P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 07-08-03, 10:24 PM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - August 9th, '03


The PowerFile C200 DVD Studio Jukebox.
Need more than one? No problem.
Daisy-chain a pile!


Casting a Wide Network

I can’t help noticing that so-called Private Networks are growing by leaps and bounds. Not that the RIAA is the cause of this mind you, since the trend started long before their lawsuits were announced - and let’s face it, how much effect can lawsuits have if the user numbers for perhaps the largest file sharing network in the world remain unaffected, regardless of what the press is (mis)representing? So ok, in response to several factors Private Networks are fast increasing in number, but the real story’s in content. The amount of files in each network is now increasing at record speeds.

By “private” I mean file sharing programs that require users to know a password or network name or some secret handshake routine to log into an already established club. For instance here at this board I’ve helped put together a couple of networks using a handy little program called Waste, invented by Justin Frankel of Winamp/Gnutella fame and reminiscent of corporate P2P’s such as Groove Networks. We got it going eight weeks ago and it’s settled into a comfortable group with about 12 regulars sharing a prodigious amount of content well away from the prying eyes of the bad guys. It’s pretty stealthy. As a matter of fact nobody would have any idea anything at all is taking place – even if they were watching, even the ISP’s themselves, because all functions including search and even chat are thoroughly encrypted. The only way to get a handle on activity is to actually join the group, and even then you’d have to be a direct recipient of a transfer to know what was up. So our little corner of the internet hums along 24 hours a day in relative anonymity, unaffected by the swirling tempest of hysteria surrounding the more famous P2P’s like KaZaA and Morpheus.

And if it isn’t one thing it’s another.

One day P2P is accused of destroying capitalism, the next it’s a murky hot-tub bobbing with psycho pedophiles. I mean even the FTC, the guys who regularly yawn when cars roll over or blow up in rear enders, even they have jumped onto the anti P2P bandwagon, issuing “Consumer Alerts” about the “risks of file sharing”, including by the way the really scary legal ones sanctioned by the government. But here’s a news flash: opening my email is a lot more dangerous than swapping stuff on the net and I should know, I do a lot of both each day. But leaving aside the government’s wholesale sellout to giant media companies, its abandonment of the people and journalist’s lax reporting habits, file sharing is what it is; a simple and elegant way to take what you have and get it somewhere else. Like any great invention it fulfills a need and does it better than what came before. It’s this generation’s “way better mousetrap” and they’ve taken to it like nobody’s business. It’s no more evil, immoral or dangerous than a Xerox machine, FedEx or the U.S. Mail. It’s just a lot easier to use, and a hellava lot more fun. Believe me, not only are P2P users not pariahs they don’t feel like them and they shouldn’t. They’re kind of like the first Americans who ate tomatoes, or “love apples” in the 1800’s. They swapped them among themselves and grew them until they had a decent enough supply to play around with. The local ignoramuses thought tomatoes were poisonous and kept waiting for the eater to keel. When he didn’t they figured there must be some nasty black magic happening – and they continued to shun the tasty orbs - but now so many people enjoy them it’s tough getting through a day without having one in something, and nobody remembers what the fuss was about. Tasty, easy to copy and good for you too. A juicy win for all involved and a lesson worth remembering.

Which brings me back to these private networks.

So here we are playing around with these smaller hook-ups for whatever reason, whether it’s focused content, better socialization, or just plain curiosity and what do we find? People are coming in from all over the world asking to participate - and bringing in so much content the quantity of available files is literally increasing exponentially. Just this week I started a new network where one user alone brought in 900 gigabytes of mixed media on five big drives. That’s nearly a terabyte in one box! A number like that would’ve been greeted with disbelief until recently but yet there it was, sitting in the folders I was browsing. I can’t help mulling over the fact that it’s more content than the average Napster local server had at its peak, and more than the Fasttrack network carried in the early days. Even today it’s a healthy fraction of the total Fasttrack network, the largest file sharing system in the world. But then again, maybe Fasttrack isn’t. Think about that for a second. If I can find another 5 thousand people like the one who dropped in Tuesday morning I’ll have the biggest file sharing system on earth – and no one outside of my network would know. Totally private, completely anonymous and far removed from the heat of publicity and the resultant litigious maniacs. I could be presiding over more content than is accessible via KaZaA and Grokster and doing it in full stealth, and I’d only need a hundred or so users from each state to pull it off, less if I went international. But the thing is, how do I know it isn’t being done already? Indeed, who can say that on some DC hub or customized Waste network there isn’t that much content – or more - floating around a tasty little system right now? If you each filled a modified CD carousel (or a PowerFile) with 200 17-gig capacity DVDs you’d have your 3.4 terabytes right there, so you’d only need about 2500 members to beat the Fasttrack numbers, and 2500 is not a lot. A Fasttrack supernode handles 300 people, so you wouldn’t even need all the people found on just ten of those. This is more than theoretical, it’s more than doable – it’s possibly already happening! And nobody knows about it, unless they’re already in on it.

And let me tell you, the thought of that makes me smile.









Enjoy,

Jack.









Court Blocks Some File-Trading Subpoenas
John Borland

A Massachusetts court has blocked several recording industry subpoenas that are aimed at college song swappers, saying the universities involved are not immediately required to divulge the alleged file traders' identities.

The decision comes after officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College challenged subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), saying the trade group's requests for information had not been legally filed.

The judge's decisions give the universities--and the anonymous students or staff file traders who are the ultimate target of the subpoenas--some breathing room. The colleges were objecting only on the technical legal grounds that the RIAA had filed the subpoenas in the wrong court, which means the trade group still can revise its requests in order to comply with the judge's order.

"Ultimately, we will file those subpoenas wherever the courts require us to," an RIAA spokesman said. "This is a minor procedural issue and does not change an undeniable fact-- when individuals distribute music illegally online, they are not anonymous, and service providers must reveal who they are.”

Critics of the RIAA process welcomed even a limited ruling, however.

"I hope this will give other people hope," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that has emerged as the chief critic of the recording industry's tactics. "It will be a lot easier for people to address problems in the RIAA subpoenas if they don't have to go to D.C. to do it."

The legal skirmishing in Massachusetts is just one part of a nationwide avalanche of RIAA subpoenas that the group is sending as part of an unprecedented campaign against Internet file trading on networks such as Kazaa and Morpheus.

Since late June, the RIAA has issued more than 900 subpoenas for information that would identify Internet service provider subscribers or university students who have allegedly offered copyrighted material online. The requests for information are a prelude to what the trade group has said will likely be thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits filed against individual file traders, beginning later this month.

Most of those subpoenas have been issued through an unorthodox legal process that's supported by a recent federal court case against Verizon Communications, which fought an earlier round of RIAA subpoenas last year. Verizon had argued that allowing a private group such as the RIAA to initiate subpoenas for subscriber information before any case had been filed was a violation of individual privacy and an unconstitutional process.

Both a lower court and an appeals court rejected Verizon's arguments, however, paving the way for the current wave of industry subpoenas.

The RIAA has used a single Washington, D.C., federal court as a clearinghouse to issue all the subpoenas, no matter their destination. MIT and BC's objections were based on that jurisdictional issue. They argued that they were not subject to orders the federal court issued.

In decisions issued late Thursday, the Massachusetts court agreed, saying federal legal rules required valid subpoenas to be issued in the local court.

The RIAA has also filed separate motions with the federal court asking for enforcement of the MIT and BC subpoenas. That court could rule differently from its Massachusetts counterpart, setting up a conflict between the two jurisdictions.

A California ISP, the SBC Communications subsidiary Pacific Bell Internet Services, has filed a more comprehensive challenge to the RIAA subpoenas. That case will be closely watched in the aftermath of the Massachusetts rulings.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5061868.html


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

Stealing The Internet
Jeff Chester, Steven Rosenfeld

Ever stop to wonder what is really happening to the Internet these days?

The crackdown by the music industry on illegal downloading tells just part of the story. Even with the dot-com bust, the digital boom is here, as high-speed connections, faster processors and new wireless devices increasingly become part of life. But the thousands of lawsuits are not just about ensuring record companies and artists get the royalties they deserve. They're part of a larger plan to fundamentally change the way the Internet works.

From Congress to Silicon Valley, the nation's largest communication and entertainment conglomerates -- and software firms that want their business -- are seeking to restructure the Internet, to charge people for high-speed uses that are now free and to monitor content in an unprecedented manner. This is not just to see if users are swapping copyrighted CDs or DVDs, but to create digital dossiers for their own marketing purposes.

All told, this is the business plan of America's handful of telecom giants -- the phone, cable, satellite, wireless and entertainment companies that now bring high-speed Internet access to most Americans. Their ability to meter Internet use, monitor Internet content and charge according to those metrics is how they are positioning themselves for the evolving Internet revolution.

The Internet's early promise as a medium where text, audio, video and data can be freely exchanged and the public interest can be served is increasingly being relegated to history's dustbin. Today, the part of the Net that is public and accessible is shrinking, while the part of the Net tied to round-the-clock billing is poised to grow exponentially.

One front in the corporate high-tech takeover of the Internet can be seen in Congress. On July 21, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on the "Regulatory Status of Broadband." There, a coalition that included Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Disney and others, told Congress that Internet service providers (ISPs) should be able to impose volume-based fee structures, based on bits transmitted per month. This is part of a behind-the-scenes struggle by the Net's content providers and retailers to cut deals with the ISPs so that each sector will have unimpaired access to consumers and can maximize profits.

The industry coalition spoke of "tiered" service, where consumers would be charged according to "gold, silver and bronze" levels of bandwidth use. The days where lawmakers once spoke about eradicating the "Digital Divide" in America has come full circle. Under the scenario presented by the lobbyists, people on fixed incomes would have to accept a stripped-down Internet, full of personally targeted advertising. Other users could get a price break if they receive bundled content -- news, music, games -- from one telecom or media company. Anybody interested in other "non-mainstream" news, software or higher-volume usage, could pay for the privilege. The panel's response was warm, suggesting that the industry should work this out with little federal intrusion. That approach has already been embraced by the industry-friendly Federal Communications Commission.

Meanwhile, in the courts, there has been a rash of new litigation spurred by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)'s pursuit of people who have illegally shared copyrighted music. The music industry no doubt hopes to discourage file-swapping piracy, and some big telecom companies, such as SBC Communications, have counter-sued, saying they will protect their clients' privacy. While that's good public relations, there's more to this story as well. Telecoms, like most big corporations, don't want other businesses, let alone the government, interfering in their operations -- so there's plenty of reasons to counter-sue -- even if the record companies and telecoms have parallel stakes in privatizing the Net.

But there's also a technologically insidious element to this side of the story. The software now exists to track and monitor Internet content on a scale and to a degree that previously hasn't been possible. The RIAA is taking people to court because it has the technology to track illegal Internet file swapping. This level of content-tracking is the next-generation application of what's been developed to keep children and teenagers from viewing porn at the local library or home. Consider this typical bit of sales arcana from the Web site of Allot Communications, which says its software can track and filter Internet communications and use that analysis to bill consumers.

"Allot Communications provides network traffic management and content filtering solutions for enterprises, IP service providers, and educational institutions... Allot's QoS [quality of service] and service-level agreement enforcement solutions maximize return on investment by managing over-subscription [unintended uses], throttling P2P [peer-to-peer, the music piracy software] traffic and delivering tiered classes of services."

This new world of metering, monitoring and monetizing Internet content has prompted new business ventures, such as cable firms exploring partnerships with the videogame industry, where there's plenty of money to be made in high-volume interactive uses. In fact, the reason Hollywood has delayed the deployment of next-generation digital television -- besides their fear of digital piracy -- is they have not yet figured out how to impose their pricing model -- to extend their current distribution and sales monopoly.

Of course, the last concern in corporate boardrooms and Congress is how the privatization of the Net will affect free speech and the public interest. Just as C-Span and public broadcasting were crumbs thrown to the public the last time new communications technologies were developed, there's been little talk about insulating public-interest uses from a more 'metered' Internet.

There is undoubtedly a legitimate business case to be made for having people pay for emerging high-bandwidth uses, but whether people will be charged to see streamed videos of political candidates or public meetings is another matter. Moreover, users need to know what part of the 'Net will be public and accessible and what part will be billed to credit cards - - and this is unclear.

While there needs to be a balance between private sector goals and public policy needs, that's hardly a topic of discussion on the Internet's frontline. Currently, America's media giants are planning the equivalent of a 19th-century land grab in cyberspace to ensure they will profit mightily in the 21st century. Metering data transmissions and monitoring content is how they will get there. And the tools and political climate to achieve this are here.

This century's new media giants are now working with Congress, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell and their industry partners to transform the Internet. The only open question is whether the public will influence this transformation before it's too late.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8528


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

European Firms Threaten Mass P2P Lawsuit
Matthew Broersma and Munir Kotadia

Legal services giant Landwell says it will prosecute 4,000 peer-to-peer file-traders in Spain because they have been identified as "serious" unauthorized downloaders of copyrighted songs, films and software.

If it goes ahead, the action will be the largest crackdown on P2P users in Europe to date.

Landwell, the legal arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers, earlier this month issued the threat on behalf of clients that have remained unnamed to avoid a backlash by consumers. The company said it had gathered data such as IP addresses on 95,000 file-traders by tapping into P2P systems with older versions of the P2P clients, which don't encrypt such information.

Landwell said it is working with Spain's Technological Investigation Brigade (BIT) on the prosecutions and expects the case to appear in court next month. The action mimics a large-scale assault on alleged file-swappers in the United States by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which is in the process of filing several hundred lawsuits against them.

However, civil liberties and Internet user groups say they doubt whether the case is valid under Spanish law, or indeed whether it will even be filed, calling it a scare tactic to dampen the use of P2P systems.

Article 270 of the Spanish penal code specifically allows people to share files as long as there is no profit involved. Carlos Sanchez Almeida, a lawyer specializing in Internet issues, pointed out that this provision has led to several previous cases related to P2P networks and entertainment-related files being thrown out of court.

"To make (files) freely available to other users can constitute a civil liability, but never a crime, when it lacks...the spirit
of profit," he wrote in an opinion published on Spanish civil rights Web site Kriptopolis.

Xavier Ribas, the principal Landwell lawyer on the case, asserted in a responding piece that while people might not be selling the files, "profit" could be defined as acquiring a copyrighted work for free. "In the case of works of entertainment, the utility or benefit can arise from the simple act of enjoyment of the work: to listen to a song or see a film without having to pay for it," he wrote.

European Digital Rights (EDRI), a coalition of European digital rights groups, said the case was insubstantial and would probably never be filed, noting that Ribas said in a recent radio interview that the lawsuit had not yet been presented to the court.

"Analyzing and comparing the arguments, it becomes quite clear that the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to create fear amongst Spanish users," EDRI's David Casacuberta said in a statement.

Spain's Association of Internet Users (Asociacion de Internautas) said Landwell was unlikely to be able to track down individual users based on the information they had acquired so far. "It is just their IP address, and it's up to a judge to issue an order to disclose the user identity and check if some illegal activity has been taking place", he said.

The Association of Internet Users has joined a storm of protest in Spain against the legal threats, offering the group's lawyers to anyone who is targeted by suits.

Legal proceedings against U.S. peer-to-peer users kicked off earlier this month when the RIAA sent out subpoenas to ISPs in preparation for filing hundreds of lawsuits against P2P users. Web traffic monitoring company Nielsen/NetRatings said that since June, illegal file-sharing activity in the United States has fallen by around 15 percent.

Neither Landwell nor PricewaterhouseCoopers returned requests for comment.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5058666.html


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

Movie Biz Targets P-to-P Pirates
Ursula Seymour

Following the example of the music business the movie industry is targeting individual peer-to-peer pirates with an advertising campaign currently running in cinemas and on television across the U.S.

The ads, which can be viewed at RespectCopyrights.org, are designed to show the pirates how their activities affect the 'little guys' in the movie business, hoping to shift attention away from the million dollar grossing studios and stars.

Rich Taylor of the Motion Picture Association of America (Miaa), which is running the campaign, told U.S. news site The Pittsburgh Channel: "I think (the public) doesn't get that (movie piracy) is not a victimless crime. They think the only people impacted are those on the red carpet who have plenty of money".

The Miaa has long targeted more traditional pirates, selling bootlegged videos of blockbusters, but now it is realising the treat posed by peer-to-peer movie swappers. It estimates that the U.S. motion picture industry loses around US$3bn a year to pirates, but this figure does not include the losses from internet piracy as they are too hard to calculate.

But the ads are designed to show that these losses are not just hitting the fat cats of the industry and feature a whole host of people who work in movies, such as cinema staff, set painters and musicians.

They give four reasons why people shouldn't pirate movies. Firstly, punters are told they are cheating themselves as the quality of pirated movies are poor and that money lost in cinema takings means less films can be made. Secondly, pirates threaten the livelihood of the 500,000 ordinary Joes who work in the business. Thirdly, the ads claim that by swapping files on a peer-to-peer network you compromise the security of your PC and leave yourself open to legal action by making yourself "a distribution source for illegal downloading of movies". Finally, you are breaking the law.

This last point is one on which, so far, the movie industry has not been as tough as the music business. The Recording Industry Artists Association (Riaa) is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to bring legal action against around 75 people per day, including individual file swappers. So far the Miaa has stuck to going after the big guys -- those services set up to facilitate movie piracy, but Taylor says that it still considers pursuing individuals as an option.

In a separate move, designed to keep itself and its employees safe from such legal action, AOL Time Warner Inc. has taken steps to stop its staff from indulging in peer-to-peer file swapping. In an internal memo issued this week it said it plans to scan networks, desktops and laptops to check for peer-to-peer software and MP3 audio files, put in a firewall to stop P2P software from being downloaded, remove all P2P or unlicensed software, take disciplinary action against persistent offenders.

In the current climate of P2P persecution, we can only imagine that many such companies will follow suit.
http://pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php?...29&fp=2&fpid=1


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

RIAA Rocks Around the Clock
Cynthia L. Webb

The Recording Industry Association of America's dragnet for people who illegally swap copyrighted music online is the story that just keeps on giving. And like any good epic about money, theft and greed, this one is gaining all sorts of new angles as it rolls along, from college students to senators to pornographers.

Let's start with the college students. The RIAA still is serving hundreds of subpoenas on students and colleges and universities, where high-speed Internet connections make it easy to trade music and other digital files. Earlier this year, several students settled lawsuits with the RIAA for allegedly setting up Napster-like trading systems.

But the trade group, which represents the major music labels, is aware that it could be scaring off potential customers, considering that college-age students are a sweet spot demographic for music sales. With that in mind, the RIAA is working on a backup plan to appease college students, The Los Angeles Times reported today. "Record-industry executives and online music companies are quietly working with colleges and universities to offer legitimate sources of free or deeply discounted music to students if the schools agree to take steps to deter piracy on campus networks. The goal is to give students a carrot to go along with the stick being waved by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, which has been attacking piracy with lawsuits. An online music service picked by a university would let students play an array of songs at little or no cost, potentially curtailing the use of hotbeds of unauthorized file-sharing such as Kazaa. The fledgling online music services involved in the talks are eager to boost their profile among college students and see discounts as a way to attract new customers who eventually will pay full fare," the newspaper said.
• The Los Angeles Times: New Tactic Planned In AntiPiracy Campaign (Registration required)

Wired last week reported on similar efforts to get colleges and the recording industry to work together. "University officials are working with the music and movie industry to find a peaceful solution to the piracy problem, even as they're fighting a firestorm of subpoenas seeking information on their file- swapping students. The universities are exploring technologies that would control illegal peer-to-peer file sharing. In addition, they are working with digital music and movie companies to offer downloading services tailored to universities," Wired music said last week. "The administrators and music executives are trying to solve the piracy problem because both suffer from it. Universities have to deal with the administrative headaches of subpoenas and clogged computer networks, while the record industry is losing sales to its most important group of customers."
• Wired: RIAA, Colleges Seeks Piracy Fix

But "working together" might not be good enough to ease criticism of the RIAA's bullish tactics to end illegal file swapping, especially considering the amount of ink devoted to describing how many of the people named in subpoenas are grandparents and adolescents. There's also no correspondence between the likelihood of a subpoena and the number of songs traded.

All this has attracted the attention of freshman Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, has launched a probe into the RIAA's lawsuit campaign. He sent a letter to the RIAA yesterday, demanding information on the subpoenas and how the RIAA collects evidence against file swappers, according to various media reports.

Coleman questioned whether the RIAA's tactics have gone too far. In an interview with washingtonpost.com last night, he said he is hopeful that the file-sharing community and recording industry can reach an amicable settlement on the issue. "It would be worthwhile to bring them together so we're not making criminals out of 11-year-olds," Coleman told washingtonpost.com's Robert MacMillan.

The RIAA, responding to Coleman's query, said it would happily comply. "The RIAA defended its enforcement campaign as 'an appropriate and measured response to the very serious problem of blatant copyright infringement confronting the entire music community,'" The Associated Press said. "In the conference call, Coleman acknowledged that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights. 'I must confess, I downloaded Napster, and then Napster was found to be the wrong thing,' he said. 'I stopped.'"

While Coleman does not condone illegal file sharing, he said in a statement cited by CNET's News.com, that the "industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may have simply been victims of circumstance, or possessing a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files."

Coleman is not the only one critical of the subpoena party. Several universities, along with telecommunications giant SBC Communications, are contesting the subpoenas, largely on procedural grounds," CNET’s News.com said.
• The Associated Press via Kansas City.com: Senator Launches Investigation Into RIAA Piracy Crackdown
• CNET's News.com: Lawmaker Seeks Info On RIAA Dragnet

Pacific Bell Internet Service, a unit of SBC, sued the recording industry and others tied to the subpoena woes in federal court on Wednesday. The Boston Globe explained more about Pacific Bell's stance: "The 1998 law the industry is using to obtain the subpoenas, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was written before file-sharing software programs like Kazaa and the now-defunct Napster were created, Pacific Bell argued. Asking the court to quash the subpoenas, the SBC subsidiary said the industry group's use of the act threatens constitutional rights of anonymous expression and due process of law because the industry obtained the subpoenas without the approval of a judge."

The company "said a cascade of subpoenas and 16,700 take-down notices from an electronic 'bounty hunter' are turning it from an Internet service provider into the Internet police," The San Jose Mercury News said. "Pac Bell said it has been hit with more than 300 subpoenas in the past month from the Recording Industry Association of America and IO Group, an operator of sexually explicit Web sites. Each demanded the names, addresses and, in some instances, the e-mail addresses of subscribers who downloaded copyrighted songs or images. This follows 16,700 take-down notices from MediaForce, a New York-based detection company that works for Columbia Pictures and Paramount Pictures to ferret out Internet file- swappers."

Gigi Sohn, president of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told the newspaper: "This is just the beginning of a revolt by ISPs other than Verizon." Recall that Verizon unsuccessfully tried to keep the RIAA from getting the names of several of its high-speed DSL subscribers accused of downloading thousands of copyrighted songs using the Kazaa file-sharing software.

According to Reuters, the RIAA dismissed SBC's objections to subpoenas as "procedural gamesmanship," and said the telecom was recycling old issues.
• The Boston Globe: SBC Challenges File-Sharing Subpoenas
• The San Jose Mercury News: Pac Bell Internet Sues Over Subpoenas
• Reuters: RIAA Song-Swap Subpoenas Spur Senate Inquiry
• The New York Times: Efforts To Stop Music Swapping Draw More Fire (Registration required)

Copywhatever

Despite all this back and forth between the RIAA, Internet service providers and consumers, there seems to be a laissez-faire attitude among the populace toward illegal file-sharing. A Pew Internet and American Life Project survey released yesterday found that two-thirds of Internet music downloaders are not concerned about whether the music files they download are copyrighted or not. The Associated Press reported that the study showed that "35 million American adults use file-sharing software, about 29 percent of Internet users." And no surprise here, younger Americans -- ages 18 to 29 -- were the least to worry about copyrights. Seventy-two percent said they weren't concerned, according to the survey. "Our data shows significant numbers didn't care about copyrights," Lee Rainie, the director of Washington-based Pew, told the wire service. "The (threatened) lawsuits maybe have gotten their attention."
• The Associated Press via The Washington Post: Downloaders Don't Think of Copyright Laws
• BBC News Online: Music Swappers 'Dismiss Legal Fears'

Links, More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Aug1.html


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

Who Cares About Copyright?
A survey shows that the majority of people who download music over the Net are unfazed by copyright issues.
Reuters

WASHINGTON: A massive music-industry campaign to change public attitudes over the past three years about copying music over the Internet has had little effect on Internet users, according to a survey.

Two-thirds of U.S. residents who copy digital music online say they do not care if that music is copyrighted, up from 61 percent three years ago, the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project found. The recording industry has launched an aggressive legal and publicity campaign against unauthorized song downloading. Prominent music stars have spoken out against the practice, while the industry has filed lawsuits against Napster, Kazaa and other "peer to peer" software providers that allow users to copy songs directly from each others' hard drives.

But only 27 percent of the 1,500 Internet users polled between March and May of this year said they cared whether the music they downloaded was copyrighted or not, the study found.

"Americans' attitude toward copyrighted material online has remained dismissive, even amidst a torrent of media coverage and legal cases aimed at educating the public about the threat file-sharing poses to the intellectual property industries," the report said.

The Recording Industry Association of America downplayed the survey's findings, saying that Internet users were polled before the industry announced it would take song-swappers to court. Two-thirds of young Internet users polled by Forrester Research said the threat of jail or fines would stop them from downloading, a spokesperson said.

"We believe the most powerful deterrent is the message that uploading or downloading copyrighted works without permission is against the law," the spokesperson said. The Pew survey had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103080101.asp


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

KaZaA CEO Speaks Out

To the RIAA, Nikki Hemming is public enemy No. 1. That didn't stop the elusive CEO from talking with 'Tech Live.'
Jim Goldman

Her company's technology may be dragging the entertainment industry, kicking and screaming, into a future of file swapping, but the entertainment industry would rather drag Nikki Hemming and her company into court.

Such is the pitched battle shaping up between recording companies and the tiny, Australian software company. Maybe you've heard of it: Sharman Networks, the company that owns and operates KaZaA.

In a rare television interview -- she's sat for only one other interview, which apparently never aired -- Sharman CEO Nikki Hemming answered a host of questions about the challenges she faces running such a controversial company.

Tonight, "Tech Live" gets personal with Hemming for a first-hand look inside the company rocking the world with KaZaA. On Thursday and Friday's "Tech Live," tune in for more with Hemming, including a look at the future of her embattled company. It's an interview you won't see anywhere else.

During the interview, Hemming also responded to a host of charges leveled against her by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has likened her to a bank robber.

A bitter battle is brewing between the RIAA's former chairperson, Hilary Rosen, and Hemming. The debate is a kind of "she said, she said," with billions of dollars and the future of the entertainment industry hanging in the balance.

"I think that they don't give a crap," Rosen said of Sharman's intentions in a recent interview with "Tech Live." Rosen has since left the RIAA for a commentator job with financial news network CNBC.

"Hilary has a job to do, and so I," Hemming said of Rosen's comments.

The RIAA vs. KaZaA. It's a fight that pits the huge music industry against the world's most popular file-sharing software program -- or file-stealing program, depending on who you talk to. KaZaA is facing a number of lawsuits filed by some of entertainment's biggest producers. The companies are asking the courts to assess penalties of $150,000 for every offense, meaning the company could be on the hook for billions of dollars in fines.

At the center of the raging debate is Hemming, a 36-year-old British expatriate living and working in Australia. She's worked for Virgin Interactive, Segaworld (a Sydney theme park that ultimately failed), and now KaZaA.

The worst possible news for the recording industry, however, seems to be that KaZaA isn't standing still, won't go away, and will not rest on its success.

"Very shortly there will be a paid-for version of KaZaA that will be ad-free and enhanced and, I think, that will be a very exciting proposition to the users," Hemming said.

She said her service and this software -- indeed the entire P2P movement -- stands to revolutionize digital content, not destroy an industry. Hemming said it'll make the industry bigger by offering more choice and getting products to consumers much faster, just as VCRs and videocassettes transformed the movie industry.

"In the end, consumers and artists are brought together by this amazing technology, and they have a level of interactivity they've never had before," she said. "And the music industry is going to benefit, and the movie industry is gonna benefit, and emerging artists, and independent artists, and people who just want to share their views. They're all going to benefit. This technology is here to stay."
http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,2...492869,00.html


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

Survey: Two-Thirds Of Adult Music Downloaders Don't Care About Copyrights
AP

Two-thirds of Internet users who download music don't care whether they're violating copyright laws, according to a new survey that highlights the uphill enforcement battle facing the recording industry.

The survey published Thursday by the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project estimated that roughly 35 million American adults use file-sharing software, about 29 percent of Internet users. Those figures were generally consistent with other estimates of 60 million American users across all age groups.

The Pew survey was completed before the Recording Industry Association of America announced its aggressive campaign to sue individual computer users who illegally share ``substantial'' collections of music, so it was unclear from the survey whether the campaign was discouraging online piracy.

``Our data shows significant numbers didn't care about copyrights,'' said Lee Rainie, the director for the Washington-based Pew project. ``The (threatened) lawsuits maybe have gotten their attention.''

The survey said younger Americans, ages 18 to 29, were least worried about copyrights, with 72 percent saying they weren't concerned. It said 61 percent of Americans who were 30 to 49 years old were similarly unconcerned. Full-time students were the least concerned with violating copyright, with 82 percent saying they were not worried.

Pew researchers said differences between men and women, blacks, whites and Hispanics and between income groups were not statistically significant when measuring copyright concerns.

The RIAA, the trade group for the major recording labels, said the Pew study was outdated, adding that it believes its enforcement efforts have affected attitudes toward downloading music.

``We believe that the most powerful deterrent is the message that uploading or downloading copyrighted works without permission is against the law,'' the RIAA said in a statement. ``We have worked hard to educate the public about what the law says and potential consequences, and other studies have shown that that message is beginning to take hold and will serve as an effective deterrent.''

When computer users download a copyrighted song, file-sharing software automatically makes it available for other Internet users to download, too. It is possible -- and increasingly popular -- to reconfigure the software to allow downloads but prevent sharing files, although this undermines the concept of public file-sharing networks.

The Pew survey said about 26 million American adults allow others to download music and other data files from their computers. These computer users were equally as likely to be men or women, and equally as likely to be white, black or Hispanic. But they tended to be younger, most often between 18 and 29.

The survey was based on interviews conducted during random telephone calls by Princeton Survey Research Associates during March, April and May among a sample of 2,515 adults in the continental United States. The margin for error was plus or minus 3 percent.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...al/6429613.htm


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

Gateway Gets Into Portable Music
Michael Kanellos

Gateway released its first portable music player on Tuesday as it continues to expand into consumer electronics.

The Gateway Digital Music Player combines three functions in one, according to Rick Griencewic, director of digital audio at Gateway. It can play MP3 files, it can be used as a portable storage device for shuttling data between two PCs, and it can also function as a digital voice recorder.

The device can be plugged directly into a PC through a USB slot.

"You don't have a cable you can lose, which can generate a support call," Griencewic said.

Like Sony, Hewlett-Packard and to a lesser degree Apple Computer, Poway, Calif.-based Gateway plans to come out with a wide variety of branded household gizmos that can be used, and sold, with its PCs.

Overall, Gateway plans to release 50 products fitting into 15 different product categories this year. Internally, the company has formed groups to devise products for the audio, photography, video and home networking markets.

So far the strategy has produced at least one hit. Sales of plasma TVs helped the company reduce losses in the second quarter. However, Gateway had to delay the release of its first handheld from mid-July to mid-August to conduct more testing.

Other products include DVD recorders and LCD televisions.

Two versions of the music player are on tap for this month. On Tuesday, a version containing 128MB of storage capacity hit the market at a price of $129.99. A $169.99 version holding 256MB of memory is scheduled for release Aug. 14.

These initial players use flash memory to store data. Gateway is also looking at the possibility of coming out with music players with small hard drives, as well as with portable CD players.

"It takes a little bit longer to develop a hard-drive player," Griencewic said. "We saw this as an easy way to get on the scoreboard early."

Flash player shipments should continue to rise, according to Susan Kevorkian, an analyst at IDC, because the cost per bit keeps declining. Manufacturers can now offer 256MB devices for less then $200.

"The price point (of Gateway's players) is very competitive," Kevorkian said. "The form factor and direct USB connectivity is very compelling."

One of the features that Griencewic predicted would resonate with the public is direct connectivity. Currently, the Creative Labs Nomad Muvo player accounts for nearly half of the third-party MP3 players sold on Gateway's Web site. It is also one of the few MP3 players that connects directly to PCs without a cord.

Although the new products mark Gateway's first foray into selling branded portable players, the company has sold music products before. In November 2000, Gateway came out with an MP3 player that connected to stereo systems.

However, the product, like similar jukeboxes from Compaq Computer and Dell, only stayed around for a brief period due to slow sales.
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5059830.html


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

Hackers Look To Hide Communications
Robert Lemos

Hackers intent on anonymously sending data across the Internet have a new tool.

A program called NCovert uses spoofing techniques to hide the source of communications and the data that travels over the network--a potential boon to both privacy advocates and hackers, said Mark Lovelace, senior security researcher for network protection firm BindView, who unveiled the program Thursday at the Black Hat Briefings security conference here.

"I am not going to beat around the bush," Lovelace said. "If you have something to hide, you would use this--so it could help black hats (criminal hackers)."

The technique essentially creates a covert channel for communications by hiding four characters of data in the header's initial sequence number (ISN) field. The header is the part of data packets that tells network hardware and servers how to handle the information. The header also includes source and destination Internet protocol (IP) addresses. Those addresses are used to add anonymity to the communications.

Lovelace, known among the security community as "Simple Nomad," said the key to the technique is to forge the source of the IP address to look like the intended recipient of the information, while the destination IP addresses points to another third-party server on the Internet.

The hacker would then send off a data packet to the third-party server with any valid-looking information in the data fields, but the real message would be hidden in four bytes of the ISN field. The packet would contain a message indicating to the third-party server that a computer wants to start a communications session. The server would acknowledge the message, but because of the forged source address, the message would be forwarded on to the recipient.

The technique makes it almost impossible to track where the original message came from, because the data holds only the addresses of the recipient and the third-party server.

The move to the next-generation Internet Protocol, IP version 6, will make it harder to spoof the address of the sender but will allow far more data to be hidden within the headers of the packets, Lovelace said.

"There's a lot more room for data in IPV6," he said.
http://news.com.com/2100-1002-5058535.html


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

New Tactic Planned in Antipiracy Campaign
Jon Healey

Record-industry executives and online music companies are quietly working with colleges and universities to offer legitimate sources of free or deeply discounted music to students if the schools agree to take steps to deter piracy on campus networks.

The goal is to give students a carrot to go along with the stick being waved by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, which has been attacking piracy with lawsuits. An online music service picked by a university would let students play an array of songs at little or no cost, potentially curtailing the use of hotbeds of unauthorized file-sharing such as Kazaa.

The fledgling online music services involved in the talks are eager to boost their profile among college students and see discounts as a way to attract new customers who eventually will pay full fare.

"This is a great opportunity to tap into this university base, show them the promise of digital music, show them the compelling digital offerings," said Peter D. Csathy, president and chief operating officer of San Diego-based Musicmatch Inc.

The discussions still are in an early stage, though several executives said they hoped to launch a trial run by early next year. The biggest hurdle seems to be winning over college administrators, who aren't as motivated as record companies and music services to wean students from piracy.

The most active users of those systems tend to be college students using high-speed campus computer networks.

Many universities are paying for their students' love of file sharing: Campus networks have been clogged by file-sharing traffic and network administrators have been forced to respond to a steady stream of complaints from movie and music companies about illegal downloading.

Still, when university officials were first approached about putting the online jukeboxes on their networks, they weren't convinced that it was necessary, said Peter Fader, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and a longtime advocate of bringing legitimate services to campus at discounted rates.

"Part of it was that they weren't yet feeling the real heat," he said. "So unfortunately, it will come down to when the threats are large enough, either legal or financial. Then it will happen."

The record companies have been prodding colleges and universities for more than a year to do more to discourage file sharing, but that won't be easy. A study released Thursday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 80% of the full-time students surveyed who had downloaded or shared music online didn't care whether it was copyrighted.

The RIAA and Hollywood studios are exploring technologies that universities could use to deter unauthorized downloading. RIAA President Cary Sherman stressed that the university jukebox initiative is a separate endeavor.

People involved in the discussions say the aim is to provide students with a basic online music service that would allow them to play songs on demand from an extensive online jukebox. The cost, typically $5 to $10 a month, would be waived, discounted or buried in the students' activities fees.

If they wanted to buy songs to burn onto CDs or transfer to portable MP3 players, students would pay $1 or less per track.

"The intent here among all the parties is to find a way to address what is a significant issue for all of us," said Mike Bebel, head of online music services for Santa Clara, Calif.-based Roxio.

But for a legitimate service to succeed on campus, he said, colleges would need to curtail access to unauthorized ones.

Many colleges have been reluctant to block peer-to-peer networks, arguing that it would run counter to the ideals of academic freedom. But they may have to block unauthorized downloads in order to persuade record companies and music publishers to offer lower royalty rates to campus services, people involved in the discussions said.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5960147.story


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

Study: Software Piracy On The Wane
Matt Hines

The latest report from the Business Software Alliance concludes that software piracy declined in the United States during 2002.

The special interest group, an antipiracy organization that's comprised of members such as Apple Computer, Cisco Systems and Microsoft, released results of its state-by- state analysis of software piracy across the United States on Tuesday. According to BSA's report, the nation's piracy rate dropped 2 percentage points in 2002 compared with 2001, to 23 percent. The International Planning and Research (IPR) conducted the study for BSA.

BSA also reported that some 37 organizations handed down more than $3.1 million in piracy-related settlements as a result of its annual campaign to raise awareness among business users regarding illegal use of copyrighted software.

Among the U.S. states that saw the most significant reduction in piracy percentage rates were Louisiana, Maine, Oregon, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Alaska, South Carolina, Washington and Oklahoma, according to BSA.

The group listed the top nine states (in addition to the nation's capital) that had the lowest piracy rates in 2002 as: Illinois; Michigan; Ohio; Indiana; New York; Connecticut; New Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Washington; and Virginia.

Bob Kruger, BSA's vice president of enforcement, said the increased amount of revenue loss is a good sign that piracy continues to be a major problem despite state-by- state improvement.

"The piracy rate in the U.S. is as low as it has ever been, but the losses continue to be staggering," Kruger said. "While we've certainly made inroads with corporate users, the issue of individuals downloading illegal software over the Internet is a growing problem."

Kruger said software companies need to follow the lead of the music industry, which has been working hard to keep copyrighted materials from being illegally transferred online.

BSA representatives were quick to point out that, despite the states' lowered piracy rates, the practice of using unlicensed or stolen products continues to have a negative effect on the software industry and the larger U.S. economy.

The group estimates that piracy cost the nation $1.9 billion in 2002, up from $1.8 billion in 2001. As a result, BSA contends that piracy was related to the loss of 105,000 jobs over the course of last year.
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5060288.html


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

Efforts to Stop Music Swapping Draw More Fire
Amy Harmon

The recording industry's stepped-up pursuit of online music swappers faced two new challenges yesterday, as SBC Communications questioned the constitutionality of the industry's tactics in a lawsuit and Senator Norm Coleman opened an inquiry on whether the anti-piracy campaign is violating the privacy rights of innocent people.

"If you're taking someone else's property, that's wrong, that's stealing," Senator Coleman, Republican of Minnesota and chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said in a telephone interview. "But in this country we don't cut off people's hands when they steal. One question I have is whether the penalty here fits the crime."

Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC subsidiary, is one of dozens of Internet providers that have received a flood of subpoenas from the record industry in recent weeks seeking the identity of subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music files. Most of them are turning over the information, which the music industry has said it will use to file hundreds of lawsuits against online traders within the next six weeks.

But in a lawsuit filed late Wednesday in a federal district court in San Francisco, SBC argued that the fast-track process the industry is pursuing — which does not require the approval of a judge — violates the due process rights of its subscribers. The recording industry argues that Internet service providers are benefiting from digital piracy, as subscribers sign up for their services in part because of the appeal of finding free copyrighted music. After trying to stem the illegal distribution of music through threats and educational campaigns, the major record labels said last month that the only way to deter online piracy was by legal intimidation.

"This procedural gambit will not ultimately change the underlying fact that when individuals engage in copyright infringement on the Internet, they are not anonymous and service providers must reveal who they are," the recording industry trade association said.

Congress arranged the legal process to strengthen the ability of copyright holders to enforce their rights in a digital environment where copying on a large scale is easier than ever before. Verizon lost a similar challenge to the constitutionality of the subpoena process earlier this year. Arguments for the appeal in that case are scheduled for Sept. 16.

But on Thursday, Senator Coleman suggested that the statute, part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, should be re-examined: "Knowing that we have made it possible to rubber-stamp subpoenas, we have to look at how the law is being used," he said.

In its lawsuit, SBC argues that the subpoenas should have been issued from a California district court, not the District of Columbia, where it will be harder for Internet subscribers living in California to fight the cases. The company also said it should be given more than two weeks to inform subscribers that their information is about to be disclosed, and that it should not be required to turn over e-mail addresses as well as subscribers' names, addresses and phone numbers.

If the statute is held to be constitutional, the SBC complaint argues, the record industry should be compelled to compensate the company for the cost of combing through thousands of records to provide the information it is requesting.

About one-fifth of all Internet users say they make music files available for others to share, according to a report released yesterday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, and 65 percent of those say they do not care whether the files are copyrighted.

In addition to the recording industry, the SBC lawsuit named Titan Media, a distributor of gay pornography, which had also filed a subpoena requesting subscriber information from Pacific Bell.

"It's not just the record industry that's misusing this subpoena power," said Larry Meyer, a spokesman for SBC. "Because they're so easy to obtain, the potential for abuse is great."

Titan withdrew the subpoena after Pacific Bell indicated that it planned to fight it in court. But Gill Sperlein, the company's general counsel, said the pornography industry might be suffering even more significant losses than the music industry because of Internet piracy. The only way to stop it, he said, is to "send a message that we will prosecute infringers and create a deterrent effect."

"We can't compete with free," Mr. Sperlein said. "It's probably even more true of us, where people have always looked for a way to get our product without going in and buying it off the shelf. Now they have a way to do it without paying for it, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/01/business/01MUSI.html


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

Industry Key To Growth Of Online Music, Exec Says
Dawn C. Chmielewski

The Plug.IN digital music conference offered tongue-in- cheek homage Tuesday to Musicbank, MusicBuddha, Mongo Music and 57 other dearly departed digital music services.

These self-professed revolutionaries, once the staple of digital music conferences, promised to drag the century-old music industry into the digital era, only to become dot-bombs.

``Since we've whittled out the dilettantes, the debutantes and the just plain too early for their own good, it's time to get down to serious business -- selling music online,'' said Larry Kenswil, president of eLabs, the new-media technologies division of Universal Music Group. Kenswil delivered Tuesday's keynote address at the conference sponsored by Jupiter Research.

Indeed, after a breathless collection of flaky experiments, the recording industry heralded the spring launch of Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store -- and its more recent imitator, BuyMusic.com, as evidence of an emerging online marketplace for music. But the industry's running battle with unauthorized file-swapping services, which it blames for steadily declining sales, is hardly over.

Kenswil called on his industry colleagues to foster the growth of legitimate online music. Record labels need to release as many songs as possible, he said, as quickly as possible, so music consumers aren't forced to resort to peer-to-peer services to download the latest hits.

The industry also needs to rethink usage rules that make legitimate services unpalatable to online users. Kenswil said Universal Music lifted cumbersome restrictions that treated a digital download differently from individual tracks on a CD, which consumers are accustomed to using to make custom playlists, burn compilation discs and move to portable players. But new services, such as BuyMusic.com, remain hamstrung by confusing use rules that differ from label to label.

``The more utility that consumers derive from any product the more of it they should be willing to purchase. And the more they should be willing to pay for it,'' said Kenswil. ``We can't possibly expect a customer to pay for music that doesn't allow him to use it in a manner consistent with his ability to enjoy the music he's paid for.''

Kenswil said the record industry needs to set a reasonable price for digital downloads -- and stop worrying about whether online sales will cannibalize CDs. That may have been a relevant concern four years ago -- but the wildfire popularity of free services like Kazaa make such arguments moot.

``There is no other choice,'' said Kenswil. ``It is simply the right thing to do for the entire business. In reality, we are supposed to cannibalize ourselves.''

Well-known artist holdouts, such as the Beatles, must be convinced that withholding their music from legitimate services only serves to foster the growth of pirate services and hamper the growth of sanctioned alternatives, Kenswil said. And byzantine publishing rules -- which obstruct innovative ways of distributing music, such as pressplay's plans to preload thousands of songs onto the hard drive of new Gateway computers -- need to be updated, Kenswil said.

``If we don't work harder than ever as a unified business -- not a divided business -- to conquer these problems today, the only certainty is all of our challenges will become harder to overcome,'' said Kenswil.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ey/6416753.htm


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

Hollywood Hunts For Pirates
Michael McCarthy

If you're thinking about downloading a bootlegged copy of X2: X-Men United or The Matrix Reloaded, you might want to look over your shoulder for the feds.

After watching the music industry be financially hammered by piracy, Hollywood moguls want to follow its recent lead and go after individual consumers who illegally download or file share copyrighted films.

"We can't allow what happened to the music industry to happen to the movie industry," says Jack Valenti, president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He says the group will "seek enforcement of the breaking of copyright law" by the authorities against offending consumers. The MPAA also is launching public service ads urging consumers to just say no to piracy. (See the first ad at: www.respectcopyrights.org)

The reason for the new stance is that movie executives are having nightmares that file-sharing consumers who've swapped music for years are developing a growing appetite for free movies. And they've been watching the Recording Industry Association of America's increasingly aggressive response to the piracy that is feeding a decline in sales. Four college students were sued in April for online swapping and settled for up to $17,500 each. In June, subpoenas went out to universities and Internet providers to identify more swappers, and the RIAA plans "hundreds" more lawsuits against individuals in September.

To send a strong message that movie piracy is a crime, "There will probably have to be some people charged with the criminal downloading of movies," says Bo Andersen, president of the Video Software Dealers Association, which gathers in Las Vegas for its annual meeting this week. "It has to be made clear this is criminal behavior, and not just something fun to do on your computer."

Worldwide piracy now costs the studios an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion a year. Much of that still is lost the old-fashioned way — sales of bootleg DVDs and videos.

But as the music business has shown, potential losses from online digital piracy are much higher. And more and more consumers have access to high-speed Internet connections, which make it feasible to transmit movie files. They now are downloading 400,000 to 600,00 movie files a day, according to industry estimates.

Digital piracy directly threatens the most lucrative sector of the movie industry: home video. Consumers spent $20.3 billion to rent and buy movies in 2002, according to Scott Hettrick, editor-in-chief of trade magazine Video Business. That's more than twice the record $9.3 billion fans spent on movie theater tickets last year.

In a recent America Online poll, nearly 70% of respondents did not believe or weren't sure that "swapping" movies online was illegal. But studio executives don't buy that.

"They know what they're doing. People are just ripping this stuff off," says Danny Kaye, senior vice president of business development for 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. "They're more than aware of the economic value. They're just shifting the dollars from the studios and the artists — to themselves."

In MPAA's public service announcement, set painter David Goldstein says piracy hurts him more than it hurts film executives.

David Bishop, president of MGM Home Entertainment Group, says his studio has an internal team constantly checking "how much piracy is going on around our titles," including the upcoming home video release of Legally Blonde 2.

The studios also are working on the next phase of DVD technology, with tougher encryption codes that might solve the problem, but that technology is still three to four years from market. "We're confident the next wave of DVD products will be much more difficult to file share with," he says.

How Hollywood is fighting back for now:

•Jail time. The recent federal prosecution of 25-year-old Kerry Gonzalez of New Jersey for stealing a preview copy of The Hulk and posting it online before the film's release was a warning shot. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to one count of copyright infringement and faces up to three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Coming is a likely series of lawsuits and prosecutions against individual consumers who are heavy file swappers.

•Winning hearts and minds. "Consumer awareness" ads will try to educate consumers who think piracy is "no harm, no foul." In the five commercials, workers from the 580,000 in the movie industry — such as a stunt man and a makeup artist — describe how piracy costs jobs. The spots started airing today on 35 network and cable outlets and will show in 5,000 theaters across the country.

•Closing the windows. Studios are moving to open major movies and release anticipated home videos in all major markets worldwide in the same month, rather than spreading rollouts up to a year. The goal is to close the window of opportunity for pirates to step in to sell ripped-off copies awaiting official release. Warner Bros. used this strategy this summer with The Matrix Reloaded and will again with The Matrix Revolutions this fall, spokeswoman Barbara Brogliatti says.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...0-piracy_x.htm


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

Uni Staff PCs Scanned For MP3s
Kate Mackenzie

STAFF computers at Queensland University of Technology are being scanned for MP3 music files because of a legal battle between universities and music companies.

And other universities are honing their network use policies to help ward off potential legal problems from MP3s stored on their computers.

The universities of Tasmania, Sydney and Melbourne were taken to the federal court by Sony, Universal and EMI in February, and forced to give music industry piracy investigators access to networks and back-up tapes.

QUT has scanned staff desktop computers for MP3s and issued please-explain notices when files were discovered.

QUT issued a written statement in the name of technology, information and learning support deputy vice-chancellor Tom Cochrane.

"We take a number of actions, particularly in the area of education, to regularly remind staff and students of their obligation to monitor and comply with these policies," Mr Cochrane said.

Other universities said they had reviewed or updated their internet and network use policies, and warned staff and students against using university resources for breaching copyright, but none had carried out scans of staff and student desktops. A Monash University spokeswoman said there was no foolproof method of monitoring for pirated material, and to attempt to do so could curtail academic freedom.

Similarly, UTS IT division director Anne Dwyer said there was no policy of scanning, although students and staff were frequently reminded of copyright rules by means such as pop-up messages on computers.

Ms Dwyer said students' usage records being searched would be a concern, but it was in universities' interests to stop copyright breaches.

"It's not just because it's illegal, but it's using our resources in a wasteful way," Ms Dwyer said.

ANU pro-vice-chancellor Robin Stanton said policies had been reviewed, and the issue had been raised with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee.

"A sector-wide or industry-wide code of practice would be a productive instrument to have," Professor Stanton said.
http://australianit.news.com.au/comm...=date&Intro=No


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

KaZaAm! Destra Plan Is Genius
Garth Montgomery

The stage is being set in Sydney for a showdown over global music piracy.

KaZaA has more than 230 million people using its software but no legitimate access to music libraries on a network awash with piracy. Meanwhile, local Net company Destra has relationships with the record companies that sanction access to the libraries. And slap me stupid if it doesn’t also specialise in digital music distribution and content hosting. How convenient.

Is it possible these two companies could hook up and pull off the coup of the digital millennium? That is, drag the music industry — still kicking and screaming — online, to deliver tracks in a way people want them, legitimise peer-to-peer technology, and solve the global problem of music piracy. A problem which has robbed artists and led to a decline in music sales for three years in a row. And all from Sydney?

Destra boss Domenic Carosa thinks they can. Over an iced water, he championed the Aussie can-do spirit so strongly, he had Dispatch choking back tears. When he thumped the table and thundered platitudes like, "we’re a f**king smart country! If we set our minds to it, we can do it", I swelled with jingoistic pride.

Carosa runs MP3.com.au and the second-biggest Web host in Australia, OzHosting. He also runs WiredEntertainment.com, a digital music wholesale business that encodes and distributes legitimate tracks to online retailers such as Sanity, HMV, Telstra, Yahoo and others.

Destra also runs MusicPoint.com.au, a B2B site that allows record companies to send new music direct to radio stations, and radio stations to add the music to their programming selector.

Yeah, so what? It means that if Destra can convince record companies to let it encode all new music and the back-catalogues, plus work out a business model that suits everyone so they can make loads of money out of us, then the infrastructure to offer music online will be firmly in place.

"There’s an in-principle agreement for us to encode the back-catalogues [of all major record labels] and get access for selling online," says Carosa.

MP3.com.au has 5,000 tracks, mostly independent music, mostly crap. By Christmas, Carosa expects to have 200,000 commercial-grade, radio-friendly unit shifters. It’s taken him five years to earn the trust of record companies. "Two years ago we were Satan. It was all ‘Napster, MP3, you guys are pirates.’ Now they realise MP3 doesn’t mean piracy. The iTunes experiment really showed them they could make some money."

Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) piracy investigator Michael Speck is dubious about the so-called trust Destra is building with the record companies. "The motive is clearly to get access to the new-music libraries and back-catalogue," he says. "But it’s interesting that they didn’t put out a press release about their relationship with KaZaA."
Hold them horses. What does he mean? "It has registered KaZaA with its Web-hosting company, and it has access to the record company libraries. On top of that, its chairman is also chairman of the CD-pressing plant Regency Recordings. That’s a pretty nice infrastructure in place.

"KaZaA [also] has detailed consumer behaviour patterns of its users, which are mercilessly sold to marketers."

Yeah, but the names are removed.

"Being nameless makes it more repugnant. They traffic pirated music that can’t be controlled. And you couldn’t get better traffic revenue than a P2P network, not to mention the advertising and a cut of any purchases made. Signing up KaZaA looks to me like they’ve been struck up the arse with a rainbow. For a listed company, I can’t believe they aren’t making more noise about it."

Always the sceptic, our Speck.

Dispatch says bring it on. Stuck in the mortgage belt, it’s not practical for me to splurge on the latest Frenzal Rhomb or Placebo. But if I could get unlimited access to a licensed KaZaA network for, say, $20 a month, then that’s already $240 a year the music industry doesn’t get from me because once you buy a few CDs, with only two good songs on them that are played to death on the radio, you tend to shy away from the whole scam sooner or later.
http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/5...256D49001FDAE4


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

Generation Download

Teens, young adults who have grown up digital aren't keen to follow analog rules
Sara Steffens

Ask about the latest CD they bought, and many teens respond only with a blank stare.

But ask about the music they've been downloading, and they can't stop talking -- about favorite bands and songs, the relative merits of different file-sharing
services, and the growing size of their digital collections.

Call them Generation Download.

For today's young people, copying songs via the Internet has become a routine as familiar as switching on a television.

And now, the music industry must face the reality of a plugged-in generation that thinks record producers are robber barons and CD stores are for suckers.

"What you have now is a generation of kids, like me, that have grown up with the idea of, 'What, I'm going to pay for music?,'" says 18-year-old Jeff Maher of Moraga.

Over the past few months, the debate about downloading, its ethical implications and its consequences for the music industry's future has reached a fever pitch.

New pay-per-download services are amping up their pitches, hoping to lure music-lovers with discounted prices and the promise of clean, legal downloads.

At the same time, the Recording Industry Association of America has been making headlines with a more Draconian approach to the problem: a campaign to sue hundreds of individual music downloaders for copyright damages.

Easy to be a pirate

"Fighting piracy is our Number One priority," says RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.

Sales of music albums have decreased 25 percent over the past three years, and the industry believes online file-sharing is largely to blame.

"We've always fought against physical piracy where you see (bootleg) CDs in the streets," Weiss said. "With Internet piracy, it is that times a million."

The RIAA's legal assault on file-sharers, which began in June, remains just one arm of the industry's larger campaign against file-sharing, Weiss said. The trade group has purchased ads in newspapers, on MTV and VH1; posted fake files on peer-to-peer networks, hoping to frustrate frequent users; and even sent ominous instant messages to downloaders.

They're also targeting parents, warning that peer-to-peer networks offer their kids access not only to free music, but also to computer viruses and pornography.

And then there's the potential legal liability.

Over the coming weeks, Weiss said, the RIAA will file hundreds of lawsuits against file-sharers who offer large numbers of MP3s. They're seeking the maximum possible damages, $150,000 per song.

"We know we're not going to see miracles overnight, and we know this is going to be a long-term campaign," says Weiss. "We also hope that the message begins to get through that this behavior is illegal."

Downloading 'natural'

So far, though, kids seem utterly unimpressed with the recording industry's "shock and awe" campaign.

"That's stupid," declared Andrew Pira, 16, of Concord.

"They can't sue 4 million people," added his friend, 16-year-old Sado Alhkim of Walnut Creek.

Indeed, among teens who have computers at home, it's hard to find anyone who hasn't at least experimented with "peer-to-peer" file-sharing networks like Kazaa, Grokster and Morpheus. And technology "haves" don't hesitate to share the wealth, burning copies of homemade CDs for their "have-not" friends.

"I think the Recording Industry Association of America is going to have to end up suing 90 percent of the U.S. teen population between the ages of 14 and 25," says Maher, the Moraga teen. "Everybody downloads music. They're trying to move a mountain one grain of sand at a time ... It's gone too far now."

"Inevitable" is a word young people use a lot when talking about music downloading. So is "natural."

"My boyfriend, one of the first things I did was burned him a CD of some of my favorite songs," says Meredith Joyce, 18, of Oakland. "I think it's a natural idea, to want to share music with your friends, and the Web is just a good way to do it."

Eighteen-year-old Joy Tamaki, who's had a computer in her home since elementary school, says downloading is so common, she hears little or no debate about its ethical implications.

"I've never heard any of my friends that use MP3 sharing say anything negative about it ... We're used to doing it, I really never hear anybody talking about whether it's right or wrong."

"The record industry does have a point," Tamaki admits. "I know that all these artists and groups have to make their money ... But I'm just such a fan of sharing MP3s that I can't fully agree with what they say. It's just such a brilliant idea."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6...printstory.jsp


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

Downloading Wars: The Audience

DOWNLOAD WARS: THE AUDIENCE: 15-year-olds think buying music is for suckers. Middle-aged men can't remember the last time they purchased a CD. As the music industry begins its crackdown, GUY DIXON talks to fans who get their fix from their computers. The first in a three-part series. http://www.globetechnology.com/servl...ry/Technology/


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

Could Asian file Sharers Be Next Target?
John Lui

Asia-Pacific residents have been nervously eyeing the recording industry's blitz on file-sharing in the U.S. and asking: Will this region's users be the next targets?

On the surface, the situation looks grim for Asia-Pacific users of Kazaa, Morpheus or other peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing clients.

Countries such as Singapore and Korea boast an IT-savvy population and among the highest rates of broadband penetration in the world, factors which feed the file-sharing habit.

The Recording Industry Association of Singapore's (RIAS) CEO, Edward Neubronner said his organization kept a close watch on P2P activity.

"While RIAS is currently focused on educating users about the need to respect the intellectual property rights of others, we have already taken action in Singapore against infringing activities, including file sharing over the Internet, and will continue to do so," he told CNETAsia.

He declined to give details of the legal action taken.

Copyright protection body the Business Software Alliance (BSA) had also previously said that they will sniff out those sharing software on Asian P2P networks.

The heavy fines and jail sentences given to CD pirates in Singapore and Malaysia imply that the region's courts do not hesitate to take the side of the copyright owners. The recently sealed Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the United States means more attention will be paid to copyright issues, as most of the business lost through file sharing affects companies in Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

In addition, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the region have folded quickly when it comes to revealing the identities of subscribers caught posting libelous or unpatriotic messages, or hosting pornographic or illegal files. They have been known to hand over names without the need for the rigorous legal process observed in Western countries.

However, other factors seem to suggest that for now at least, the hammer won't fall on Asia-Pacific file sharers yet.

The bodies that enforce copyright for recording companies in the region only have jurisdiction over single countries. The Recording Industry Associations of America (RIAA), for example, has powers only within the U.S.. Also, governments in Asia may react with hostility to moves by the predominantly U.S.-based copyright holders taking action against their citizens.

Already, reports say that the legal action in the U.S. have begun to have a chilling effect on file-sharing, and copyright bodies in Asia may want to see how much it dampens trading in their own countries before acting.

Among the RIAA's chief targets have been students with generous amounts of server space, large 24-hour upload pipes and a huge selection of MP3s available for sharing--one Michigan student under investigation made over half a million songs available on his hard drive. Asia may not have the "big fish" file sharers found in the West.

While it's still too early to say if Asia-Pacific P2P users will be looking down the barrel of the gun, chances are if file-swapping carries on as usual, the heat will get turned up.

Said Neubronner: "The recent prosecutions of files sharers by the RIAA in the U.S. will further highlight the legal risk involved in the sharing of music files in Singapore, and we welcome it."
http://asia.cnet.com/newstech/person...9144600,00.htm


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

Many Music Lovers Don't Know -- Or Care -- About Lawsuits

Matt, a Forest Hills Middle School student, uses the file-sharing service KaZaA on his computer to download songs from the Internet. So far, he has downloaded 60 songs -- about 59 more than the number needed to make him vulnerable to a lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America.

Last month, the RIAA said it would begin filing lawsuits to stop people from using peer-to-peer music file-sharing systems for copyright infringement. Matt didn't hear the announcement. But the 13-year-old said he "probably won't stop" downloading songs by artists such as blink-182.

"Beats buying CDs," he said.

His mother sees things a little differently.

"Maybe he ought not do that," she said, adding that she needs to become more "up-to-date" about technology.

So will many more parents, now that the Washington, D.C., trade group representing the world's biggest record labels has decided to get tough.

In many cases, the computer owners may not be aware that their Internet connections are being used to perpetrate what the trade group calls copyright infringement. And they probably have no idea of the potential cost: Copyright laws allow for damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 per song.

Since June 26, RIAA has filed more than 900 federal subpoenas, seeking information prior to filing lawsuits against individuals illegally sharing copyright-protected material. Those lawsuits might be filed by late August or early September.

One might think Aris Hampers, owner of Aris' Disc Shop in northeast Grand Rapids, would be pleased with the RIAA's attempt to shore up the sagging $14 billion U.S. recording industry. But the longtime Grand Rapids radio personality, now the afternoon voice of WBFX-FM 101.3, is angry at the RIAA's plans.

"I'm in the CD business and the music business, and I think they're morons," Hampers said. "They think by scaring people, this is going to go away.

"A 15-year-old isn't scared of a lawsuit."

One teenager, a Wyoming Lee student, agrees, saying he hasn't even thought about the ramifications.

"I just keep downloading," said the 17-year-old.

But adults may be concerned.

"A lot of customers and my friends used to download, but they've stopped," said Mike Mostrom, 21, a technology specialist at Circuit City in Walker.

Becky Simpson, 46, of Grand Rapids, who works at Family Christian Store, said she doesn't really download music herself but knows people, including co-workers, who do.

"I hear them talking about it a lot," Simpson said. "They're definitely concerned about what's happened."

An estimated 60 million people in the United States have downloaded music off the Internet, using file-sharing software such as eDonkey, Grokster or Limewire. The RIAA blames illegal file sharing for the 14 percent drop in sales of CDs in the past three years.But some CD buyers say they download to take a test drive first.

"I download songs to sample the music, and if I like it, I buy the album," said Adam Wardle, 21, an employee at CD/DVD Exchanges in Comstock Park, who said he owns about 1,000 CDs.

"Without downloads, there's a lot of bands I wouldn't hear," Wardle said.

Others say they can't find what they want in stores.

Angelo Piccione, 54, owner of Domenic's Pizza in Kent City, who was born in Italy, said he uses KaZaA to download Italian songs he can't find in American record stores, then burns CDs of them.

"I'll keep going unless my computer blows up," he said.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/in...0582978350.xml


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

Music Industry Groups Targets ISPs To Stop Swapping
Beatrice E. Garcia

Alex Rodriguez and Faisal Imtiaz don't have a dog in this fight, but they're in the middle of it anyway.

Rodriguez and Imtiaz are two Internet access providers in South Florida. Like many of their counterparts here and around the country, they want to protect the privacy of their subscribers. But right now, Internet service providers are feeling the intrusion of the music industry into their businesses.

Recording Industry Association of America is out to crack down on Internet users who download and swap copyrighted music. The Washington, D.C.-based group has filed nearly 1,000 subpoenas in the past two weeks, asking ISPs to provide the names and addresses of subscribers it suspects are downloading music files illegally.

''I do have an issue with being forced to give up a user's information,'' said Rodriguez, president of Miami-based Netrox LLC. ``If I have a court order, I don't have a choice. Fighting [the recording industry] could potentially take me out of business.''

About a dozen major Internet service providers, including America Online, SBC Communications, Earthlink, Charter Communications, RNC and Verizon Communications, have been targeted by the subpoenas.

BellSouth, a major Internet access provider in Florida and in eight other Southeast states, says it hasn't yet received any of the RIAA subpoenas demanding subscriber information.

Comcast Cable and Charter Communications, two cable companies that provide Internet access as part of their slate of cable services, have both received RIAA subpoenas. But the companies wouldn't comment on whether any customers in South Florida had been targeted.

''To make ISPs responsible for what is on their networks is onerous,'' said Joseph Marion, executive director of the Federation of Internet Service Providers of the Americas, based in Orlando.

``It's like holding the U.S. Postal Service responsible if one consumer mailed a CD to a friend that contained a copyrighted song.''

Small, regional ISPs such as SnappyDSL.net and Netrox have not been targeted by the music industry subpoenas so far.

But even before this battle with the music industry erupted into front-page news, ISPs were already the last barrier between the owners of copyrighted material such as video or software and online file swappers who see the Internet as a free-for-all.

Internet service providers have long been thrust into the role of policing their networks. They have been on the receiving end of cease-and-desist orders from software firms, audio and video houses, asking the ISPs to stop users from downloading copyrighted material or making it available on their network.

Imtiaz, who runs SnappyDSL.net in West Miami-Dade, said the firm gets at least one cease-and-desist order a month.

The usual procedure is for a music or movie company to inform an ISP that copyright-protected material has been found on its network or on a subscriber's computer. Then they ask the ISPs to take action.

''If we find illegal activity on our network, we tell [our members] to stop or we'll shut them down,'' Imtiaz said.

He notes that software companies have been far more aggressive in rooting out Internet users offering copies of pirated programs.

''In some cases, the [software companies] didn't even send an e-mail first; they just picked up the phone and called,'' Imtiaz said. ``They weren't pulling any false punches.''

Mark Grossman, director of the technology law group at Becker & Poliakoff, a Miami-based law firm, said ISPs have to respond to a subpoena.

''Yet, no one has to comply with a subpoena without having the opportunity to have it reviewed by a judge,'' Grossman said.

Two of the major ISPs in the country have stood up to the RIAA.

Pacific Bell Internet Services, a unit of SBC, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco on Wednesday, claiming the RIAA's use of the subpoena provision in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act was improper.

Besides the RIAA, PacBell's lawsuit named two other defendants: Titan Media Group, an online pornography producer, and MediaSentry, which does business as Media Force, an online service that combs the Internet looking for users who are downloading massive amounts of data that could be file sharing of copyrighted material.

Titan withdrew its subpoena after it was named in the lawsuit, an SBC spokesman told The Herald.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ss/6440547.htm


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

Grokster Peer To Peer Network Embraces Softwrap DRM Technology
Press Release

Softwrap today announced that Grokster, the advanced, peer to peer, file sharing programme that enables users to share any digital file, has selected Softwrap's DRM technology for a new, advertisement-free, paid version of the Grokster software. This follows the successful distribution and sale of numerous Softwrapped game and utility titles via Grokster and other P2P networks. Content developers and owners can now feel even more confident that their Softwrapped intellectual property distributed through the Grokster Network will be paid for and protected from piracy.

Softwrap are also be building and operating a software storefront, hosted by Grokster, which will reside on the Grokster interface. Grokster joins a growing number of P2P networks using Softwrap's DRM solution to protect content providers' titles from piracy.

Wayne Rosso, President of Grokster, said: "Having looked at a number of DRM solutions, we chose Softwrap to protect the content distributed via our network from illicit copying because their technology offers a complete package - superb security for content providers combined with a very easy to use e-commerce mechanism for end users."

Emma Morris, Marketing Director at Softwrap, added: "As Grokster is one of the world's most popular P2P networks, we're delighted that they've now chosen Softwrap's technology as their DRM solution for their own software too."

This announcement further enhances Softwrap's success within the software industry and the P2P network communities. Utilising the secure Softwrap DRM technology means that content owners can safely distribute their software without the concern of piracy, via peer to peer networks such as Grokster. The adoption of Softwrap's technology means these networks can be used positively to their full potential by generating new and secure revenue streams, as opposed to these channels only being a haven for pirated titles. Perhaps surprisingly consumers are applauding the move as it now means they have a reliable legitimate gauranteed virus free alternative in Softwrap titles.

Leading content developers and publishers including Eidos Interactive, Ulead Systems and Visiosonic (developers of the popular PCDJ software) are already taking full advantage of Softwrap's technology to distribute their intellectual property across P2P networks including Kazaa.
http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=55145


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

Stopping The Pop-Swappers
Mark Ward



They used to say "home taping" was killing music, now it's meant to be internet downloaders. But the real pirates these days are crime bosses - and the rewards are plentiful.
The net has given rise to many novel ways of doing business but the methods of the Recording Industry Association of America has got every twisted e-commerce scheme beaten.

Last month, the association began suing hundreds of its customers. For the RIAA - which represents the major US recording companies - this makes perfect sense. The people being sued are sharing music with millions of others via peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa, Grokster and Morpheus. This tidal wave of subpoenas is the latest in a series of steps the RIAA has taken to stop "file-sharing" which, it believes, is causing CD sales to fall through the floor. According to the RIAA, CD sales dropped by 10% in 2001 and a further 6.8% last year, largely because of file sharing.

But the figures tell a different story.

In America and the rest of the world the biggest culprit in falling music sales is large-scale CD piracy by organised crime. In just three years, sales of pirate CDs have more than doubled, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Every third CD sold is a pirate copy, says the federation. The IFPI's Commercial Music Piracy 2003 report, produced in early July, reveals pirate CD sales rose 14% in 2002 and exceeded one billion units for the first time.

The pirate CD market is now so big, $4.6bn (£2.86bn), it is "of greater value than the legitimate music market of every country in the world, except the USA and Japan". In some countries it is hard to find legitimately produced CDs. Ninety percent of CDs in China, for instance, are pirate copies. Counterfeiters have forced the price of a fake CD down to about $4, which only makes CDs in the music shops look even pricier. Embarrassingly major record labels and distributors have been fined twice by the US Federal Trade Commission for price fixing their products. However, pirates are not solely responsible for the crisis in the music industry. After all, it is actually producing CD titles.

Replacing vinyl

According to the RIAA's own figures, over the last two years the US music industry has produced 25% fewer CDs. The peak of production was in 1999 when 38,900 individual titles were released. But by 2001 this was down to 27,000. Releases grew again in 2002 but were still below the previous high. Musician George Ziemann says if only 3,000 copies of each of the "missing" CDs were sold, the fall in sales would be wiped out. For Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Jupiter Research, the music is weathering a hangover after the 80s and 90s boom, when everyone was buying CD versions of their old vinyl records.

"Now the CD replacement cycle has drawn to a close," he says. Also the global decline in CD sales is taking place against the background of a general economic recession that is depressing sales of almost everything. After piracy and the production of fewer CDs comes the changing dynamics of the music industry. Many of the people using file-sharing systems are looking for singles. By contrast the music industry is focussed on shifting albums. This is reflected in sales figures. In the US sales of CD singles generate only a few percent of the total market. In the UK, it's 10% of all revenues. Typically, singles are used to drum up support for an album, being hyped weeks in advance and played heavily on radio and TV long before they go on sale. With nowhere to get these singles and no desire to buy an expensive CD album just for one song, it is no wonder many fans turn to file-sharing systems. Finally, music just isn't as important to young people as it used to be. There is more competition than ever for the cash in a teenager's pocket.

"Youths are no longer defining themselves by music in the same way they used to," says Mr Mulligan. Now, he says, brands, clothing and lifestyle are as important as music.

Added to this is the rise of the mobile phone, the increasing popularity of computer games and DVDs. In the past the music industry had young fans almost to itself. Now it has to compete for the limited cash in a young person's pocket like never before. The music industry cannot hope to sue everyone using file sharing to find music as that would take hundreds of years and already the US legal system is complaining about the work the RIAA is heaping upon it.

There is no doubt that some piracy is going on via peer-to-peer systems but maybe not to the extent the RIAA fears. Perhaps it is about time they sang a different song.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/3117505.stm


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

RIAA's Scare Tactics Bound To Backfire
Declan McCullagh

The Recording Industry Association of America's efforts to scare peer-to- peer users who violate copyright laws began with a promising start exactly one year ago.

Last August, the RIAA asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to force Verizon Communications to divulge the identity of a Kazaa user, kicking off a legal tussle that ended with the RIAA winning a stunning victory. At about the same time, key members of Congress wrote a letter that asked the U.S. Department of Justice to begin criminal prosecutions of P2P users who "allow mass copying," while an RIAA ally on Capitol Hill simultaneously introduced a bill to allow copyright holders to attack computers on P2P networks used for piratical purposes.

A year later, however, there are some signs that the RIAA's antipiracy campaign is faltering.

Last week, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., criticized the RIAA's pursuit of music swappers, saying he was "concerned about the potential for abuse in the current system." The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College are fighting the RIAA, and a new survey found that 67 percent of file swappers in the United States are indifferent to copyright concerns, an unexpected jump from 61 percent just three years ago.

But the most daunting obstacle to the recording industry's dogged efforts to rid the Internet of music piracy is a lawsuit that Pacific Bell Internet Services (also known as SBC Communications) filed against the RIAA last week.

It is carefully crafted to portray the RIAA and its contractors who scour P2P networks for infringers as out-of-control juggernauts who care precious little about due process, the rules of the federal court system, Americans' privacy rights and the U.S. Constitution.

You know what? SBC stands a decent chance of winning. If that happens, the case would deal a sore setback to the RIAA and make the dread subpoena process that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) created far less menacing.

Under section 512(h) of the DMCA, any copyright holder can "request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer." The RIAA has repeatedly invoked that section of the law in the last few months, firing off bulk subpoenas in an effort to spread a mix of fear, uncertainty and doubt among file-swappers who, the argument goes, will start panicking over being sued.

If you read between the lines of 19-page complaint, you're left with little choice but to conclude that the RIAA is more interested in maximizing the quantity of subpoenas--and their possible deterrent value-- than in carefully abiding by the letter of the law.

We already saw this happen earlier this year, when the RIAA was forced to apologize to a Pennsylvania State University professor for sending him and dozens of other people legal warning saying that they were violating federal copyright law. The RIAA's automated program apparently confused two separate pieces of information--a legal MP3 file and a directory named "usher"--and concluded there was an illegal copy of a song by the musician Usher.

Some of the arguments SBC is making--such as saying the DMCA does not apply to P2P networks-- are nearly identical to those that Verizon unsuccessfully made in its court case in Washington. Verizon lost dismally when a district judge ordered it to comply with the RIAA subpoenas and an appeals court has declined so far to intervene. Although a lower court decision on the other side of the continent does not set precedent for California, it's still likely to be influential.

Two things have changed since the Verizon decision, though: First, the threat of the RIAA employing bulk-subpoena tactics is no longer merely a theoretical concern. Second, SBC is making additional arguments that Verizon did not.

SBC says it's received hundreds of DMCA subpoenas already, which makes the potential threat to its subscribers' privacy very real. It expects to receive thousands more, saying the RIAA contractors have "inundated" it with thousands of similar, illegitimate complaints of copyright infringement in the past. At the very least, the company says, the subpoenas must come from a California court instead of one in Washington.

SBC also says it needs a different subpoena for each individual (claiming that "multiple demands for individual subscriber information cannot be grouped in one subpoena"), that it needs additional time to respond to each subpoena so that its subscribers can be notified and possibly hire lawyers to oppose their subpoenas and that the DMCA does not authorize the subscriber's e-mail address to be disclosed.

Probably the most important argument is one that could hit the RIAA where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. SBC argues that it and other Internet service providers "must be compensated for the substantial costs incurred in complying with these subpoenas" and cites rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It says the recipient of a subponea must be "reasonably compensated" for the work required to prepare a response.

What all this means is that SBC is trying to raise the costs for the RIAA to learn the identity of P2P users. This is a good thing for privacy and for Internet users: The DMCA subpoena process is hardly privacy- protective, and it allows copyright holders to learn the identity of an Internet user without filing a lawsuit or obtaining a judge's approval. (Remember that even if SBC wins, the RIAA can still sue P2P copyright infringers. They might just have to file individual lawsuits first, a more expensive proposition.)

Matt Oppenheim, the RIAA's senior vice president of business and legal affairs, told me on Friday that the DMCA "contains absolutely no provision whatsoever for reimbursement...If Congress had wanted reimbursement, Congress would have included it. But they didn't." (Oppenheim may be right. Section 512 of the DMCA suggests--but does not say explicitly--that the federal rules that require reimbursement apply.)

The RIAA added in a statement: "It's unfortunate that they have chosen to litigate this, unlike every other ISP which has complied with their obligations under the law. We had previously reached out to SBC to discuss this matter, but had been rebuked."

Poor things.

Sure, it's temping to beat up on the recording industry, but keep in mind that they're not the ones who enacted the DMCA back in 1998. Congress did. Elected representatives chose the interests of well- connected copyright holders over individual rights to privacy. The Senate approved the DMCA unanimously in October 1998, and the U.S. House of Representatives followed suit by a similar margin a few days later.

If the major record labels win their legal skirmish with SBC, and the DMCA remains intact, the fight will return to Capitol Hill. Let's hope the outcome will be different this time.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-5059612.html


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

KaZaA Seeks Higher Court
Simon Hayes

THE controversial case that has pitted the recording industry against Australian peer- to-peer software developer Sharman Networks could end up the the US Supreme Court, as lower court judges adopt conflicting positions on file sharing.

Sharman -- developer of the KaZaA front-end software -- is involved in two legal actions initiated by record companies and movie studios. Sharman's lawyer Rod Dorman, a partner in Los Angeles law firm Hennigan Bennett and Dorman, said he expected action over file sharing would eventually end in the US's highest court. The Supreme Court can issue a writ if it decides a matter is of sufficient importance to be heard, or if circuit courts are split over decisions. The US circuit courts hear appeals on matters decided by district courts.

A conflict already existed between a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit in the 2001 Napster case, in which the court ruled Napster a "contributory infringer" by virtue of it providing peer-to-peer software, and Chicago's 7th Circuit in the Aimster case, in which the court ruled Aimster had not violated the law simply by providing software, he said. Such conflict could lead to file sharing ending up in the Supreme Court, Mr Dorman said.

"In all likelihood, you will get the Supreme Court addressing the issue late in next years' session," he said.

Sharman is pursuing action on two fronts, tipping it will lodge a motion for recall of US District Court Judge Stephen Wilson's decision to grant the recording industry's motion to dismiss Sharman's antitrust claims. Sharman had alleged major recording companies colluded to drive it out of business. Judge Wilson ruled Sharman did not have standing to make the claim, because it was not directly involved in distributing licensed content. Mr Dorman said Sharman was working in conjunction with Altnet to provide licensed music.

"When Nicola Hemming created Sharman it was created with the intention of working jointly with Altnet to develop a business where peer-to-peer could be used to distribute licensed content for profit," he said.

"Nicola and Kevin Bermeister, chief executive of Altnet, knew each other for years and recognised that only by marrying the technology of each could it work.

"They shared a business vision, but each had separate companies."

At the same time, Sharman is fighting an appeal by the music industry against a decision by Judge Wilson in a similar case against Grokster and Music City, that merely providing software did not constitute "vicarious infringement" of copyright. That appeal is with the 9th Circuit, with a decision expected in November.

"They have accepted and accelerated the appeal and have set a briefing schedule that means the appellants have to get a brief filed by mid-August," he said.

Sharman was a party to that appeal, he said.
http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...-15322,00.html


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

The File Swapping Fiasco
Steven Laib

It seems that the Recording Industry Assn. Of America, or RIAA has decided to crack down on people suspected of sharing music over the Internet. One would think that with 60 million people estimated to be using-file sharing services, for any number of reasons, the task would be daunting. Apparently, the RIAA doesn’t think so.

According to free market advocate Ilana Mercer they are getting approximately 75 subpoenas approved each day. Of course if they investigated this many users each day it would take over two thousand years to cover all 60 million, but they appear more interested in developing user fear from a few high profile cases. I’m not sure it will work. After all, the IRS does essentially the same thing and it’s a dead certainty that a lot of people still cheat on their 1040 when they believe they can get away with it, and many do get away with it.

The whole music industry vendetta started with Napster; originally the most popular of the file sharing tools. When Napster was squelched by a lawsuit, other different systems appeared. Instead of having a central file index, as Napster did, the new software searched individual users files until it found a match to download. Since the courts have ruled that this method, known as peer to peer, exempts the software manufacturer from liability, the only remaining options are to give up or go after the individual users.

Total free market advocates have taken the position that this is an invasion of user privacy, which is supportable. After all, the RIAA should not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition any more than the police department should, and if homosexuality is protected by privacy, why not how you use your computer. Additionally, because of what is involved here, it might be reasonable to suggest that there is a violation of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure going on. It may be a civil matter, but if it were in my court I would certainly entertain such an argument. Particularly since the RIAA attitude, if taken to the maximum potential, could amount to unnecessary and avoidable harassment of a large sector of the public.

Of course, the reason for all of this activity is money. Money is involved because works being swapped are copyrighted. The singers, musicians and songwriters all want their cut of sales profits, but more likely, the companies producing and marketing the music are even more interested. They stand to make an even bigger profit, unless I am very much mistaken. Reproducing music CD’s doesn’t cost that much. My handy computer supply catalog advertises bulk CD’s for twenty-five cents each. A record producer, or for that matter AOL, can probably get them for less when buying thousands. How else could AOL afford to send so many free disks. The real costs are elsewhere, and include the royalties paid to the performers. Copyright law asserts that because they performed the music, and in some cases wrote it as well, they have the right to profit from recordings of that music in the same manner as an author would profit from sales of a book he or she wrote. At the same time it asserts, with what some will suggest is highly twisted logic, that while you may own the CD, you don’t own what’s on it.

Copyright law would have no reason to exist if we had no way to mechanically or electronically reproduce these kinds of works. If someone sat down to handwrite a copy of Dante’s Divine Comedy it seems reasonable for him to profit by the amount of work it would take. Of course this was exactly what was done 700 ears ago when Europeans did not have printing presses. But copyists could only turn out a very few editions. The printing press changed all of that. In a strange turn of events on one occasion when a stack of mechanically printed Bibles arrived in Holland the townsfolk refused to accept them, believing that such identical copies could only be the work of the devil. Today, we generally accept new technology without question, and we use it just as rapidly as we can get up to speed with it.

In this age of technology, if someone were to scan the pages of a best seller into a computer, print it and then sell the results would it be proper? Is it different from doing the same with music recordings? Consider that a performer can make money from tours, music videos and sales of promotional items. That’s why the Grateful Dead created such a flap about the unauthorized t-shirt salespeople a few years back. An author expects to make money primarily from selling books. Those who get movie and TV deals are major exceptions to the rule.

Take another example: If someone copied all of the columns posted to their favorite internet commentary site and published them in book form, would it be proper for them to get the profits? After all, they didn’t write anything. They just did the compilation. Shouldn’t the authors get something? Without them there would be nothing to compile.

The current problem is a logical child of electronic data storage and recording of music in CD form. People soon found out that they could beat the system and the system didn’t like it. It didn’t move quickly to encrypting their recordings or incorporate a licensing fee into the sales price to cover potential lost revenue. Each of these would be easier than going through the courts. Apple Computer may be on the right track with its iTunes store where you can buy music for $0.99 a track. It seems like a pretty good solution. You don’t have to buy a full CD to get the one tune you want and the price is right, too.

But there’s another problem. Apple and other on-line music sales entities generally concentrate on what is essentially new or recently produced music. They also tend to stock only recognized recording stars. Let’s take the example of someone who is looking of for a recording of Dick Dale’s “Spanish Kiss” recorded in the early 1960’s. It might be available on a vintage vinyl LP, if you can find one and the price may be outrageous for all you know. Apple’s iTunes store doesn’t have it. I know because I looked. And if you find a vinyl copy, what condition will it be in. Unlike books, LP’s lose fidelity as they are played. CD’s don’t.

So let’s say that by using peer-to-peer software I can find that, otherwise impossible to get, copy of Spanish Kiss, or perhaps even less well-known recordings by, perhaps, the LA Midnighters, Sly, Slick And The Wicked or The Centurions. (These were real bands, by the way.) I’ve found some of them through file sharing software, but they simply don’t exist anywhere else. If they recorded their music 40 or 50 years ago it seems crazy that the RIAA would be trying to police sharing of what is, by modern standards, ancient music. If anything, they should be applauding. Sharing old music from limited markets, regional bands and little known performers helps to keep musical history alive. Things otherwise lost forever can be preserved. Meanwhile, many of us would be willing to buy these recordings if they were available. The RIAA is contributing to the problem by not putting everything they have on sale. In an age of electronic storage it should be easy to do. Alvin Toffler predicted this kind of marketing 25 years ago. Haven’t they read “The Third Wave”?

Finally, maybe we should consider the problem from another angle. Maybe the people who are swapping so much new music on the Internet like the music, but just not enough to pay the price they are being charged. It’s a good question that should be brought to the discussion table.
http://www.americandaily.com/item/1877


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

File-Sharing Networks Strike Back
Simon Doyle



The next stage of the battle being waged by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) over peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks like Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus has begun — the RIAA is gathering evidence to prosecute individual users for copyright infringement. But this war is far from over; public interest groups, software companies and users are making a rearguard advance in defence of file-sharing.

“It is an obvious attempt to intimidate people off of file-sharing programs," says Bill Evans, President and founder of Boycott-RIAA, an affiliation of self-professed "music lovers" who believe the RIAA over-extends unfair copyright laws. “I think the actions of the RIAA will further alienate music consumers, if that is possible. We've heard from people who don't file share at all, that feel they are being treated as criminals.”

Evans is urging alienated music fans to get involved in localised flyer distribution campaigns across the U.S., scheduled to take place August 2, where Boycott- RIAA "street teams" will stage symbolic CD burnings "in the Boston Tea Party vein."

The U.S. Congress is one current target: Evans, along with P2P networks and public interest groups like the Electric Frontier Foundation, are pushing for public hearings on the P2P controversy.

"The sick think is, we would love to pay [copy]rights' owners," says Grokster President Wayne Rosso. "But it's one of those things where we say, ‘please let us pay you,’ and they won't take our money."

The RIAA plans to launch thousands of individual lawsuits in the U.S. on behalf of its member companies — a second offensive after an April court ruling that stated the networks themselves could not be held accountable for instances of copyright infringement by individuals.

According to RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy, "[The RIAA] are the ones bringing action to something virtually everyone in the music community is supportive of.” He added that the P2P users subpoenaed will be those who distribute "significant" amounts of copyrighted music.

Grokster’s Rosso is responding by forming a lobby group specifically geared to targeting Congress. "I assure you we will be organising the users,” he says. “We want to mobilise them."
http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid1=1745


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

Korean Firms Launch Coin-Size MP3 Player

Two Korean firms have unveiled a featherweight MP3 player that is so small it could easily be mistaken for a coin.

Jointly developed by local gadget makers Station Z and EraTech, Emp-Z measures 42 millimeters in diameter and 10 millimeters in thickness, The Korea Herald reported.

The companies claim the new device, which weighs 15 grams and comes with 128MB of non- expandable memory, is the smallest and lightest MP3 player in the world.

Excluding the built-in rechargeable batteries, the Emp-Z is half the weight of the lightest models available in the market today, the companies said.

To miniaturize the device, Station Z and EraTech did away with functions such as voice recording and combined the earphone and USB (universal serial bus) slots into one, the report said. Using a USB adapter, users can now transfer songs from their computers to the Emp-Z through a standard headphone jack.

The two firms said the new portable music player will cost around $120 and mass production is scheduled for later this month.
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5059745.html?tag=cd_mh


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

Music Downloading, File-sharing And Copyright: A Pew Internet Project Data Memo
Press Release

The struggle to enforce copyright laws in the digital age continues to be an uphill battle for content owners. Data gathered from Pew Internet & American Life Project surveys fielded during March - May of 2003 show that a striking 67% of Internet users who download music say they do not care about whether the music they have downloaded is copyrighted. A little over a quarter of these music downloaders - 27% - say they do care, and 6% said they don't have a position or know enough about the issue.

The number of downloaders who say they don't care about copyright has increased since July-August 2000, when 61% of a smaller number of downloaders said they didn't care about the copyright status of their music files.

Of those Internet users who share files online (such as music or video) with others, 65% say they do not care whether the files they share are copyrighted or not. Thirty percent say they do care about the copyright status of the files they share, and 5% said they don't know or don't have a position.

http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=96


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

The Download Tide May Have Ebbed
Dan Ackman

Music downloaders tend not to care about the copyright implications of their acts, but there are fewer people doing it than is generally imagined, a recent survey indicates.

Just 29% of U.S. Internet users have downloaded music files and just 12% both download and share music files from their PCs with others, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. The rest, 62% of Internet users, do neither. These percentages have stayed fairly constant over the last few years, while the music industry has battled the problem by threatening downloaders with legal action and by creating for-pay music services.

But despite the massive publicity and legal action surrounding Napster, Kazaa and more recently Apple Computer's (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) iTunes service, attitudes about copyrights haven't changed much. The report, entitled "Music Downloading, File-sharing and Copyright," found that just 27% of users who download music files are "concerned" about copyright, 67% don't care and 6% said they don't know enough or don't have a position on the issue.

The study conducted by the not-for-profit Pew Internet and American Life Project notes that the same 29% of Internet users reported downloading in 2001. Since the number of Internet users overall has continued to grow, so has the number of downloaders. But the problem seems relatively contained. In Napster's heyday, it claimed 60 million or even 70 million users. This claim seems wildly overstated if the Pew survey is correct. The study does not address the persistent question of whether, or to what extent, downloading has impacted sales of prerecorded CDs.

Of those who download, most say they do it so they can listen to the music at any time. It's not clear whether these downloaders are doing anything illegal. If, for instance, a computer user "downloads" his own CD onto his own hard drive so he can access it a different way (some would call this act "uploading"), that would seem to create no copyright implications. If, however, the user is downloading files he "shares" from other computers, that's exactly the type of conduct the record industry is desperate to reduce.

The survey indicates that just 12% of Internet users download music or video files and allow others to download files from their computers. Another 17% download such files on to their computers but do not allow others to "share" with them.

In recent years, the record industry and its trade group, the Record Industry Association of America, has combated this problem through litigation and publicity campaigns.

The RIAA says it will file civil lawsuits against individuals who use programs like Kazaa, and it has issued hundreds of subpoenas to Internet service providers to find out who is doing what. Laws that provide for damages could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, though actually enforcing these laws has proved near impossible. Some ISPs, like SBC (nyse: SBC - news - people ) and Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ - news - people ), have gone to court to attack record-industry subpoenas.

Downloading is most popular among people in their 20s. This is the only age bracket for which downloaders are a majority at 52%, compared to 51% two years ago. Downloading is more popular in the lower income brackets, among people with three or more years of Internet experience, and among people with less education, the survey says. More than 80% of people aged 18 to 29, and a similar percentage of students, said they did not care about copyright protection. In the higher income bracket of $75,000 or more, 61% said they weren't worried about the status of songs on their hard drives.

Services like EMusic and Pressplay have attacked the piracy problem from a different direction, encouraging downloaders to buy individual songs for slightly less than a buck each--allowing users to buy just what they want, which is what downloaders have said they want all along.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/08/0...artner=newscom
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)