of 3G handsets showcased at MIDEM will become available this year, opening up new opportunities to purchase and download whole tracks with far superior sound quality to what is available at the moment.

Nokia (news - web sites) has even launched what it calls a "visual radio" with colour graphics and a built-in FM transmitter that will display information such as song titles and lyrics of the music it is tuned into. Its 7700 mobile device combines a phone with a touch screen, a video player and an MP3 music player.

For ringtone fans there is good news as well. Japan's latest craze for personalized ringback tones when the person being called hears a selected tune, is expected to take off in Europe.

But not all the new gadgets and online services will be compatible. With so many competitors starting to stream on to the marketplace, it looks certain that not all of them can hope to survive. That is not such good news for consumers who might have a difficult time deciding which way they should jump.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...idem&printer=1


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Retailer Destroys Video Enhancer Stocks Deemed Illegal

Copyright circumvention prevention
INQUIRER staff:

MACROVISION CORPORATION has leaned heavily enough on UK electronics retailer Maplins to get it to agree to destroy its entire stock of video enhancers, the companies announced.

Maplins said it will comply with a European Copyright Directive prohibiting the sale and advertising of circumvention devices some of which are designed to circumvent Macrovision copy protection technologies on DVDs and VHS cassettes. The directive was implemented in the UK on 31st October 2003.

The retailer said it has withdrawn a range of three devices that may be used to circumvent copy protection technologies. Commercial Director David O’Reilly, of said: "We have discontinued these items following the change in the legislation, and out of respect for the law."

Martin Brooker, European Director of Sales for Macrovision said the company would be "working with" retailers to ensure compliance with the law," as part of an ongoing "enforcement programme."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=...l%2002-04-2004


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seizures Of Fake Discs Rise In Asia
Bill Heaney

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) said yesterday that seizures of pirated movies reached record levels in the Asia-Pacific region last year thanks to nearly 13,000 raids by law enforcement agencies.

Almost 43 million illegal discs were seized, the world's leading movie industry representative body said in a report. Counterfeit discs made in the Asia-Pacific region cost the industry US$718 million last year, it estimated.

Taiwan was not mentioned in the report, but MPA's local representative said the situation here does not seem to be improving.

"Our investigation and survey shows that street vendor crime and private stores in night markets are decreasing, but piracy on the Internet and sales through fliers in newspapers are going up," Hank Kwo, executive director of MPA Taiwan, told the Taipei Times yesterday.

The reduction in street-level crime is probably due to changes in the Copyright Law last summer which made it easier for police to arrest bootleggers, Kwo said. In 2002, 44 percent of all movies sold here were illegal, costing the industry NT$1.46 billion, he said.

MPA Taiwan's 2003 report is due for release next month.

The changes in the Copyright Law were prompted by harsh criticism from trading partners of Taiwan's enforcement record in fighting movie, software and music disc pirates. Since 1992, Taiwan has been on and off the US Trade Representative Office's Special 301 Watch List of intellectual property rights (IPR) violators, and was moved up to the Priority Watch List of serious violators in 2001.

It is time to take Taiwan off the list, the nation's No. 2 man in charge of IPR protection said.

"We think Taiwan has made more progress this year compared to previous years," said Jack Lu, deputy director-general of the Ministry of Economic Affairs' Intellectual Property Office (IPO). "Street vendor crime and other crimes are down after the changes we made to the Copyright Law. We have confidence that we can be removed from the Priority Watch List this year, or at least be moved down one grade to the general watch list."

Lu cited a report on pirated discs compiled by National Chengchi University that is scheduled to be released next week.

"According to our results, DVD and VCD piracy rates should be around 36 percent in Taiwan for the big motion picture companies," said report author Paul Liu, who is also director of the university's Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property.

"Our understanding from the interest groups is that measures put together in the last one to two years have worked well: first, the 220-strong full-time IPR police task force that does nothing but enforce IPR; second, the reward system that gives up to NT$10 million to infringement informants," Liu said.

Last year, the MPA, with law enforcement agencies, seized around 2.4 million pirated discs in Taiwan, up slightly from 2.3 million in 2002. In Asia, China caused the biggest losses to the movie industry, MPA reported, selling US$76 million worth of pirate discs last year. Ninety-five percent of all discs sold in China are pirated.

The report praised Malaysia and Hong Kong for making advances in the fight against movie piracy. The piracy rate in Malaysia fell from 75 percent to 50 percent of all discs sold, and in Hong Kong it dropped from 25 percent to 20 percent. The improvement in Malaysia was as a result of the seizure of 4,679 VCD and DVD stampers. China, with 10 times the number of disc seizures, only managed to seize 1,439 stamping machines over the same 12-month period, the report said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/.../04/2003097440


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCO Receives Poisonous Reception at Ivy
Jim Wagner

The SCO Group took its intellectual property challenge of Linux to Harvard on Monday and received a cold reception from area students opposed to the company's legal tactics.

In a presentation hosted by the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology on Monday, Darl McBride, SCO president and CEO, and Chris Sontag, senior vice president and SCOsource general manager, defended their decision to pursue corporations and users who violate what they consider their intellectual property.

The presentation, called "Defending Intellectual Property Rights in a Digital Age," outlined the company's decision to sue IBM (Quote, Chart) for violating a contract between the two. Last March, officials at the Lindon, Utah, software company filed a $3 billion lawsuit saying Big Blue programmers lifted thousands of lines of code from licensed Unix System V code and used them to bolster the Linux kernel.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday in Utah, where SCO lawyers will press IBM to release its AIX code for review by the company. Last month, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit ruled SCO must show all the code under contention before IBM is required to show its own code. If SCO doesn't provide all the code in question, Judge Brooke Wells ruled, a suspension on all fact-finding evidence -- or, motions to compel evidence -- would continue.

McBride stressed from the beginning of the speech his company's desire to keep open source software, well, open, but not at the expense of code copyrighted to SCO, through its ownership of subsidiary Caldera Systems.

"I do believe, that as a society, we're on a very slippery slope right now if we move down this path of 'let's all jump on the software is free and software is good movement,' " he said. "I've had my eyes opened the last year or so."

He said IBM, with its insistence of open standards for all software, is trashing the "world of proprietary systems," which he sides with as a copyright owner. He threw a subtle jab at the Armonk, N.Y., company, which filed more patent requests than any other company in the U.S. the past three years.

"The minute (IBM) puts its 10,000 patents into the public domain, I will follow you with my product," he said.

Perhaps expecting a more relaxed reception in a region still celebrating the Super Bowl victory of its New England Patriots, he found himself in the middle of a crowd that was almost entirely pro-Linux. Several MIT students asked pointed questions.

The crowd certainly wasn't happy to hear Sontag say the software company would continue its legal pursuit of Linux users violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). While SCO would "likely" not go after, say, a college student using Linux for educational purposes, companies that derive profits from Linux use were fair game, he said.

One student, who said he distributed copies of Linux outside the hall, offered to hand out more after the talks. Another asked why SCO refrained from publicizing the code they claim is infringing, so the Linux community could gut the code from the kernel and move forward without risk of violating copyrights.

McBride said that while Linux is the compilation of thousands of people donating their time and programming skills to improve kernel code created by Linus Torvalds, SCO deserves compensation for the improvements it made to Linux. Without the illegal use of SCO's code, he said, Linux isn't an attractive option anymore for high-end servers.

"We think that if you rip that code out, it's going to make Linux not nearly as attractive," he said. "But, if the common wisdom is to take that out, and to go down that path, assuming we win that court case, then absolutely that's something we'd sign up for."

At one point, McBride, explaining what he thinks is the Linux community's efforts to damage SCO through Web site attacks, asked a student whether he was affected by the MyDoom.A e-mail virus, which targeted Outlook and Outlook Express users and installed malicious code used to launch a massive distributed denial of service attack .

The attack, which began over the weekend and culminated Sunday, swamped SCO's home page domain name and forced the company to move it to another Monday morning.

When asked the question, the student replied with a hint of humor in his tone: "No, I have Linux."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...le.php/3307631


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Geeks Put the Unsavvy on Alert: Learn or Log Off
Amy Harmon

When Scott Granneman, a technology instructor, heard that one of his former students had clicked on a strange e-mail attachment and infected her computer with the MyDoom Internet virus last week, empathy did not figure anywhere in his immediate response.

"You actually got infected by the virus?" he wrote in an e-mail message to the former student, Robin Woltman, a university grant administrator. "You, Robin? For shame!"

As MyDoom, the fastest-spreading virus ever, continues to clog e-mail in-boxes and disrupt business, the computer-savvy are becoming openly hostile toward the not-so- savvy who unwittingly play into the hands of virus writers.

The tension over the MyDoom virus underscores a growing friction between technophiles and what they see as a breed of technophobes who want to enjoy the benefits of digital technology without making the effort to use it responsibly.

The virus spreads when Internet users ignore a basic rule of Internet life: never click on an unknown e-mail attachment. Once someone does, MyDoom begins to send itself to the names in that person's e-mail address book. If no one opened the attachment, the virus's destructive power would never be unleashed.

"It takes affirmative action on the part of the clueless user to become infected," wrote Scott Bowling, president of the World Wide Web Artists Consortium, expressing frustration on the group's discussion forum. "How to beat this into these people's heads?"

Many of the million or so people who have so far infected their computers with MyDoom say it is not their fault. The virus often comes in a message that appears to be from someone they know, with an innocuous subject line like "test" or "error." It is human nature, they say, to open the mail and attachments.

But computer sophisticates say it reflects a willful ignorance of basic computer skills that goes well beyond virus etiquette. At a time when more than two-thirds of American adults use the Internet, they say, such carelessness is no longer excusable, particularly when it messes things up for everyone else.

For years, many self-described computer geeks seemed eager to usher outsiders onto their electronic frontier. Everyone, it seemed, had a friend or family member in the geek elite who could be summoned — often frequently — in times of computer crisis.

But as those same friends and family members are called upon again and again to save the computer incompetents from themselves, the geeks' patience is growing thin. As it does, a new kind of digital divide is opening up between populations of computer users who must coexist in the same digital world.

"Viruses are just the tip of the iceberg," said Bill Melcher, who runs his own technical support business in San Francisco. "When it comes to computers, a lot of intelligent people and fast learners just decide that they don't know."

Many of the computationally confused say they suffer from genuine intimidation and even panic over how to handle the mysterious machines they have come to rely on for so much of daily life. Virus writers, spammers and scammers, they say, are the ones who should be held accountable for the chaos they cause.

But as the same people equip themselves with fancy computers and take advantage of the Internet for things like shopping and banking, critics say that their perpetual state of confusion has begun to get tiresome. And while the Internet's traditional villains remain elusive, those inadvertently helping them tend to be friends and neighbors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/te...gy/05VIRU.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tennessee Super-DMCA: It's Baaaaaaack!
Edward W. Felten

The Tennessee Super-DMCA is back. Here's the http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB3101.pdf ]text[/url] of the latest version.

Like the previous version, which died in a past legislative session, this bill looks like an attempt to broaden existing bans on unauthorized access to cable TV and phone service. The old version was much too broad. The new version is worded more carefully, with exceptions for "multipurpose devices". I haven't read it carefully enough to tell whether there are remaining problems.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000507.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Americans Think Downloading Music for Personal Use Is an Innocent Act
Robert Leitman

While the news media have been filled with stories about what some are calling "Internet music piracy," a large majority of the American public views downloading music for personal use as an innocent act, and thinks the high price of CDs leads to a lot of downloading. These are the results of a Harris Interactive survey of 2,306 adult Americans conducted online between September 16 and 23, 2003.

Fully three in four adult Americans (75%) agree that "downloading and then selling the music is piracy and should be prohibited, downloading for personal use is an innocent act and should not be prohibited."

This is consistent with a Harris Interactive survey of teens released in October 2003 which showed that roughly three in four teens feel that downloading music files without paying (74%) and letting others download files from them (78%) should be legal.

An almost equal 70% say, "If the price of CDs was a lot lower, there would be a lot less downloading of music off the Internet."

The potential financial impact of downloading on musicians and recording companies may not be fully understood by the American public. Nearly two of three adult Americans (64%) agree that musicians and recording companies should get the full financial benefit of their work. While the music industry views downloading as an issue of property rights, agreement with the three statements reported on to this point is at virtually identical levels among Republicans and Democrats, and liberals and conservatives.

While only a small majority of adults (54%) agree, "downloading music off the Internet is no different from buying a used CD or recording music borrowed from a friend," the differences by age are large. Younger people are much more likely to agree with this statement – 70% of 18 to 24 year olds and 66% of 25 to 29 year olds agree; and there is a decline with age – only 36% of people 65 and older agree with the statement.

All of this suggests that the music industry is fighting an uphill battle in winning the hearts and minds of Americans to support prohibitions against downloading. Their opportunity is to make the as yet unmade link in the public’s consciousness between downloading and its financial impact on musicians and recording companies.

The Charts


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vegas Hotels Canceling Super Bowl Parties
Christina Almeida

LAS VEGAS - Some of Las Vegas' biggest hotel-casinos are canceling Super Bowl parties and handing out refunds to thousands of guests after the NFL threatened legal action against those who broadcast the big game on big-screen TVs.

Several hotels received letters last week informing them that their parties were "unauthorized use of NFL intellectual property."

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the league only recently became aware of these large-scale parties planned in Las Vegas and elsewhere around the country.

"These establishments were attempting to charge admission for something we are offering for free, and we believe that's a violation of a long-standing NFL policy that specifically prohibits mass out-of-home broadcasts," McCarthy said.

In determining whether an event violated the NFL's copyrights, the league considered the location's size, whether TV screens were larger than 55 inches and whether people had to pay to get in.

Some hotels have scrapped party plans entirely, while others are scrambling to accommodate the estimated 274,000 visitors expected to come to Las Vegas for Super Bowl weekend.

"As far as I'm concerned, the NFL is full of soup," said Mayor Oscar Goodman. "I would tell them to go shove it."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...t&e=3&ncid=519


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why More Choices May Mean Fewer
Steve Johnson

Even before TiVo, video-on-demand and TV shows on DVD came along, the traditional, top-down hierarchy of television was changing. Control was shifting from those who held the broadcast licenses to those who clutched the remotes, for better and worse.

In the not-so-old days, say two decades ago, there were three major networks, and every one of the 15 most popular shows, from "Dallas" to "AfterMASH," was seen in at least 20 percent of the nation's homes, on average. Even the 30th most popular series in the 1983-84 season, "Trapper John, M.D.," was watched in 17 percent of homes.

But then came cable and with it, if not the widely predicted 500-channel universe, then certainly a 100-channel one. If you liked homes and gardens, there was a channel for you, HGTV, but if you didn't like gardens so much, just the nitty-gritty of fixing things up in the home, you could shun HGTV for the DIY channel.

Meanwhile, new networks rose up, first Fox making its mark by aiming younger than the traditional Big Three. Then the WB network, which started in 1995, outflanked Fox, going after women ages 12-to-34.

It's both obvious and, nonetheless, astonishing how this trend of burgeoning choices and programming to ever more narrowly defined groups of viewers has changed things. This season, the most popular series in television, "CSI," doesn't draw what "Trapper John, M.D." did 20 years ago, averaging just 16.3 percent of households. Tied at No. 14, "Will & Grace" and "Two and a Half Men" dip below 10 percent (9.9). And down at No. 30, "Judging Amy" pulls just 7.9 percent of American homes.

Varied schedules

With networks no longer being able to count on viewers, they've had to work harder to try to hold them. One could argue that in some programming, this has led to more varied and richer schedules and a willingness to take a few more risks. When a show only needs 10 or 12 percent approval to be a hit, it can be "about nothing."

But it has also brought about the tyranny of the largest minority. Because reality shows are hot right now, most networks throw them up willy-nilly, holding their noses all the way. And news, which networks used to treat more like a public trust in exchange for their licenses to operate over public airwaves, has become another profit center. Viewers bring profits, and because the people want Michael Jackson "news" more than, say, foreign trade news, they get Michael Jackson news.

But now rapidly burgeoning digital technology is threatening to narrow those audiences even further, at the same time giving them the ability to, as TiVo touted in one of its ad campaigns, "pause live TV" -- or record it for later viewing, ignore it altogether in favor of waiting for the boxed DVD set, or, in some cases, interact with it.

The irony is that in gaining so much control, viewers also are likely to lose some, possibly without even realizing it.

"Consumers are definitely getting more control over devices," said Phillip Swann, an industry analyst and publisher of TVPredictions.com. "At the same time, when they think they're getting more control they're actually giving up more control in the long run."

Television has always been the entertainment medium most immediately sensitive to popular taste. Ratings are provided almost instantly, and the very business model is not to sell the entertainment, but to use the entertainment to gather an audience. The audience is what is sold, to the advertisers.

And, as leaders from all aspects of television have warned, when you diminish advertising's effectiveness you mandate that TV has to find a different way to pay for itself.

That means three likely results: the end, or shrinking, of over-the-air free TV to be replaced by much more pay-per-view; more stealth ads sneaked into the content of a show itself, like today's product placement only more so; and, in all likelihood, probably more repeats and a greater ratio of reality schlock to carefully produced scripted fare, because the latter is so expensive to make.

"Ten, 15 years ago, as UHF signals were improved, as cable spread, the beginning of satellite later, spreading the signal, making additional choices more accessible [all] worked to the benefit of the consumer and to almost all of us in the business at the time," Jamie Kellner, who co-founded both Fox and the WB, told reporters in January.

"Technology was our friend and the viewer's friend. Now I think technology is becoming the enemy of both. . . . As you fragment the audience down to too small a piece, you actually, I think, damage the business, its ability to do what pays for it."

But that, Kellner said, is not coming next year: "That's more like 10 years away. But it's going to have to get worse in the next three, four, five years economically and then that will stimulate a change. But the technology will be available to make a change into more of a pay model at that point."

In the meantime, consumer control is working well for those who take advantage of it.

There is a tremendous boom in TV shows, old and new, being repackaged on DVD, in some cases giving them new life, as with the Fox cartoon "The Family Guy." Little watched in its brief original incarnation, it's now showing again, on cable's Cartoon Network, because the DVD sold so well. Obvious cult favorites like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" led the DVD revolution, but it's now spread down to the likes of "Gilligan's Island," the first season of which was just released with, of course, the "lost" pilot episode.

The price? The more television becomes watched on DVD, the smaller the market is for, say, "Simpsons" reruns. With boxed sets of each of the seasons widely available, it's not hard to imagine a time when you won't be able to see a "Simpsons" rerun two or three times a day, just outside of prime time, on a major broadcast station, as you can in Chicago now.

Interactive TV

Interactive TV, a long prophesied dream of Wired magazine types, has finally begun to gain a minor foothold with the success of the Fox talent contest "American Idol," the results of which are determined by a phone-in vote. More intriguing is that NASCAR viewers on some Comcast cable systems can choose which of several drivers to follow.

"You play the director," Swann said. But again, interactivity is a two-way street: If the TV knows you like Jeff Gordon, it's going to be able to impose some very specific ads on you. Maybe that's helpful, maybe it's annoying and creepy.

Advanced cable video-on-demand services allow viewers not only to buy movies, but also to call up programs they missed the night before.

Then, and most amazingly to viewers and most ominously to telecasters, there is the digital video recorder. DVRs such as TiVo are in a small fraction of homes now, but that number is, finally, growing rapidly.

They floundered in the marketplace as stand-alone boxes, despite reams of (justified) hype. But now some cable systems have begun marketing them in combination units with cable receiver boxes. Time-Warner Cable, for instance, went from essentially 0 installed DVRs to 340,000 in the course of the last year, Swann said.

What the technology allows consumers to do is create their own network, recording shows they want to a hard drive, calling them up when they want, and, of course, whizzing past the commercials.

With the machine as middleman, TV turns from an overexuberant effusion of programming into a boutique. Enjoy it now, but know that there will, soon enough, be a price to pay.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...technology-hed


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright
John Tehranian

Abstract:
Since its advent in 1841, the fair use doctrine has been hailed as a powerful check on the limited monopoly granted by copyright. Fair use, we are told, protects public access to the building blocks of creation and advances research and criticism. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom about fair use.

Far from protecting the public domain, the fair use doctrine has played a central role in the triumph of a natural law vision of copyright that privileges the inherent property interests of authors in the fruits of their labor over the utilitarian goal of progress in the arts. Thus, the fair use doctrine has actually enabled the expansion of the copyright monopoly well beyond its original bounds and has undermined the goals of the copyright system as envisioned by the Framers.

Specifically, this the Article first analyzes the anti-monopolistic impetus for federal copyright protection and reflects on the original understanding of copyright as epitomized by a series of early cases on the rights of translation and abridgement. The Article then examines the impact of the fair use doctrine on the copyright monopoly and progress in the arts. All told, the Article calls for a serious reassessment of the role of fair use in the infringement calculus, especially in an age where networked computers and malleable digital content has enabled new forms of artistic and post-modern experimentation.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=486283


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Copyright Property? A Comment on Richard Epstein's Liberty vs. Property
Adam Mossoff

MSU-DCL Public Law Research Paper No. 01-25

Abstract:
This short essay is derived from commentary on Richard Epstein's article, Liberty vs. Property, which were delivered at the 2003 conference on Promoting Markets in Creativity: Copyright in the Internet Age, co- sponsored by The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the George Mason University's Tech Center. The essay suggests that the opponents of Epstein's position that copyright entitlements are derived from similar policy concerns as tangible property rights would reject his thesis at the conceptual level, maintaining that copyright is not property, especially in the context of digital media. By assuming their rallying cry that "copyright is policy, not property," this essay reveals that opponents of digital copyright are caught in a dilemma of their own making. In one sense, their claim that "copyright is policy, not property," is an uninformative truism about all legal entitlements, and in another sense, represents a fundamental misconception of the history and concept of copyright. The concept and historical development of copyright are more substantial than its representation today as merely a monopoly privilege issued to authors according to the government's utility calculus. The essay concludes with the observation that those who wish to see copyright eliminated or largely restricted in digital media are in fact driven by an impoverished concept of property that has dominated twentieth-century discourse on property generally. As a doctrine in transition - we are still in the midst of the digital revolution-copyright may be criticized for various fits and starts in its application to new areas, but the transition itself does not change copyright's status as a property entitlement.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=491466


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who Owns My Ownership?
Julian Dibbell

How naive must one be, in this day and age, to spend months debating the question of virtual property without once wondering whether the question itself (or at any rate the phenomenon underlying it) wasn't already somebody's intellectual property?

Speaking only for myself, I confess the thought never crossed my mind. Not until last week, that is, when I received a friendly email from veteran game designer Ron Martinez, who alerted me to U.S. patent 6,119,229, "Virtual Property System," filed April 1997, granted September 2000, and jointly held by Martinez, Greg Guerin, and the famous cryptographer Bruce Schneier.

Here's the abstract. Game designers, read it and weep:

"A digital object ownership system is disclosed. The system includes a plurality of user terminals, where each terminal is accessible by at least one individual user. The system also includes at least one central computer system that is capable of communicating with each of the user terminals. A plurality of digital objects are provided, where each of the digital objects has a unique object identification code. Each of the digital objects are assigned to an owner. The digital objects are persistent, such that each of the digital objects is accessible by a particular user both when the user's terminal is in communication with the central computer system and also when the user's terminal is not in communication with the central computer system. The digital objects have utility in connection with communication over a network in that the object requires both the presence of the object identification code and proof of ownership."

It's hard for this layperson to see how the patent doesn't cover every MMORPG with an economy, but Martinez assures me not all games with property in them infringe. In particular, he notes, "[t]here is a distinction between [traditional multiplayer inventory systems] and a limited edition, ownable object, particularly one that can be exchanged for cash value." To the extent that that's a distinction with a difference, my guess is it means that the deeper designers build transaction systems into their games, the harder they step on this patent's toes.

IP lawyers and other masochists will want to read through the details of the claim and judge for themselves.
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nov...ns_my_own.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MacArthur Foundation Awards $600,000 to Electronic Frontier Foundation

To Represent the Public Interest in Global Standards on Digital Television
Press Release

Chicago, IL - The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has awarded a $600,000 grant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to represent the public interest at meetings of the Digital Video Broadcasting Project in Europe where global standards on digital television and other digital data services will be set.

"There are a number of influential members of the entertainment industry that use industry standard setting meetings - such as the Digital Video Broadcasting Project in Europe - as opportunities to mandate technological features that control digital media, such as devices for digital television that limit the user's ability to copy programming for personal use or to skip commercials," said Jonathan F. Fanton, President of the MacArthur Foundation. "By participating in such meetings, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is working to protect the rights of the user and ensure that future uses of technology are not restricted by the industry."

"We're so pleased that the MacArthur Foundation is supporting our work in this important area," said EFF Executive Director Shari Steele. "It's imperative that the public interest be represented in these standards meetings, and thanks to the Foundation, we'll be able to make sure that the public's voice is heard."

The Digital Video Broadcasting Project is a consortium of broadcasters, manufacturers, network operators, software developers, regulatory bodies, and others from more than 35 European countries that work together to set standards for their industry. They are currently debating copy-management standards for digital television, which will help determine the future design of televisions, video recording equipment, and video components of personal computers. At these industry meetings, policy is often set that has far-reaching implications for the future use of technology on digital rights management and intellectual property. Because these meetings have traditionally been closed to the media and the cost of attendance has limited the participation of public interest advocates, the Foundation is providing support to ensure there is input that balances the commercial interests normally represented at these meetings with those of the public.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation will use MacArthur funding to prepare for and attend industry meetings, and to educate the European public and European consumer groups about issues related to digital rights management and intellectual property.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an organization that was established in 1990 to defend civil rights and civil liberties in cyberspace. They have worked on a number of cases that have become landmarks in establishing a legal framework for the rights and standards in a digital environment, including a case that gave email the same legal protections as phone calls and another case that determined that computer code is protected speech under the First Amendment. They are currently involved in other legal cases involving trademark law and domain names, anonymity, peer-to-peer technologies, and Internet blocking.

About the Initiative on Intellectual Property and the Long-Term Protection of the Public Domain: Through the Initiative on Intellectual Property and the Long-Term Protection of the Public Domain, the Foundation seeks to contribute to an intellectual property regime in the digital era that balances the legitimate needs of both creators and the public. Grants support policy analysis, scholarly research, and participation in significant international forums where intellectual property policy is made. The Foundation will also support work designed to protect over the long term the public domain of information and ideas.

Other recipients of support through the Foundation's Initiative on Intellectual Property and the Long-Term Protection of the Public Domain include Creative Commons to develop and implement a new form of licensing for creative works and an intellectual property conservancy; Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society to explore the future of copyright in a digital environment; and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law to analyze the intellectual property restrictions being proposed in international agreements, such as the Hague Convention.

Grants for this initiative are made through the Foundation's General Program.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20040128_eff_pr.php


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Battle Over Garage Door Openers Spreads To New Front
ILN

BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law Report also reports on a recent decision from the United States International Trade Commission which ruled that a notice barring consumers from using third party garage door openers--inserted "after" a court held that use of "authorized" replacement transmitters does not violate the DMCA--does not amount to a "new fact" sufficient to defeat application of res judicata to this DMCA-related proceeding. Article at http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/eip.nsf/is/a0a8a5u6b2


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spyware Cures May Cause More Harm Than Good
John Borland

Web surfers battling "spyware" face a new problem: so-called spyware-killing programs that install the same kind of unwanted advertising software they promise to erase.

Millions of computers have been hit in recent years by ads and PC-monitoring software that comes bundled with popular free downloads, notably music-swapping programs. The problem has attracted dozens of companies seeking to profit by promising to root out the offending software. But some software makers are exploiting the situation, critics allege, turning demand for antispyware software into a launch pad for new spyware attacks.

A small army of angry Web users has set up a network of Web sites where they post reports of antispyware programs said to prey on consumers by installing offending files. Some of these charges could get a hearing soon, as public- interest group The Center for Democracy & Technology plans to file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission against specific companies.

"If people feel as though their privacy has been violated by a company that claims to be protecting them, that clearly is an unfair and deceptive practice," said Ari Schwartz, an associate director of Washington-based CDT. "You would think that an antispyware company would hold itself up to the highest standards."

The boom in spyware, adware and other PC hijackers has led to increasing calls for regulation from lawmakers, including presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and from public-interest groups.

Many software makers have turned to advertising as a way to make money from consumers who are reluctant to purchase programs. The same approach has been taken by some antispyware companies, even though they promise that their products will root out unwanted advertising from others. But the failure of some to disclose their practices has raised the greatest outcry.

Like viruses, adware and spyware programs can sneak into a user's computer hard drive with little or no warning and can hide their tracks in ways that make it difficult for even the most sophisticated computer users to find and permanently delete.

As adware and spyware have spread, demand for applications that clean up infected hard drives has grown, drawing a large group of competitors eager to profit. More than 50 programs claiming to erase adware and spyware are available online, and many of these are offered as free downloads. Several major Internet service providers, including EarthLink and America Online, have also moved to provide spyware-removal applications to their subscribers.

But as these programs proliferate, some software makers face mounting criticism that their products install the very things they promise to defend against. Some antispyware companies have pointed fingers at rivals and have added competing programs to their list of applications that contain adware or spyware. These lists are used to identify and sweep out offending software during antispyware scans.

Keeping track of spyware
One such tool facing allegations of abuse is SpyBan, an antispyware program that has been downloaded some 44,000 times in the last four months, according to Download.com, a software download site owned by CNET Networks, the publisher of News.com. Download.com removed the software this week, noting that SpyBan had failed to disclose and explain all the software components included in its installation, a violation of the Web site's policies.

Numerous competing antispyware companies, including Spybot-Search & Destroy parent PepiMK Software and Sweden-based Kephyr.com, have identified SpyBan as a potential source of unwanted spyware--notably a program listed by many spyware cleaners as Look2Me. Download.com had also independently warned that Look2Me might be installed along with SpyBan.

"I classified SpyBan as a Trojan Horse, since it gives the impression that it will protect your privacy, but does the opposite--installs spyware," alleged Kephyr's Roger Karlsson in an e-mail interview.

A CNET News.com test of SpyBan on Jan. 29 found that the software did remove some adware components but also confirmed that it led to the installation of a file that Spybot and security firm Symantec identified as Look2Me. Symantec lists Look2Me as a spyware application, while its rival PestPatrol defines the same application as an adware program.

"Look2Me is a spyware program that monitors visited Web sites and submits the logged information to a server," Symantec reports on its Web site. According to PestPatrol, Look2Me is categorized as "software that brings ads to your computer. Such ads may or may not be targeted."

Who is SpyBan?
Information and links on SpyBan's Web site disappeared late on Monday, following inquiries from a CNET News.com reporter. An e-mail to a generic "info" address at the SpyBan Web site elicited an initial reply, but the company did not reply to questions about its software.

Prior to going dark, the SpyBan Web site contained no information about its corporate parent, and the domain name database--Whois--that typically contains contact information for companies contained none for SpyBan.

A Look2Me license agreement found on a cached Google Web page identified Minneapolis-based NicTech Networks as the software's "owners/authors."

A trace of SpyBan.net's Web domain name late on Tuesday showed that the site was hosted at the same Internet address as NicTech Networks. The SpyBan e-mail also originated from that IP address. Repeated calls to NicTech were not returned.

A question of trust
The effects of spyware and adware programs vary. Some spyware programs run quietly in the background, sometimes capturing what a computer user types or what Web sites are visited. Some of these applications, which are called keystroke loggers, are so potent that they can record user names and passwords for the most closely guarded Web sites, including online banks.

Far more common are "adware" programs, which can operate unseen in the background. These periodically pop up windows with advertisements, change a Web browser's home page, install unwanted search toolbars or add bookmarks to a browser. Many of these software programs track Web surfers' habits online and send the data to their parent companies.

Security experts say it is difficult to keep up with spyware programs, which constantly shift their way of working inside a computer to evade detection and which generally contain many times more programming instructions than an average virus. The confusion is underscored by differences in how security firms describe specific programs.

"I doubt anyone knows precisely what these things do, apart from the authors," PestPatrol researcher Roger Thompson said. "They are really complex. Viruses are easy compared to these things."

There is little doubt that millions of PCs have been infected with spyware and adware programs.

A recent unscientific EarthLink survey gives some indication of the spread of the problems. The company offered its subscribers a free online spyware-scanning tool, similar to an antivirus scan program. In the course of 426,500 scans, EarthLink found more than 2 million adware files installed and more than 9 million "adware cookies"--a type of cookie that tracks people's surfing habits.

A few independent antispyware companies, such as Lavasoft's Ad-Aware and Spybot, have been around long enough and have been used by enough people to have gained a reputation as safe.

For the most part, Net experts warn consumers simply to be careful, to make sure that they trust the source of any software they install on their computers and to contact authorities such as the Federal Trade Commission if they think that their privacy has been violated.

"My first advice, if you get spam advertising a piece of software: You should really think twice before downloading that program," the CDT's Schwartz said.
http://news.com.com/2100-1032-5153485.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lawmaker Sees VoIP Classified as Telecom Carrier
Roy Mark

U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) said Wednesday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should "step back from its apparent rush" to classify the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) (define) telephone business as an information service.

In a process that is expected to take at least a year, the FCC began proceedings in December to determine what, if any, telecom taxes and rules should apply to VoIP. If the FCC determines Internet- based telephony is an information service, as opposed to a telecommunications carrier, the emerging technology would be free of many of the myriad rules and regulations governing traditional telephone companies.

"As the FCC moves forward in this proceeding, there are several economic and social implications that must be considered. Among the most important are universal service, law enforcement and 911 services," Dingell said at a House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. "Based on recent news reports, I am concerned that the FCC chairman is not sufficiently aware of these issues."

Dingell, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees the telecommunications and entertainment industries, said it may be "far wiser" for the FCC to regulate VoIP as a telecom carrier and then "forbear where appropriate."

While VoIP technology clearly provides telephone service, it does it by turning voice packets into data packets and does so over the virtually unregulated Internet, both public and private, instead of the heavily taxed and regulated public switched voice telephone networks (PSTN). The VoIP industry claims it is not a telecom since it does not deal in voice traffic and should not be subject to the usual taxes and regulations.

While the FCC has signaled it thinks VoIP should be as regulation-free as possible, the Department of Justice has already urged the agency to require VoIP providers to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which mandates telephone companies, at their own expense, make their systems wiretap friendly.

There are also concerns about the location accuracy of 911 calls and whether VoIP telephone companies should pay fees into the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes telephone service for low income individuals and schools and libraries.

Telecom analysts at the hearing, however, said requiring the VoIP telephony industry to meet the same wiretap availability and 911 mandates of traditional telephone companies will have little effect on the expected growth of VoIP.

Even if VoIP providers are required to comply with CALEA and 911 rules, Adam Quinton, a telecom analyst for Merrill Lynch, told the lawmakers that "VoIP will still offer cheaper service than traditional telephone companies."

In fact, Quinton predicted, requiring CALEA and 911 compliance "could actually accelerate the growth of VoIP, making the service comparable to traditional telephone services."

Frank Louthan, an analyst with Raymond James, said "technology will solve the law enforcement and 911 issues, but the other issue to consider is access fees. That will be the more difficult issue to get around."

In addition to issuing its first proposed VoIP regulations next week, the FCC is expected to rule in March on several claims already on file that VoIP services should be exempt from federal, state and local fees normally charged on telephone calls.

Long distance carrier AT&T (Quote, Chart) is challenging the fees it must pay for delivering calls traveling mostly over the Internet to traditional local carriers. Free World Dialup, whose calls are routed entirely over the Internet, is seeking a total exemption from FCC imposed fees since its traffic never touches the legacy Bell infrastructure system.
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3308761


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Protect Your Investment: Buy Open
Cory Doctorow

Scoble has written a weblog entry about, among other things, iTunes DRM and Microsoft DRM, and whether you should get an iPod. Scoble works for Microsoft, as do a number of good, sharp, ethical people that I know, and I know him in passing, and he seems to be a good guy. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me say that I think that this blog entry of his epitomizes the sloppiest, worst thinking about digital-media in the field today.

Scoble's point, if I understand it, is that we are going to spend a bundle acquiring music from "legit" services like the iTunes Music Store and the upcoming Microsoft music store. If we spend hundreds of dollars on digital music, we should be on the lookout to protect and maximise that investment. I agree.

Well, says Scoble, all of the music that we buy from these legit services is going to have DRM use-restriction technology ("See, when you buy music from a service like Apple's iTunes or Napster (or MSN), it comes with DRM attached."). So the issue becomes "choosing between two competing lockin schemes."

And in that choice, says Scoble, Microsoft wins, because it has more licensees of its proprietary, lock-in format. That means that when you want to play your music in your car, it's more likely that you'll find a car-stereo manufacturer that has paid Microsoft to play Microsoft music than that you'll find one that has coughed up to Apple to play Apple music.

And this is the problem with Scoble's reasoning. We have a world today where we can buy CDs, we can download DRM- music, we can download non-DRM music from legit services, we can download "pirate" music from various services, and we can sometimes defeat DRM using off-the-shelf apps for Linux (which has a CD recovery tool that handily defeats CD DRM), the Mac (with tools like AudioHijack that make it easy to convert DRM music to MP3s or other open formats) and Windows (I assume, since I don't use Windows, but as Scoble points out, there's lots of Windows software out there.).

In this world where we have consumer choices to make, Scoble argues that our best buy is to pick the lock-in company that will have the largest number of licensees.

That's just about the worst choice you can make.

If I'm going to protect my investment in digital music, my best choice is clearly to invest in buying music in a format that anyone can make a player for. I should buy films, not kinetoscopes. I should buy VHS, not Betamax. I should buy analog tape, not DAT.

Because Scoble's right. If you buy Apple Music or if you buy Microsoft Music, you're screwed if you want to do something with that music that Apple or Microsoft doesn't like.

Copyright law has never said that the guy who makes the records gets to tell you what kind of record player you can use. If Scoble and his employer want to offer a product with "features" that their customers want, those features should reflect what their customers want: No Windows user rolled out of bed this morning and said, "I wish there was a way that I could get Microsoft to deliver me tools that allow me to do less with the music I buy."

No, the "customer" for Microsoft DRM is the guy who makes the records: the music industry; and not the gal who buys the records: you. That customer has already told Microsoft how it feels about its products: in the Broadcast Flag negotiation, the movie companies locked Microsoft DRM out of consideration for use in next-generation PVRs in favor of DRM that Sony (also a movie company, surprise, surprise) had a patent for.

Microsoft is selling out its customers to people who aren't even buying. Scoble points out that Microsoft licensed the hell out of its OS to hardware vendors, pioneering a new kind of open-ness. He's right. Microsoft set a good example that Apple has been too stupid to follow, and it's time for the company to do it again. When Microsoft shipped its first search- engine (which makes a copy of every page it searches), it violated the letter of copyright law. When Microsoft made its first proxy server (which makes a copy of every page it caches), it broke copyright law. When Microsoft shipped its first CD- ripping technology, it broke copyright law.

It broke copyright law because copyright law was broken. Copyright law changes all the time to reflect the new tools that companies like Microsoft invent. If Microsoft wants to deliver a compelling service to its customers, let it make general- purpose tools that have the side-effect of breaking Sony and Apple's DRM, giving its customers more choice in the players they use. Microsoft has shown its willingness to go head-to-head with antitrust people to defend its bottom line: next to them, the copyright courts and lawmakers are pantywaists, Microsoft could eat those guys for lunch, exactly the way Sony kicked their asses in 1984 when they defended their right to build and sell VCRs, even though some people might do bad things with them. Just like the early MP3 player makers did when they ate Sony's lunch by shipping product when Sony wouldn't.

But forget Microsoft, because Scoble's not talking about the best thing for Microsoft, he's talking about the best thing for you. The best way to protect your investment in music. Without a doubt, the best way to protect that investment is to only buy music that isn't in a lock-in format, and to break the locks on any music you do own, while you can. Scoble asks what you will do if "Apple doesn't make a system that plays its AAC format in a car stereo?" I'll tell you what you should do: you should get yourself tools to turn AACs into OGGs or MP3s right now, so that you can buy any car stereo you want and play your music on it. If you can't get those tools, you shouldn't buy AACs (Student: "What do I do if three thugs follow me down a dark deserted street in the middle of the night?" "Master: Don't walk down a dark deserted street in the middle of the night.")

Microsoft can pursue the bone-stupid strategy of kowtowing to the music labels instead of delivering the tools its customers want, but it's a dead end. When Sony invented the VCR, it did so after the movie companies had already decreed that they would only license their movies for use on the "Discovision," a hunk of shit best forgotten on the trashheap of history (much like the products that Sony later delivered instead of MP3 walkmen). With the VCR, though, Sony delivered what its customers wanted, and the movie companies got rich off of it, dragged kicking and screaming to the money-tree again.

Now, that's grandiose. Now that's visionary. Next to that, Microsoft's fraidy-cat technology is suicidally stupid, and so are you if you invest in it. Protect your investment. Vote with your wallet. Buy open. Link
http://boingboing.net/2004_01_01_arc...22707986132477
















Until next week,

- js.













~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Current Week In Review




Recent WiRs -

January 31st, January 24th, January 17th, January 10th, January 3rd

Jack Spratt's Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.

[theknife]

nice work, Jack...loved the first article