Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - September 13th, '03

[JackSpratts]

Quote of the week: "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning." 12 year old file sharer Brianna LaHara, on being sued by the Record Companies of the RIAA.

Big Harvest Moon Issue

Obsessive Compulsive

When I was in radio I had a program director who was famous for his view that people hardly listen to anything you say. He maintained it wasn’t enough to tell listeners something on the air if you expected them to remember it but that you had to tell them essentially three times if you wanted to get their attention. His rule was simple: First you tell them that you’re going to tell them. Then you tell them. Finally you tell them that you told them. If you do all three things he said you’d probably get through to them. Well, the RIAA is doing just that this week with Congress and the media. After having made a less than giant splash in March when they told their hysterical lies about P2P and porn, the RIAA is making sure Americans actually swallow it by telling them all over again - and this time it could be going down. Newspapers are taking it much more seriously than they did last winter, the New York Times on Sunday for instance ran a story on the front page no less and NBC news chimed in with a sensationalistic piece on Tuesday. All this while congress seems adamant in crippling peer-to-peer to “solve” this wholly overblown issue.

When it comes to sex the internet is no different than the rest of the planet. We all know porn is on AOL, MSN, Yahoo and all the other chats; it’s on half the web sites and just about anywhere you can make a connection; it’s on cell phones and PDA’s. It’s accessible at work and in libraries. It’s in cafes and bars and in stores on the racks and it’s even peeked at in school. Sex is everywhere - and so is porn. Checked your emails lately? Whether it’s procreational or recreational sex is everywhere, so what’s going on with Congress and the media and the so-called grass roots anti-porn “family groups” that are really fronts for the RIAA? Why the sudden interest, why the outraged “We’re shocked, SHOCKED to discover porn in here!”? Can the politicos really be on an out and out anti-porn rampage at a time when it’s clear that Americans are more and more accepting? Is this really about sex or is something else afoot? Well I don’t think it’s about sex, porn nor even kiddie porn. I think this is about power. Adult style power. I think this is about shutting down Peer-to-Peer any way they can, and lying about the motive. With the cynical acquiescence of an increasingly amoral U.S. Congress the global media industry is getting the green light to destroy the very foundations of freedom of choice and freedom of speech that make the American democracy unique in all the world. That an industry so dependent on the First amendment would do anything to jeopardize the Free Speech laws is a startling thought, that they would deliberately set out to destroy them for quick profits is nearly beyond comprehension and a wake up call to anyone who still holds illusions about how benevolent these companies are. They are forcefully demonstrating daily that they will sell us out and walk on any one of us who gets in their way. That this is damaging the Republic in a profound way is irrelevant to them - but it mustn’t be to us and it should be stopped soon. Oddly enough it will shortchange their stockholders and will in time destroy the very business of media, but not before lasting damage is done to the country. Again and again their self serving actions prove these domestic and foreign conglomerates cannot and should not be trusted to archive the country’s thoughts and ideas, and that America’s matchless culture has no business being in business with these vultures.

Yo Ho Ho

Speaking of vultures, the RIAA has finally done what they’ve threatened to do for weeks and filed the first lawsuits against non-profit file sharers. If the vast majority of file sharers reacted with barely stifled yawns it’s only to be expected. The RIAA has long since lost credibility with those millions who frequent P2P’s and true or not the feeling among many seems to be that ignoring bullies makes them go away that much sooner. The rest of the country’s in a bit of a tizz though. The Newshour with Jim Leher did a well balanced story on the lawsuits and covered the implications trading music may have on a songwriter. Even my Mom caught wind of it and called me up, asking if I’d been sued ( I told her not to worry, I use “protection”). So here’s another reason to hate the RIAA: Making Laws That Make Moms Worry.

It’s a wind the RIAA may not care to have stirred up. 12 year old girls crying in front of national TV cameras don’t make for the best PR. Not when music company fatcats in posh threads sanctimoniously frown in false sympathy while pretending they’d rather be doing anything else but filing suits against clients, “We wish we didn’t have to sue our customers…” Right. Hey that’s OK, in a few more years you won’t have any more customers. They keep going like this and the whole industry’ll collapse in a yammering heap. Wish granted.

Word is even a politician’s riding the anti-music biz zeitgeist and taking aim at abysmal industry practices. Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman announced he’ll soon be having a tough look at those practices. He also said he thought the so-called “amnesty program” wasn’t something anybody should be too quick to jump onto. No kidding. Send those thugs your picture ID? No thanks. I’d feel safer publishing my credit card numbers on the net.

In any event turning back the file sharing clock is beyond the vaunted power of the RIAA and the U.S. Congress. The people will never stop sharing. They’d sooner remove the obstructionist members of congress who side with the copyright extremists than remove their file sharing programs. The day is not far off when – by their own doing - the leaders of the RIAA and their supporters will find themselves out of work, out of power and out of influence. It’s a day that won’t come too soon.










Enjoy,

Jack.









Tough New German Copyright Law Starts This Weekend - Jail Time For File Sharers
Deutsche Welle

Computer addicts nonchalantly offering and downloading music and films on the Internet in Germany now face legal crackdown as the country’s new copyright law comes into effect this weekend.

Around three billion pirate copies of CDs and DVDs are produced in Germany every year. New copyright legislation which takes effect starting Saturday will now change that.

The "law to regulate copyright in the information society" as it is called makes it illegal to reproduce copy-protected or bootlegged CDs and DVDs in Germany. It is seen as an additional tool in the fight against Internet and software piracy and is meant, in particular, to prevent people from downloading music or films from Internet file-sharing platforms.

German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries warned on Friday in Berlin that whether it was commercial, private, free or against payment, those who "offered or spread music, films or computer games as a download on the Internet without being authorized to do so, were liable to punishment."

The minister added that with the advent of the digital age, it had become necessary to extend the realm of copyright protection and intellectual property to the Internet.

She warned that the cracking or violation of copyright procedures and codes would be pursued with penalties and imprisonment if it "wasn’t exclusively meant for the personal use of the accused" or close family and friends.

The new legislation has been welcomed by the music industry.

The German Music Publishers’ Association said the amendment would finally spell an end to the long wait for copyright protection and said it expected that "the illegal copying of music would now be pursued seriously."

The organization also stressed last month that "enormous economic damage that the music branch has suffered from intellectual theft over the years" could be fought more effectively and added that now everyone should know that there was no legal Internet exchange.

The Scorpions, the most successful German band on the international stage, have also taken a stand on Internet exchanges. "As a band, the Scorpions, who've been together for thirty years now, have never suffered that much from this phenomenon," band member Matthias Jabs told Deutsche Welle recently. "But we do have a natural interest in seeing a fair relationship between artists producing the music and customers purchasing it. In whatever form. As long as people are actually paying."

But the Scorpions said they were concerned that the music industry was losing sight of its customers. They said that CDs were too expensive and that made it more attractive for people to download from the Internet at no charge.

"Record companies need to create new structures so as not to lose customers," Rudolf Schenker, another band member said. "Some kind of compromise must be reached to enable people to download music at any time. We have to get closer to our fans and communicate more quickly with them and respond to trends more quickly."

Many consumers use the Internet to track down new music, to get a taste of new bands. Although the industry has developed legal Web sites where consumers can pay for and download music, peer-to peer sites remain much more popular.

Industry would possibly be wise to find a way to allow peer-to-peer Internet exchanges though, since many consumers use the Web to track down and listen to new music.

"It makes it easy to expand my taste in music and listen in to new sounds," Sven Hansen, an editor at the German computer magazine "c't" told Deutsche Welle. "The Internet is the ideal medium for music and it doesn't have to be a disadvantage for the music industry. It means more people listen to music."

But the impetus in now on the industry. With the new law now in effect, people using the Net in Germany ought to think twice before downloading material from Internet exchanges. At the least they could be sued, at the most they could spend three years in jail.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,336...75_1_A,00.html


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

P2P Group: We'll Pay Girl's RIAA Bill
John Borland

A peer-to-peer group says it will cover costs for a 12-year-old New York girl who agreed to pay record labels $2,000 to settle a file-swapping lawsuit.

P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter.

"We do not condone copyright infringement, but someone has to draw the line to call attention to a system that permits multinational corporations with phenomenal financial and political resources to strong-arm 12-year-olds and their families in public housing the way this sorry episode dramatizes," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P United.

Eisgrau said he had not yet been in direct contact with Lahara or her mother.

In the few days since Lahara's unexpected rise into the public eye, the schoolgirl's case has become a cause celebre for RIAA critics, who say the recording industry's wave of lawsuits against file-traders is misguided.

According to a New York Post profile, Lahara is a 12-year-old honors student who lives in public housing. Her name turned up in one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the record industry group on Monday.

Lahara's $2,000 settlement was the first announced deal of what is expected to be many out-of-court agreements. RIAA President Cary Sherman said Monday that a handful of settlement agreements, averaging around $3,000 apiece, were already being negotiated.


In a statement released jointly by the RIAA and Lahara on Tuesday, Lahara said she was "very sorry" for what she had done. According to the RIAA, the girl's computer had illegally been sharing more than 1,000 songs through the Kazaa software.

"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," her mother, Sylvia Torres, added in the statement. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

The RIAA said the deal with Lahara satisfied its goal of sending a message to file swappers.

"As this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers," Mitch Bainwol, the group's new chief executive, said in the statement.

Previous targets of RIAA lawsuits have sometimes found financial help from the file-swapping community.

Daniel Peng, a Princeton University junior who agreed to settle file-trading charges with the RIAA for $15,000 earlier this year, has raised nearly $10,000 toward covering his costs from public donations made through PayPal and other online payment services, according to his Web site.

Eisgrau said P2P United had no plans to pay other file-swappers' legal fees. The recently founded group plans to lobby in Washington, D.C., for policies such as compulsory music licensing on peer-to-peer networks, which would force the music companies to allow songs to be traded on file-trading networks in return for some payment to copyright holders.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5074227.html


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

Aiming at Pornography to Hit Music Piracy
Saul Hansell

The recording industry, struggling to curb music piracy, is shining the spotlight on another demon lurking on the Internet: pornography.

The industry is trying to enlist broader public support with a campaign intended to show that its nemesis — the peer-to-peer networks for swapping files like KaZaA and Morpheus — are used not only to trade songs but also pornographic images, including child pornography.

"As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.

Others ask whether raising this issue is more than a little cynical from an industry that heavily promotes music with sexual and violent themes.

"The entertainment companies have engaged in a deliberate and despicable campaign of lies to smear peer-to-peer technology for political purposes," said Philip S. Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, the publisher of KaZaA, the largest file-sharing service. "They are trying to associate us unfairly with the most vile element in society, child pornography."

Pornography has been actively traded through file-sharing services from their start. But the record labels have recently started lending lobbying and logistical support to antipornography and child protection groups that are raising the issue. For example, Dan Klores Communications, which represents Sony Music and other music clients, has been promoting Parents for Megan's Law, a Long Island group involved with preventing child abuse that has been critical of child pornography available through file- sharing services, like KaZaA.

Their efforts are having some result. A bill has been introduced into the House, with the endorsement of the recording industry, that would require children to get parental consent before using sharing software. And on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to look into the connection between file-swapping services and pornography, called by its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah.

The labels, which blame online piracy for declining music sales, are fighting the downloading services on many fronts. They are trying to make paying for music more attractive through legal downloading services, and in the case of Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, slashing the price of most its CD's by 30 percent.

They are also trying to turn up the heat on those who continue to download songs without paying for them. This week the Recording Industry Association of America said it was going to start filing hundreds of lawsuits against individuals accused of swapping large numbers of copyrighted songs. The association also is planning to offer an amnesty program that would exempt from prosecution people who destroy all their illegally downloaded songs.

But in perhaps the most extreme sign of the industry's desperation, it is trying to focus the attention of lawmakers and others on how the peer-to-peer, or p2p, services can connect users with a range of ills including computer viruses, software that steals personal information and unwanted pornography.

"P2p stands for piracy to pornography," quipped Mr. Lack.

The file-sharing companies respond that the risk of children seeing pornography inadvertently on their systems is being overstated and that their software is no different from Web browsers and e-mail programs that can be used to find all sorts of material.

"This has nothing to do with concern about adult material and everything to do with commercial issues," said Alan Morris, executive vice president of Sharman Networks. He said that KaZaA introduced a parental control feature last year that can be used to block searches for pornographic material.

Laura A. Ahearn, the director of Parents for Megan's Law, argues that the file-sharing services are different because their main use is for trading music, an activity that disproportionately appeals to teenagers and young adults.

"KaZaA is just like Joe Camel," she said referring to the cartoon logo that had been used by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings to promote its Camel cigarette brand. "KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."

The available evidence does not show that pornography on file-sharing systems is growing any faster than through other online vehicles. Indeed, the federally financed child pornography tip line run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that 1.3 percent of the reports of Internet child pornography were related to file- sharing services so far this year, down from 2.1 percent last year. Nearly three-quarters of child pornography reported is on Web sites. The Web sites typically charge fees for access while the file-sharing services are free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/te...gy/07PORN.html


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

Students Angry Over Music Piracy Suits
Reuters

Anger, defiance and fear were the main reactions of college students on Tuesday after the music industry said it was suing 261 individuals for swapping illegal copies of songs over the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday it sued individuals across the United States for as much as $150,000 per song distributed online, targeting the biggest users, those with large libraries of pirated music.

"If kids start getting arrested and dragged out of dorms and fined, other kids will definitely think twice before doing it," Eric Cioe, a biology student at New York University, said outside the university's library.

Focusing on individuals

But other students at NYU, located in the city where 70 of the 261 lawsuits were filed, were outraged.

Many college students upload music and make it available to others on the Internet through file-sharing programs such as Kazaa and iMesh. The new lawsuits switch the record industry's focus from those file-sharing companies to the users of file-sharing programs instead.

"This is insane, they can't just hack into our systems and track our activities. It's our property," said Lucy Chen, a sociology student who thinks downloading free music is fair because compact discs are overpriced.

RIAA members include the "Big Six" record companies: Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group; Sony Corp.'s Sony Music; Bertelsmann AG's BMG; EMI Group Plc.; and Warner Music, part of CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner.

The companies have promised to file thousands more lawsuits in the coming months against individuals who swap music. The industry believes minimizing file-sharing will stem the three-year decline in global recorded music sales.

Some students settle

Music companies and national trade bodies are pursuing individual lawsuits in Denmark, Germany, Italy and elsewhere. But the blanket region-wide lawsuit strategy, for now, will play out only in the United States where the music industry estimates roughly 90 percent of all file-sharers reside.

"I'm very worried about my brother at Johns Hopkins University. He's very involved in file-sharing and would have to get a lawyer if he gets into trouble," said one pre- law student at NYU.

Four university students who were sued earlier this year for operating campuswide music-sharing programs reached settlements under which they will pay between $12,000 and $17,500 to the recording industry.

College students have access to "peer-to-peer" networks on university computer systems which enable them to swap music with thousands of people.

"When we want to check our e-mail, we can barely connect because people are using up bandwidth to share music with 15,000 people. It's annoying," Cioe said.

Erasing tracks

Another student who refused to be identified said he uploads music and shares files, but is not concerned by the new lawsuits. "I consider myself technologically savvy, and I know how to erase my tracks," he said.

RIAA also unveiled an amnesty program for individuals not currently under investigation which would remove the threat of prosecution from those who promise to refrain from such activity in the future and erase all copyrighted music they have downloaded.

Still, law student Erica Olsen said downloading music is her best option. "Often, I just want one song from a CD, and I don't want to pay 22 bucks for it. I don't think any amount of legislation is going to force us to buy CDs."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09...eut/index.html


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

Court Increases Fines Record Companies Must Pay - Executives To Pay As Well

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has welcomed the Federal Court's upholding of a lower court's decision that Warner Music and Universal Music had breached section 47 of the Trade Practices Act. The court increased the fines payable by the two companies to over $2 million.

A full bench of the Federal Court on Friday upheld a decision by a lower court that Warner Music and Universal Music had engaged in anti-competitive practices in the local CD market by threatening retailers who import cheaper CDs.

The court did not affirm a breach of section 46, based on the earlier High Court Boral judgement. The total penalties payable by Warner, Universal and company senior executives were increased by the Federal Court to over $2 million.

During the trial, Justice Hill had held that Warner and Universal had breached the Act by threatening to refuse to supply retailers who stocked parallel-imported CDs, and then refusing to supply retailers who stocked such imports.

The findings made by Justice Hill - preventing Warner and Universal from refusing, or threatening to refuse supply to retailers for this reason - were upheld by the Full Federal Court.

The ACCC, which established a breach of the Trade Practices Act at trial, appealed the penalty awarded by Justice Hill (totalling more than $1 million) saying it was inadequate due to the circumstances of the case.

ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said: "This decision is important as it sends a strong message to those who would attempt to influence retailers against stocking the often cheaper parallel- imported CDs in competition with Australian-made CDs."

He said consumers could benefit from the lower prices and greater choice.

"Justices Wilcox, French and Gyles further clarified the law regarding misuse of market power by following the High Court judgment in the recent Boral case," Samuel said. "Both Warner and Universal were unsuccessful in appealing the original decision of Justice Hill that they had contravened the exclusive dealing provision of the Act".

The Full Court ordered the following penalties:

· Warner and Universal - $1,000,000 each
· Paul Dickson (formerly PolyGram group managing director of music operations) - decreased from $50,000 to $45,000
· Craig Handley (formerly PolyGram general manager of sales) - $45,000
· Gary Smerdon (director of Warner, formerly finance and business affairs director) - $45,000; and
· Greg Maksimovic (Warner NSW state manager) - $45,000.

The court ordered that the companies pay half of the ACCC's appeal costs and half of its trial costs.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...663710106.html


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


Strange but true - Dell's software license policy

Dude, you're getting screwed

Kat and I just received the Dell Inspiron 5100 notebook we ordered from Dell Canada. We quickly ran across problems.

I pushed the power button to turn on computer. I got the Dell POST screen, then a screen from Dell (Photo):

SOFTWARE LICENSES

- Before using your computer, read all of the software license
agreements that came with each program that you ordered.
There may be several agreements to examine. To comply with
the terms and conditions of the software license agreements,
you must consider any CD or diskette set of Dell-installed software
as BACKUP copies of the software installed on your computer's
hard-disk drive.

- If you did not order Dell-installed software for this computer,
or if you do not accept all the terms of the licenses, please call
the customer assistance telephone number listed in your system
documentation.

Press any key on the keyboard to indicate that you have
read all of the software licenses and agree to their terms.

Be Direct TM
Dell TM
www.dell.com


But there are no license agreements in the box that the computer came in. [There are some shrinkwrapped CD containers, but the "Terms and Conditions of Sale (CANADA)" that came with the invoice says:

"7. Software. All software is provided subject to the license
agreement that is part of the package. Customer agrees that
it will be bound by the license agreement once the package is
opened or its seal is broken. Dell does not warrant any software
under this Agreement. Warranties, if any, for the software are
contained in the license agreement that governs its purchase
and use."


I've never agreed to those Terms and Conditions, to my knowledge, but I assume they think they're enforceable, so I can't open up the shrinkwrap to see if the license agreements are in there, without automatically agreeing to them.]

So I called the only Dell number I could find on my documentation (1-800-847-4096) and spoke to a customer support representative. I told her what was on the screen, and told her I couldn't find the license agreements I'm required to read and agree to before pressing any key.

She put me on hold while she looked into where the license agreements might be, and eventually transferred me to technical support. The tech support agent told me her database was down, so she couldn't look up anything at all (I hadn't even told her what the problem was yet), and I'd have to call back in an hour.

I call back, and speak to a tech support woman. She says: "press Tab." I explain that I can't without saying I've read and agreed to documents I don't have. She says "press page down". Same problem. She says "scroll down". I explain it's not a Windows screen. She says "insert any Dell-shipped CD". I exlpain the problem of opening the CD packaging.

She insists I have to press a key. I ask her if she really means that I have to agree to the licenses before it's at all possible that i've read them. She says "yes". I explain that that's not acceptable, and ask for her supervisor.

Her supervisor insists it's a Customer Care issue, and not tech support, and that there's nothing he can do. He can't explain why they sent me to him. He enters my info into the call log databse, and I go to call back Customer Care.

So back into the hold queue I go.

I'm finally connected to a Customer Care representative. [Pretty much each sentence in the following was interspersed with long, long times on hold.]

She looked up the call log to get the background info. She insists she doesn't have copies of the agreements, and that I'm supposed to go online and look them up myself. (?!) She says to use a public computer if I have to. I ask how to know what companies have software on my disk. She goes away for a bit, and says she doesn't have that information, and there's nothing they can do. [And there's no supervisor available.] She asks why I don't want to agree to the license. I explain I haven't *seen* it. She says "it just says you won't copyright any of the files". I ignore the mistake, and explain that licensing agreements are long, long documents that say much more than that, and that anyway, the screen says that I have to have *read* it.

Eventually she does manage to connect me to Alan Burley (Manager, Customer Service).

He said he installs things all the time without reading the license agreements. He says I should just do that. I ask if he's really telling me to lie and to agree to legal documents I haven't seen. He says I don't have to, but the only thing he can do is take the computer back. He says that it's the first time this issue has escalated. He does manage to tell me what software is on the system, and says I need to go to those companies' websites to get their agreements. [Never mind that I need the OEM version and that's unlikely to be there.] I ask _him_ what if this was my first computer. He said I would have to go to a library or a friend's house. He really couldn't send me the agreements that Dell insists I read and agree to before using the computer.

He said he couldn't give me his phone number or mailing address, and that he didn't have a boss who could talk to me.

So we've got nothing left to do but send it back. He says he'll send waybills, and will refund the cost of the computer, including the original shipping charge, and won't charge a restocking fee. We will have to pay for the shipping back to the Oakville depot. I figured we could just run it by there ourselves (it's not too far), but he said that that's not possible. (I don't understand why. We'll probably try, anyway.)

It's crazy that it came to this. If they had said *anything* reasonable, we would have been happy to just install Linux on the thing and be done with it. But they were saying that anyone who uses a Dell laptop (with this startup screen) *has* to just lie about having read the licenses, and just blindly agree to them. That's unacceptable enough that it's going back.

It's also interesting to note that everyone except Mr. Burley assumed that I was talking about a Microsoft screen which included the Windows EULA, until I told them otherwise. This was a Dell screen, with no EULA, and I'm surprised that none of these people were aware of its existence.

After all this, we *did* try to boot off a Linux install CD. That just took us to the same screen as before. So we had to go into the BIOS so that it would try to boot off the CD before the hard disk, but after we did that, Windows started to boot, without having displayed the "press a key to agree" screen. We quickly powered the machine down before Windows started. [Though now you no longer get the "press a key to agree" screen when you turn it on, even with the BIOS settings back the way they were.]

This took from around 3pm to around 8:30pm today. I'm just bewildered that Dell corporate policy is that users need to lie to use their new laptops, and to agree to legal agreements that it's completely impossible to have read. This is the next level above "click-through" licenses. Now, they figure no one reads the EULAs anyway, so why bother even providing a copy?
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/dell.html


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

Nordic Countries to Promote Open Source
Posted by michael

from the pining-for-the-fjords dept.

Nordic Avenger writes "The Nordic countries have launched a website to promote open source software to consumers and small businesses. People can submit open source software links as well as exchange information in the forums section. As the website states: 'Nordicos.org is a project of the Nordic Ministerial Council, and addresses the need for a comprehensive overview of open source software available for consumers'. Now, anybody eager to make good suggestions about software that normal people could find useful and live happily ever after in the open source world?"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/31/0128252


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

Italian Spammers Face Jail
BBC

Senders of unsolicited junk e-mails in Italy will now face jail sentences of up to three years, according to Italian media reports. The country's privacy watchdog issued the ruling in an attempt to limit the huge amount of advertising and promotional material sent online. Sending e-mails without the permission of the receiver is against the law in Italy. Offenders now risk fines of up to 90,000 euros and between six months and three years in prison, if it is proved that they did it to make a profit.

The ruling follows estimates by the European Commission that spam e-mails cost EU companies approximately 2.25bn euros in lost productivity last year EU legislation banning unwanted e-mail is due to come into force on 31 October, but correspondents say that, given the global nature of the internet, it may have little effect. Most spam comes from the United States and China, and will be outside its reach.

The EU legislation leaves it to each member state how to enforce the legislation, as long as the enforcement is "effective". It is hosting an OECD workshop on the problem in January in an attempt to boost co-operation. The European Commission says that between one-third and 50% of all e-mails sent or received are now junk or spam. The problem is being compounded by virus writers using similar tactics to spammers to spread their malicious creations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3080396.stm


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

'Don't abandon us!' - pleads Sharman cto Morle

We're still waiting for a response from Altnet, Sharman Networks' Kazaa partner, so we can follow up on important, perhaps even vital, privacy issues we raised in Kazaa Plus -v- Kazaa NonPlus.

And while we wait, Sharman is a great place packed with cool people who really like p2p and who'd never dream of doing anything nasty, says cto Phil Morle.

Or words to that effect.

Because Sharman is now trying to repair some of the damage caused the RIAA-inspired DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) violation notices it fired off the same week it sent out puff pieces on its so-called ad- free version of Kazaa (see Kazaa Plus -v- Kazaa NonPlus).

A 'Gosh golly' PR shot from Morle crafted specifically to give the impression that Sharman (and by default, Kazaa) is full of groovy kids just trying to have fun is now doing the rounds online. It's addressed to Slyck, one of the longest-lived p2p sites and the place a lot of people visit to find out what's happening with the various apps and networks.

Naturally, Kazaa Lite featured on Slyck and it, together with Google and a number of other sites, was, in consequence, the recipient of a DMCA notice.

"[...] we were served with this notice ordering the removal of links to 2 Kazaa Lite related websites namely http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/ mirror.htm#klitekpp210b2e and http://doa2.host.sk/," says Slyck on its web site, going on that Slyck complied.

Said Ray Hoffman, Website owner and administrator: "Slyck has recently been issued a DMCA complaint by Sharman Networks, the company that makes the Kazaa Media Desktop software. The complaint states that we are to remove the links to certain pages that are infringing on their copyrights. We were supplied no proof that these pages actually have been found by legal means to be guilty of infringement. We have decided to remove these links while we seek legal council as to this matter.

"We are saddened that a company that used to be friendly to the P2P world has grown too large and greedy and now seeks to manipulate any avenue to gain it's monetary goals. Slyck.com feels that actions taken on behalf of Sharman Networks are directly opposed to the benefit of the P2P community and we can no longer support the Kazaa Media Desktop."

Saddened but not surprised, we'd bet, since Kazaa went Korporate quite a while back.

Having threatened Slyck, through Morle's letter, Sharman is now trying to make the file sharing community, large numbers of whom now think Kazaa is something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe, believe the people over at the K-shop are all good sticks, really.

Rest of piece and lots o’ comments…js.

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

It’s just another business apparently.

Piracy may Transform Christian Music Industry
John Hall

Pirates not only have ruled the Caribbean at the box office this summer, they've continued to ravage the music industry -- including the Christian music industry.

Illegal compact discs and Internet downloads are pushing people out of work and driving creativity and variety out of the Christian music industry, according to insiders.

Christian music sales have fallen for the first time in two years, and piracy is largely to blame, according to John Styll, president of the Gospel Music Association. Although he does not have solid numbers of Christian music downloads from file-sharing sites, he said several factors indicate large amounts of activity.

Many songs from Christian artists appear on peer-to-peer file-sharing sites, where people can trade electronic files across the Internet. Songs from artists like Michael W. Smith, Third Day, Amy Grant and Stephen Curtis Chapman are readily available.

Additionally, recordable compact discs outsold music CDs by a 2-to-1 ratio this year in North America, according to the Recording Industry Association of America. Sales of MP3 players, which play the digital files, jumped 56 percent last year.

Couple these facts with the 10 percent decline in Christian music sales in the first six months of this year compared to last year, and Styll believes the connection is obvious.

Proponents of file sharing claim the process does not hurt anyone because the artists already make outrageous amounts of money.

Styll agrees the average retail price for albums is too high, but illegal downloading and CD burning hurt everyone in the industry -- from engineers to producers to CD manufacturers, he added. One record label cut its workforce 10 percent because of the sales reductions, he said.

"I would keep making music for free, but because I work for a label, I don't think those people should work for free," said multiple Dove Award nominee Shaun Groves.

Piracy also decreases the variety of Christian music available, said Groves. Recording labels are allowing their artists to take fewer risks, he said, because the profit margin is so slim that investors cannot afford for any album to lose money. To ensure projects make money, executives produce only albums that will have mainstream appeal.

That means leaving certain topics out of contemporary Christian music, Groves mourned. It also means signing fewer new artists and cutting other performers faster. Had such a mentality prevailed in the past, artists like Rich Mullins, who was not immediately successful, would have been dropped and not blossomed into major Christian music favorites, he added.

"If you make music that has the whole truth of Scripture, it's risky," Groves said.

Todd Agnew, whose first single off his debut album shot to No. 1 on the Christian pop charts, echoed Groves' thoughts, saying he does not expect to make money during his first year of touring behind the album but hopes to survive to make a second record.

"We're swimming as fast as we can to keep our heads above water," he said.

Despite the negative effects of illegal downloading and CD burning, Styll and the artists agree that digital music can have a positive purpose. Mainstream artists such as Toad the Wet Sprocket and John Mayer gained popularity through fans spreading their music without buying it.
http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3803


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

You Go Grrrl: Confessions Of An Unrepentant Pirate
Annalee Newitz

I like to violate copyright everyday. Usually it's in some small way. I'll copy an Oingo Boingo CD for a friend, photocopy an interesting essay from an anthology, or maybe download an episode of Six Feet Under from a file-sharing network. Sometimes I go bigger, like when I bought a bunch of cracked software from a guy who was literally standing in a shady doorway, or when I bought a pirated DVD on the street in New York City (yes, it looked like shit when I played it).

I only steal from the rich. Once I copied a Mountain Goats CD, because I loved it so much and couldn't find it anywhere. As soon as I did, I bought that CD and about five more by the same band. That was a situation where I was sure the artist, who works through an independent label, would actually get my money. I don't have that same feeling about creators whose work is owned by giant media conglomerates. And frankly, I really don't care if Danny Elfman never sees the money he might have made if I hadn't copied that Oingo Boingo CD. He's rich enough as it is.

When I was a kid, I cried while reading Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the dystopian novel about a future where books are illegal. I can remember big, hot tears rolling down my face during the scene in which the evil authorities are burning books. Bradbury describes each one as if it were human: Alice from Alice in Wonderland screams in agony; Shakespeare's characters weep as they are reduced to ash.

I know it's sentimental of me, but I think of creative works as if they were somehow human, as if they had lives of their own – many lives, playing out in strange, unknowable ways inside each mind that absorbs them. And when I see art and music and writing and movies and TV shows forbidden to me by draconian copyright laws, I don't think about legal documents full of tidy little justifications of property law. I see living beings in chains. I see Mickey Mouse, who has tried to escape again, burned by the lash. I hear Marilyn Monroe, imprisoned by her copyrighted image, howling to get free.

And I want to set her free. I want to see Marilyn running around in the open air, somersaulting in the grass, smiling and pirouetting for anyone who wants to watch her. I want people to invite her into their own imaginations and turn her into something else.

I've never been one for pussyfooting around when it comes to liberating what some corporation or mogul calls "private property." I don't really give a shit about capitalism. I think it's a scam. Rich guys who own everything trade stocks, and the rest of us, who own the vast majority of nothing, watch welfare wither away. If we make something beautiful and try to make a living by selling it, we can't own it. My beautiful thing will be the property of some company that has slapped a cover on it.

I'll leave it to Lawrence Lessig to explain how copyright limitations can nourish free trade and moneymaking. I'll let Declan McCullagh explain why there is no contradiction between capitalism and civil liberties for all. I don't care if my file-sharing cripples the economy. I want to rebel against the property holders, the people who took away our beautiful things and called them commodities. Until culture belongs to all of us equally, I will continue to infringe.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16511



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

Protests Delay Software Patents Vote
Matthew Broersma

The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive, after protests and criticism by computer scientists and economists.

The vote, originally planned for Monday, will now take place at a plenary session starting Sept. 22.

Software patents have been likened to allowing a monopoly on the ideas behind stories, and opponents of the proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions claim it would effectively allow unlimited software patents. In the United States, large companies acquire arsenals of patents that they use to protect themselves from upstart competition.

The directive, drafted by Labor Member of European Parliament Arlene McCarthy, has generated political opposition from the Greens and the European Socialist Party (PSE), among others. The German and French socialist parties are using the delay as an opportunity to raise MEPs' awareness of the issues surrounding software patents ahead of the late-September plenary session.

A demonstration last week in Brussels, Belgium, that attracted more than 400 participants was organized by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) and Eurolinux, among other groups, which also persuaded several hundred Web sites to black out their front pages in protest.

A June vote on the proposal was put back amid criticism by MEPs that the legislation would institute a U.S.-style patent atmosphere that would be detrimental to European small businesses and open-source software developers.

The proposed software-patenting legislation is the result of a European Commission effort to clarify patenting rules as they apply to "computer-implemented inventions," a term that can be taken to include software. The patent offices of different EU member states have different criteria for accepting the validity of software-related patents, a situation that the Commission's proposal aims to remedy.

MEP McCarthy said in a June analysis of the proposed directive that there were links between the patentability of computer-related inventions and the growth of IT industries in the United States. Such patents aided "in particular the growth of small and medium enterprises and independent software developers," she wrote, citing a study on the issue carried out for the European Parliament by London's Intellectual Property Institute.

But in a recent letter criticizing the directive, a group of economists poured scorn on any notion that software patents and business growth are connected, saying most economic research does not support this claim. They argued that the directive in its current form would "have serious detrimental effects on European innovation, growth, and competitiveness."
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5070092.html


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

Colleges Crack Down on Viruses Associated Press
AP

Still recovering from a summer of Internet infections, colleges are taking unusually aggressive steps to protect campus computer networks from virus outbreaks.

Students returning to classes are finding themselves summarily unplugged if their computers are infected. Oberlin College in Ohio is threatening to fine students $25 for inadvertently spreading a virus.

"When you're drowning you try to do something quick," said John Bucher, Oberlin's director of information technology. "We're really stressed by this whole thing." Bucher said the network suffered "near meltdown" on Aug. 21, when the first returning students arrived on campus with badly infected computers.

Back-to-back waves of devastating infections that spread quickly across the Internet during August crippled some college and high school networks just before the start of the fall semester. The attacks overwhelmed many technology departments already starved for employees and money.

At the University of North Texas, technicians are removing viruses from roughly 16 computers every 90 minutes -- plus assessing a mandatory $30 cleaning fee. Students who have infections cleaned from their computers off campus must show proof before they're allowed to log back onto the school network.

Vanderbilt University found infections in computers of roughly one-fourth its returning 5,000 students. Stunned technicians shut off connections to nearly 1,200 computers they determined were infected and gradually restored service over the next several days after ensuring each machine was clean.

Salisbury University in Maryland shut down its entire network for students in residence halls for one day, even after employees spent two weeks cleaning 500 school computers. The shutdown stranded students who use the network to check class schedules and order meal tickets.

"It just starts firing all this traffic across your network so it slows everybody down," said Jerry Waldron, the school's chief information officer. "If we didn't do anything at all, it would slow our entire network down to a crawl."

It's never been a more challenging time to run a computer network on campus. Unlike managers in corporations, college officials provide Internet connections for student computers over which they have little direct control. These high-speed networks are powerful, widely distributed across campuses and purposely left open to help in the sharing of data.

"Universities don't own a number of the systems that are attached to their networks," said Ryan McGee of Network Associates, a leading antivirus vendor. "They don't have as much control as corporate America."

Technology departments complain they aren't given enough employees, money or respect -- yet they're the first ones called when the networks fail. Many rely on student volunteers, because federal or state money available to buy equipment often can't be spent to pay employees to maintain it.

"They really have their work cut out for them," said Rich Harpel of the National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges. "There are so many issues that go along with being the steward of some of the most powerful computers and networks."

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology shuts off Internet service to computers it determines are infected, said Kirky DeLong, a manager at one of MIT's research labs. In extreme cases, officials will block all traffic to and from a suspect computer based on its digital fingerprint.

Oberlin, which began requiring all students to have their computers checked for viruses when they arrive on campus, found infections in nine out of every 10 running Windows software, Bucher said.

The wait at the school's computer lab stretched one hour, and scans of some computers loaded with music files took 90 minutes. But students largely took the delay in stride, Bucher said.

In Palm Beach County, the nation's 14th-largest school district shut down its computers for more than two days last week, said Larry Padgett, its director of network services. The district had to delay a head count that helps assign teachers based on school population.

Schools in Cleveland cautioned parents and students that the summer's infections might delay the opening of classes, but the district mobilized 120 employees to scrub viruses from nearly 8,000 computers and schools opened on schedule.

Employees worked overtime so school personnel could finalize student schedules, set up assignments and prepare payroll.

"Everything got done, but it did not make for a pleasant opening," said Peter Robertson, the district's chief information officer.

Some schools managed to avoid disaster. Duke University filtered out 2.5 million infected e-mails, said Christopher Cramer, the school's computer security officer. Only two or three student computers were hit and only a dozen or so campus machines have been affected.

At Temple University, officials sent 90,000 e-mails and 27,000 flyers over the past two weeks warning students and teachers about threats from the latest virus attacks and instructing them how to secure their computers.

Temple's network ensures students' PCs are protected by antivirus software from Symantec -- which the school provides free -- before it allows them to surf the Web or check e-mail. Officials credit that with keeping infections down to about 400 computers out of 35,000 students.

"If it had been 10-fold, it would have crashed the network," said Ariel Silverstone, the chief information security officer. "This could have been a catastrophe."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,60299,00.html


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

Japanese IP Experts To Assist Judges
ILN

The Japanese Supreme Court plans to nominate 100 intellectual property experts to assist judges with expert testimony during copyright and patent cases. Judges will also receive additional training to handle the complexity of IP law.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20030828wo32.htm


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

Databases--The Next Copyright Battle?
Reuters

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives are circulating a proposed bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives and other databases that do not enjoy copyright protection.

The proposed bill would provide a legal umbrella for publishers of factual information such as courtroom decisions and professional directories. The measures would be similar to the copyright laws that protect music, novels and other creative works.

The bill has not yet been introduced, but the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a joint hearing on the bill in the coming weeks, a Commerce Committee spokesman said.

Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect themselves against those who simply cut and paste databases to resell them or to make them available for free online.

Violators could be shut down and forced to pay triple the damages incurred.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and consumer advocates said they plan to write letters of protest soon, arguing that the bill could dramatically limit the public's access to information. Database providers can protect themselves through terms-of-service agreements with their customers, said Joe Rubin, director of congressional and public affairs at the chamber.

"We think this is already dealt with under license and contract law, and there's no reason to extend beyond that," Rubin said.

Sometimes user agreements do not provide enough protection, said Keith Kupferschmid, a policy expert with the Software and Information Industry Association, which supports the bill.

In one instance, a Minnesota magazine publisher had no legal recourse when its entire directory of local schools was copied and redistributed. In other cases, operators of pornographic Web sites have copied real estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure in unwitting visitors, he said.

The law could help those who make information available for free online, Kupferschmid said. Reuters America, a unit of Reuters Group, is a member of the trade group.

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on, when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free," he said. "Without that law, there's really nothing to protect them."

Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel at the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, said the bill would likely make information less freely available.

"Information, when not copyrighted, is something that can be shared. Once you start putting fences around information...there's no freedom of inquiry," said Godwin.

"That doesn't make us smarter, it makes us dumber," he said.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5072206.html


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

File-Sharers Scoff At Lawsuits
Shawn Langlois

The recording industry continued to push mounds of paper Monday, filing suit against 261 people for allegedly pirating songs on file-sharing Websites like Kazaa.

That leaves about 59,999,739 to go.

But if the countless tune-swappers trolling through cyberspace were intimidated by the spate of lawsuits, you wouldn't know it. The consensus message from a bounty of cavalier posts aimed at the Recording Industry Association of America became abundantly clear: Bring it on!

Nanuk, for example, heartily pounded his chest along with his cronies on Yahoo: "You can take away my MP3's when you pry my mouse out of my cold dead hands."

It's all about the money, according to Tnintbubse: "Consumers will not tolerate their price gouging and they need to come up with something else besides suing college kids. The industry has gone unchecked too long and has passed the cost down to us. Now they are crying."

Howler24 drew a line of futility between what he feels are two ill-fated crusades: "Yes, you can cry and moan about the 'evils' of drugs and file sharing. But when you're through foaming at the mouth, you have to realize that they are BOTH here to stay. No law, no court can change that. The best thing to do is to control it and make it profitable, instead of driving it underground."

Needless to say, the RIAA's option for file-sharers to turn themselves in didn't go over to well. See full story.

From Rmonster: "I have a feeling that anyone who signs up for this 'amnesty' is going to find themselves up the creek. Sending a notarized copy of your ID and statement that you did, in fact, break the law (in their eyes at least) does not sound like amnesty, but suicide."

As Apophis sees it, the RIAA is out of touch "It's time for the RIAA as we know it to go away and an agency more in tune with the 21st century needs to be put in its place. One that looks forward and not stuck in decades old business practices."

Though greatly outnumbered, some did play devil's advocate --AndyCane, for instance, didn't see much wiggle room for the virtual apologists: "I'm no huge fan of the RIAA, but they have a right to protect their copyrighted material and (neither) you, nor I, nor anyone else, has the right to 'share' it without paying for it, at least not on the scale that it's done on file-sharing sites."

Then, of course, there was plenty of cheeky advice. This morsel from SkyPilotTB: "Stop book sharing. Sue libraries."

And WWWFairfield hinted at hopping aboard the Justin and Britney bashing bandwagon with his take: "Look at the top ten -- THAT explains why sales of CDs are lacking. Stop looking for pretty faces and recruit real musicians to record and sell music."

Finally, ArbaCadarba painted the picture just about everyone on line has been clamoring for since the rise and fall of Napster: "Now what I would love to see is all music artists selling their stuff directly to music lovers, bypassing the music industry completely.

"That would bring more money to the artists, more music to the people, and the extra pleasure of watching rich music industry execs pulling their hair out."
http://netscape5.marketwatch.com/new...0FA7C27920B%7D


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

“I think it's very possible the record industry might already be on its way out.” John Flansburgh

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

Senator Questions RIAA Amnesty Plan
TechWeb News

Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who has been critical of the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) tactics in bringing music file sharing to heel, on Monday warned consumers that signing the RIAA's amnesty agreement may not be the brightest idea.

On Monday, the RIAA filed 261 lawsuits against file swappers in federal courts across the country, and unveiled its Clean Slate amnesty program, which requires users to sign and deliver an affidavit in which they promise to delete or destroy all illegally- obtained digital music files, and swear off downloading or copying any in the future.

“The newly proposed 'amnesty' is clearly a strategy by the industry to address some of the concerns I and others have had in this matter,” said Coleman in a statement. “But, it raises new issues that require careful analysis and review.”

In particular, Coleman took exception to the idea of millions of minors potentially submitting and signing legal documents that plead themselves guilty to the RIAA.

“That may not be the best approach to achieving a balance between protecting copyright laws and punishing those who violate those laws,” Coleman said.

The Senator vowed that he would soon announce Congressional hearings to look into the RIAA's tactics to quash tune copying and sharing.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20030909S0008


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

Music Downloads And Pornography

Congress Investigating P2P File-Sharing Networks

Some young teens who go online searching for music may stumble upon smut instead, the record industry warns Congress.
Fred Francis

The recording industry this week decided to file lawsuits against more than 250 people, charging them with illegally downloading music over the internet. But something else is finding its way into music files — hard core pornography — and the music industry is calling it a growing problem.

Jackie And Catie, like many 12-year olds, are going online for music and finding porn instead. The teens search for music to record, using a relatively new software that gives them access through what is known as peer to peer file-sharing networks. But some of their so-called peers are using it as a vehicle to distribute smut.

“It’s not something that you want to see, like, ever, for even adults. It’s really disturbing,” said 12-year old Jaclyn Ribaudo.

The girls have learned, in a shocking way, what Congress is trying to come to grips with — that the networks, say investigators, are being turned into pornography super-stores. A kid wanting a Britney Spears song often finds her name connected to hardcore sexual content. Many parents don’t have a clue.

“If your child can outsmart you on the computer then peer to peer’s a dangerous place for your child to be,” said industry expert Randy Saff.

One of the networks alone averages 3 million downloads a week. Congress’s investigative arm examined a small sample of file-sharing searches that children might attempt, and found almost half led to pornography.

The P2P industry says that the problem is being exaggerated by the music industry which wants to stop the free exchange of music on the Internet, and that porn peddlers use e-mail and other Internet services as well.

“We give people a tool,” said P2P industry representative Philip Corwin. “It could be used for good purposes and bad purposes and we have no control over how individuals use our software.”

And most experts agree it is technologically impossible to block all sexual material from these networks — short of shutting down the computer. Music companies want Congress to forbid file sharing altogether, claiming they’re losing billions in music sales when kids download pirated songs.

“Piracy’s not good. Downloading pornography’s not good for a child. There’s just not that many applications that a child would actually get use out of peer to peer,” said one music store patron.

But for Congress, it could be a censorship issue and until that’s resolved, parents have to police their kids on the Internet.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/964077.asp


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

“Well, I don't think you're going to solve the problem by suing 12 year olds.”

Downloading Music
PBS Newshour

The Recording Industry Association of America on Monday filed lawsuits against 261 people for allegedly downloading thousands of copyrighted songs via popular Internet file-sharing networks. Two musicians debate the merits of the RIAA's move and its effect on the music industry.

RAY SUAREZ: Yesterday the music industry took another step to stop it, for the first time going after people downloading and swapping music online. The Recording Industry of America, or RIAA, filed 261 lawsuits against people who shared copyrighted music over the Internet.

While the largest group of music swappers are college students, the lawsuits targeted all walks of life, including parents, bankers, and bus drivers, who had all copied an average of 1,000 songs into files. Record companies have blamed the 31 percent drop in CD music sales over the past three years mostly on the online music piracy, and sued many of the online file-sharing networks. RIAA President Cary Sherman said yesterday's lawsuits were aimed at keeping people from stealing music.

CARY SHERMAN: We want people to stop engaging in the theft of music so that people can go on making it. This is a terrible thing where people are biting the hands that make the music and destroying the very music that they want to continue to be created.

RAY SUAREZ: In April, the industry settled lawsuits against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Now the recording industry is offering an amnesty deal for file- sharers who turn themselves in before being subpoenaed and promise to stop sharing music. Under copyright law, music companies can sue for up to $150,000 per song. This week's lawsuits are expected to be followed by thousands more.

RAY SUAREZ: Some reactions now to the lawsuits and the industry's actions from two men who are writing and making the music. John Flansburgh is a singer and guitarist for the rock-pop duo They Might be Giants. Their web site features songs by the band that can be downloaded for free. And Chuck Cannon is a songwriter in Nashville whose work has been recorded by such artists as Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton, and Trisha Yearwood. He is the president of the music publishing company Wasissa River Music.

Chuck Cannon, let's start with you. What is your reaction to the RIAA's decision to sue individual down-loaders?

CHUCK CANNON: I think it's sad that the RIAA has had to do that to basically serve as a deterrent for people who are stealing music online.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you think that will stop people who were doing it regularly, doing it commonly, once they see that, a sort of cautionary warning?

CHUCK CANNON: Well, I'm not certain that it will entirely stop it. I know that there are speed limits on the freeway, and it doesn't entirely stop speeders. But the threat of a ticket slows people down.

RAY SUAREZ: You say you regret that the RIAA had to do it, but when you watch them move ahead with these suits, do you feel they're protecting you, as someone who writes songs?

CHUCK CANNON: Well, I think that they've tried everything else, and it seems that nothing else has worked. And I do believe that if someone is faced with the likelihood that they will, that they may face a fine or face some prison time, I'm sure that will serve as a deterrent for a lot of people.

RAY SUAREZ: John Flansburgh, what is your reaction to the RIAA's move?

JOHN FLANSBURGH: It seems kind of bizarre to me, actually. I think it's very strange for a company that, an organization that represents such a schmoozey business to be kind of running for grinch the way the RIAA has been for the past five years or so.

RAY SUAREZ: But it says, the industry says, and individual companies that are members of the RIAA say that people have been getting for free what they're trying to sell in stores and their options on how to stop it are pretty limited. What is your reaction to that?

JOHN FLANSBURGH: Well, I mean people hear the radio for free as well. And in some ways I think a lot of artists have realized that the MP-3 format is a great way to promote what they're doing, especially if they don't have unlimited access to the radio or MTV. It's a way for people to stay in touch with recording artists. I think the RIAA has a valid point. They're losing a lot of business. But I'm not entirely sure that it's a battle that they're really going to be able to win. I think they're losing valuable time catching up with technology and figuring out where the industry really needs to go next.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, where do you cross the line between promotions-- and as you say, I mean, the radio has been seen as a tool for getting people to like new artists since there has been radio. Where do you cross the line between promotion and forgoing people who would otherwise go into a store and buy a recording of yours?

JOHN FLANSBURGH: It's a very blurry line. And it's been blurry for a long time. I think the reality is, the challenge of the Internet is trying to figure out where ownership starts; you know -- in some ways, what's the difference between broadcasting and publishing if there is no actual thing. If you have on-demand music in your house that you can just play from what appears to be a radio, what's the difference between that and owning a CD?

RAY SUAREZ: Chuck Cannon, over the years, I've spoken to performers who have given their music away for free on the web, and they see it as a way of garnering more interest in the touring and performing they do. Are they in an objectively different spot from someone like you who writes material for other artists and doesn't tour?

CHUCK CANNON: Of course there are. You know, first of all, radio music is not for free. All radio stations have to pay blanket license to BMI, CSACR and ASCAP in order to use that music. The music you hear on the radio, the songwriters do get paid for that music. And, you know, I think it's exciting that someone would want to give their music away for free. If that works for your business model, that's fine. But this is a business model that's been foisted upon people who make their-- whose livelihood is making music, making up music and not necessarily going out on the road to promote it.

There's a long history of professional songwriters in America. And what this does is basically foists this business model on us without our permission. I make 8 cents... well, a song will make 8 cents for a songwriter who wrote the song that is on an album that sells. If he co-writes that song, he makes 2 cents. If he is published, he is going to make 2 cents. If I want to give my music away for free, I would do that.

But it doesn't... I'm confused a bit here about what the business model might be that will compete with free. And if you want to give your music away for free, that's your choice. If you own it, you ought to have that choice to be able to do that. The problem with that is that no one's asked me. No one's asked me if it's okay to take my music for free. And in fact it's not okay for people to take my music for free.

I've taken out a mortgage. I support my family. I'm not any different than anyone else who has a job. I just happen to make up songs that millions of people want to own. Typically what has heretofore been the case, I have been paid by anyone who wants to get one of my songs. I get a small royalty. And what this does is basically, when you download one of my songs without my permission or without paying for it, you have, in essence, intercepted my paycheck.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me go right to John Flansburgh at that point and ask him if he could envision a business model where someone like Chuck Cannon is protected, where his intellectual-property rights are protected, and people still get to bypass the music shelf?

CHUCK CANNON: I'm definitely interested in a business model that competes with free. That would be really interesting. I'd like to hear John address that.

JOHN FLANSBURGH: Well, I think your point about business models changing is really well taken. I think in some sense, the business model might have already changed. I think there is a real generation gap between the record industry and record consumers. The kids who are downloading MP-3s don't even feel as guilty as they would if they were stealing penny candy. They feel so alienated from the music business and all the money related to the music business.

And there are a lot of organizations intercepting paychecks besides fans. I think it might actually be too late for...

CHUCK CANNON: Such as?

JOHN FLANSBURGH: Record companies. It's a strange business, the music business, um, and I think there's... the point here is that the technology is already here and we haven't come up with a solution to figure out a way to get songwriters royalties to them. And it might just be too late.

RAY SUAREZ: John Flansburgh, the first attempt was to try to make places like Napster into legitimate businesses that paid royalties to artists. Has that worked, or is the RIAA trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle and try to just not work with this technology?

JOHN FLANSBURGH: Well, I don't think you're going to solve the problem by suing 12 year olds and 72 year olds for downloading too much free MP-3. I think the Apple site is probably a good example of what could work, but there is a generational shift. You know, most college students today have downloaded an extraordinary amount of MP-3s. It's very common behavior. I think people get used to it; they're already used to it. And in some ways I think it's very possible the record industry might already be on its way out.

RAY SUAREZ: Is the Apple site an encouraging development for you, Chuck Cannon, where people do pay 99 cents and download a single song?

CHUCK CANNON: Of course it is. I'm not a Ludite. I'm quite interested in people getting my songs. That's my object. I write a song. I hope a recording artist records that song, then I hope that people really enjoy that song enough to go out and get it. I want people to get it. As a matter of fact, I think that downloading is probably the wave of the future. It's the best distribution model I've ever seen for distributing songs. But the problem is that... there is not a generation gap. I have to take issue with that. There is not a generation gap about stealing.

If you take something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it or without permission, that's stealing -- any way you look at it. We haven't invented technology that makes the concept of it being wrong to steal, We haven't invented technology that makes that concept go away. I'm encouraged by people who want to give their music away to generate more support for their tours, generate more support... but they're able to go out and sell T-shirts. They're able to go out and sell tickets. They're able to still have a business model that is viable in a world where they give their music away for free.

RAY SUAREZ: We are going to end it there. Chuck Cannon, John Flansburgh, thank you gentlemen both.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...usic_9-09.html


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

Peer-to-Peer Trade Group to RIAA Bullies: Come Out and Fight Us If You Want, But Leave the Little Guys Alone !!!
Press Release

The head of a newly-formed Peer-to- Peer industry trade association today said his group will reimburse the single working mother of a 12-year-old the $2,000 which he says was "strong-armed" from her by the Recording Industry Association of America because the little girl downloaded songs such as "If You're Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands" on her home computer.

"We don't condone copyright infringement, but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone," said Adam Eisgrau, Executive Director of "P2P United," a group consisting of six of the largest file-sharing web sites.

Yesterday, the multi-million-dollar RIAA filed suits against 261 individuals seeking up to $150,000 per song for music they claim was illegally downloaded using file sharing, "peer-to-peer" technology.

Among those the industry giant targeted was 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, who lives in public housing in Manhattan and whose mother, Sylvia, manages to send her to St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on her salary working at a nurse placement agency. Among other songs for which the RIAA sought her prosecution, Brianna was alleged to have downloaded the nursery rhyme, "If You're Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands."

"They're using $150,000-per-song lawsuits and a squad of high-paid lawyers to strong-arm $2,000 from single mothers in public housing," charged Eisgrau, who noted that other targets of the RIAA's "legal assault" include a 71-year- old grandfather and a Columbia University senior whose father recently died of cancer whose response was, "I just don't know how much more tragedy I can handle."

"File-sharing technology could be the best thing that ever happened to the record industry, but instead of acting like the Wizard and working with us, they're playing the Wicked Witch of the West, using $150,000-per-song lawsuits to frighten the little people."

"Like the Cowardly Lion, the record industry bullies should come out and fight us if they want, but leave the little guys alone. Put up your dukes! Put 'em up, put 'em up, put 'em up!"
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030910/dcw055_1.html


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

File Swappers Face Data Limits
Mark Ward

It is not just the music industry that has a problem with file-sharing. Net service providers and network managers are struggling to cope with the deluge of data that peer-to-peer systems can generate. Many are adopting tools that limit how much of a network file-sharing systems can sequester.

Some organisations are imposing daily limits on how much people can download. Persistent offenders who regularly exceed their quota are being punished with long-term download limits.

Ever since the emergence of Napster, file-sharing systems, that allow people to search through and download files from other net users, have been hugely popular. In May this year the Kazaa file sharing program became the net's most downloaded program. More than 230 million copies of it have been downloaded. But the huge amount of traffic that Kazaa and other peer-to-peer systems generate is swamping the networks of many organisations. Many organisations based their whole business around particular patterns of use, said Matthew Finnie, vice president at European backbone supplier Interoute.

The typical pattern of human web browsing behaviour involves visiting a few websites, receiving and sending a lot of e-mail, downloading a few files, some net-based chatting and perhaps some online gaming. But, said Mr Finnie, peer-to-peer systems turn expectations of demand on their head because they involved machines talking to machines constantly. File sharing systems consume as much bandwidth they can get and send large amounts of data flying back and forth as people search for the files they want and start to download them. The biggest files on peer-to-peer systems are hundreds of megabytes in size and users are happy to stay online for hours and constantly use the full bandwidth available to download them.

Many file-sharing systems organise around so-called "super-hubs" which host lots of files on a fast server with high-speed net access. For example, bandwidth congestion at the University of Texas was found to be due to 2% of its users consuming 50% of its bandwidth. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that the top 10% of users were generating 58% of net traffic.

"Here you are dealing with something that can seriously distort what you think your network needs," he said. This caused problems because of the way that net firms and other organisations bought their bandwidth, said Mr Finnie.

Organisations that have a fixed upper limit on their bandwidth may find that everything slows down as any traffic beyond that capacity will be put in a queue. Other organisations that buy extra bandwidth on demand can find they are always using more than they expect largely because of file sharing traffic.

Mr Finnie said Interoute was now offering customers tools that let them inspect the packets of data crossing their network to pick out the peer-to- peer traffic. This will help them limit how much bandwidth such applications can grab for themselves.

Firms like Packeteer and NetReality offer network management systems that let technology staff spot file sharing traffic and keep it under control. Other organisations are using different methods to tackle the growth of file sharing.

For some time North Dakota State University has used a system that gives its students a daily quota of how much they can download. The institution allocates 600 megabytes of network usage to each user every day. Average users consume about 100 megabytes. The quota includes how much someone downloads from the net as well as how much is downloaded from them. Anyone exceeding this daily quota is placed on a lower speed connection they must share with other heavy users. North Dakota also has a "probation" system which gradually gives these offenders more and more bandwidth over a few days. Persistent offenders may find themselves permanently on probation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3094152.stm


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

Parents Scramble Over File Sharing

Seeking answers about what to do and how to do it
Hiawatha Bray and Chris Gaither

Since the music industry began suing digital pirates this week, personal computer consultant Osama Shanaa has uninstalled four file-sharing programs during house calls to homes in suburban Boston.

Shanaa, owner of OrraMac Inc. in Watertown, offers the service to regular clients. This week it wasn't much of a hard sell. Just yesterday he suggested removing the LimeWire software, which lets people swap music over the Internet, from a customer's Macintosh in Lexington.

"I didn't even have to say it twice," he said.

Shanaa's increased workload is a testament to the anxiety and confusion among the parents of children who store and share digital music on their home computers.

The grown-ups have good reason to worry that their children's music downloading habits might get the whole family into trouble. This week, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the major music recording companies, began a legal offensive against 261 individuals who have allegedly offered thousands of popular songs for free distribution over the Internet. Among the first targets: a 12-year-old New York girl. Faced with the possibility of a $150,000 fine for each illegally copied song, the girl's mother agreed to pay a $2,000 settlement.

The actions of the recording industry have spread anxiety beyond parents of teenagers.

Nancy Webb, a 59-year-old bus driver from Olalla, Wash., is a reluctant computer user, preferring the telephone to e-mail. So it's no surprise that she never noticed that her adult daughter had downloaded and stored hundreds of music files on Webb's home PC through Kazaa.

Her other daughter, Diane Webb, 31, discovered the files one day. Her mother worried about the songs taking up disk space, so Diane Webb said she spent days removing Kazaa and deleting the files. But once news of the lawsuits against file sharers broke, her daughter said, Nancy Webb panicked.

"She's freaking out because she wonders, what's going to happen to me?" Diane Webb said.

As a result many Internet file sharers, and parents who are concerned about a child's file sharing habits, now feel they have no choice but to learn about the latest peer-to-peer programs and to make sure they're not running on any home computers.

There are dozens of file-sharing programs, with new entrants appearing constantly. But users tend to gravitate to a handful with the broadest collection of files -- Kazaa, Morpheus, Grokster, iMesh, BearShare and LimeWire, to name a few.

Programs designed to protect minors from unsavory Internet influences are of limited value in shutting down these programs. For example, the popular Internet filtering program Cyber Patrol can prevent a child from running certain software. But the parent must tell it which programs to block. Shut down Kazaa alone and the child can simply switch to one of the other file swappers.

Another option is to shut off the file-sharing features in these peer-to-peer programs. That way, the user can download music from other users' machines, while blocking access to the music on his own machine. File swappers consider this selfish, and with good reason -- if everyone did it, there'd be no files to share. Indeed, this is why the RIAA has focused on suing people who share files, not those who merely download them.

The ultimate defense against a recording industry lawsuit is to remove the file-swapping software from the computer. Again, this requires knowing which programs are in use. Armed with this information, a Windows PC user can simply use the standard procedure for "uninstalling" a program.

Deleting the software may not remove the illegally downloaded music files. But if the file swapping program is no longer running, music industry investigators have no way of detecting those files on someone's machine.

And what if recording industry investigators have already gathered evidence of a child's file swapping activity. Are parents liable? That depends, said Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University. Swire said it's often hard to show that a parent knew his child was downloading music illegally. The record companies would have to demonstrate "first, that the parents knew of the infringement, and second, that the parent caused or materially contributed to the infringement," said Swire. "That would be hard to prove."

But even if the parents are in the clear, the music companies are free to sue the children themselves. Swire said that there's no age limit for applying federal copyright law. Even if you're a minor, he said, "they can get a judgment against you for a million dollars."

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy confirmed this interpretation of the law. "Minors are generally liable for their unlawful acts," he said. But Lamy predicted that most cases would be settled before coming to trial.

Michael Albert, a partner at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks in Boston, said some of the defendants might try to argue that they copied the songs in accordance with the fair-use provisions of copyright law, which allow protected works to be used for such things as scholarship and journalism.

But those accused of copying files and making them available to others online would have a hard time mounting a defense that the fair-use provisions of copyright law protect them, he said. One key test of whether a copyrighted work was used fairly is whether that use affected the market for the work. With record shipments down 26 percent in the last three years, the recording industry can make a strong case that its market has been hurt by file sharing songs, he said.

The recording industry has sued 261 people and issued 1,500 subpoenas to Internet service providers for information about file sharers. But with an estimated 60 million people who share music files online, Albert said, "Statistically speaking, most people are still pretty safe."

And despite the high-profile lawsuits, traffic on file-sharing networks is up sharply over last month, according to BigChampagne, a market research firm based in Los Angeles that tracks activity on peer-to-peer networks. About 4.2 million users were on Kazaa at any given time yesterday, up from 4.1 million on Tuesday and nearly 3 million in August.

"That's not to say that there is no deterrent effect," Eric Garland, the chief executive of BigChampagne, said of the lawsuits. "But it's probably being countervailed by a bigger force -- back to work, back to school."
http://www.boston.com/business/globe..._file_sharing/


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

File Sharers Thrive Under RIAA Threat
Stephen Lynch

Lawsuits haven't stamped out music swapping, according to one Manhattan software company. In fact, it's just made traders more defiant - and crafty.

"There doesn't seem to be any decline. Many people are still doing it," said Greg Bildson, chief technology officer for Lime Wire LLC. Along with Kazaa and Grokster, Lime Wire is one of the leading "peer-to-peer" programs that allow file swapping between different computers.

Bildson said that he expects users will tinker with the Lime Wire software over the next few months, developing ways to mask their identities and avoid lawsuits. Earlier this week, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 people who had used Lime Wire and other software to swap copyrighted material.

Officials hope the suits will have a chilling effect on file trading. But so far, anecdotally at least, Kazaa and Lime Wire remain popular.

"The RIAA is not going to be able to contain this problem," Bildson said. "There is no technical solution for this."

The better resolution, Bildson said, would be the creation of a compulsory license for the Internet - similar to radio. Access to peer networks would be taxed, and those fees would be distributed to copyright holders based on the volume of trades.

The RIAA said compulsory licensing would be unworkable, requiring the government to regulate the Internet in ways that would be difficult and intrusive.

"When was the last time government pricing worked better than the free market?" an RIAA spokesman asked.

"Those who support this idea of compulsory licensing apparently conclude, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' That's the wrong way to go."

The association warned that - although other peer-to-peer companies have claimed that the identities of swappers could be protected - some of those supposedly anonymous users ended being sued by the RIAA.

"The promise of anonymity is more a marketing tool than a technological wonder," he said.

The RIAA has sued companies like Lime Wire - though not Lime Wire itself.

So far, however, the software firms have prevailed in court, as executives have argued successfully that their programs have legitimate uses, and that they can't be held accountable for people who used the software to violate copyright laws.

Bildson said that peer-to-peer networks could be the backbone of a complete media-on-demand system, through which someone could download any television show, song or movie the user wanted.
http://www.nypost.com/business/5480.htm


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

Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use?
Ernest Miller

Much of the debate over compulsory licensing has been with regard to how fees are to be raised and distributed (including how the distribution of copyrighted works is to be tracked), which are enormously thorny problems. I don't believe these problems have been adequately solved by any of the schemes with which I am familiar.

However, compulsory licensing raises many more questions than that, and before we can seriously consider such schemes these questions must be answered. In an occasional series, I'll ask some of those questions that haven't gotten nearly the same attention as questions regarding fees and distribution of fees. My questions won't be all inclusive and I encourage readers to add their own questions and answers as well.

What, exactly, is noncommercial use?

Virtually all compulsory license schemes restrict themselves to noncommercial use. They are put forward as a solution to the P2P issue, of file sharing between consumers. No serious compulsory licensing scheme that I am aware of advocates that commercial vendors should be allowed free rein under the compulsory license. Unfortunately, I think that the distinction between commercial and noncommercial use in the P2P realm is not so easy to make. After all, previous compulsory licenses were essentially in the commercial realm. The commercial realm is, in many ways, much easier to regulate than the public or P2P realms (isn't that why people advocate compulsory licensing schemes in the first place?).

Some have argued that one couldn't solicit donations for engaging in noncommercial use. But how far would this restriction go? If I run a blog with a tip jar, am I prevented from having my music webcast link to my blog page? Am I prevented from running public service announcements on the webcast? If I run a neighborhood webcast that includes announcements of local events, would that be considered commercial? If the neighborhood got together and pooled money for such a webcast, would that be commercial? Who would police noncommercial use and how would those who violated this restriction be punished? There are serious questions regarding how this new regime would replace current copyright law on these issues.

Generally, most compulsory schemes would also have at least some limited privileges for noncommercial remixes, adaptations and other derivate works (often including a requirement noting the original author and the fact that modification was without consent). But what is a noncommercial remix? If I am a video artist, is it noncommercial for me to create music videos using popular music and spread them around the internet as a calling card or resume? Is it noncommercial if I identify that it was I who created the music video (and here's my homepage URL) in order to drive traffic to my site? What if my site then has a tip jar? What if my site is hosted on a service that includes third party ads in return for free hosting?

What about advertisements for third parties? Presumably it would clearly be illegal for McDonald's to make a commercial or jingle using someone else's copyrighted works without permission. But what if some fan turns a popular song into a jingle for McDonald's because they love Big Macs, or creates what is essentially a commercial for their favorite sports team using highlights and popular music? I can imagine fans of all sorts of endeavors creating their own commercials - check the web, you'll find them already. The individual creating the mixup gets no commercial benefit, so that would seem to be noncommercial use. Or would it be considered commercial, and how would we make that determination? Would third party advertisements for nonprofits be noncommercial? What about political advertisements? I recall that songwriters have objected to politicians using their songs at rallys ("I'm a Dole Man" as opposed to Isaac Hayes and Dave Porter's orginal "I'm a Soul Man").

A related question regards those who distribute such a work. What happens to P2P users who distribute a commercial work? Their distribution of the work is noncommercial, but the work itself is commercial. In traditional copyright law, if a business creates an advertisement with unlicensed content, damages can be sought and an injunction ordered to prevent distribution of the infringing work. However, once such a work gets out to the P2P public, would the public be liable for continued distribution? Could a copyright holder sue somebody who distributed an unlicensed commercial, even if the distributor didn't create it and gets no benefit from distributing it? Would the company that initially created the work have essentially unlimited liability if the infringing work became popular with the public?

Compulsory licensing has gotten a great deal of interest recently. However, I believe that we need to think a little more deeply about the issues such a system would raise.
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...print&sid=1190


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

Big Blue's New Experiments in Real- Time Communications
Christopher Saunders

With established successes like Lotus Instant Messaging (formerly known as Sametime) and Lotus Notes in its product portfolio, IBM's (Quote, Company Info) position in the enterprise messaging and communications realm seems secure. But Armonk, New York-based Big Blue isn't content to rest on its laurels, and like many of the leading players in business software, the company is exploring new ways that business users might collaborate in the future.

One early, yet promising project at the company is known as Socializer. It's a prototype of an open, distributed, peer-to-peer platform with capabilities including chatting, file transfers, application sharing and broadcasting and discovery of services.

Socializer users can create profiles and exchange personal information with others, and in finding others with whom to collaborate, can search and filter by profile information.

"It allows a peer-to-peer client network that is based on location," said Marc Goubert, manager of IBM's alphaWorks site, where internal and outside developers and end-users can demo and provide feedback on prototype software. "Individuals coming into a local subnet who have a wireless device -- or who connect to a LAN somehow -- can recognize other users that have this client on their computer or PDA."

The software relies on a proprietary protocol that sends out UDP broadcast messages on the local network. But as an extensible platform based on the Open Systems Gateway Initiative (OSGi) -- which provides for a common framework for delivering services to multiple devices -- that protocol can be swapped in favor of others, like upnp.org. Currently, the software is available for Windows, and for PocketPC and Palm handhelds.

"One interesting application of this might be where a user walks into a conference, and because they've got access to the wireless LAN, they see services that are available immediately, like a schedule of upcoming events or speakers, or areas of interest for a particular audience," Goubert said. "That user can also instantly see which other users are using the Socializer peer-to-peer network, and start chatting with them and transferring files and sharing services, immediately."

The thinking here is that some Internet communication and collaboration services can become more useful for users if those services take location into consideration. The concept has been driving a slew of new applications (mostly dating- or community- related) for wireless handsets, such as a mobile matchmaking tool launched earlier by AT&T Wireless. It's also the idea powering WiFi instant messaging community plays like Trepia.

"This is an interesting way of looking at things -- location-based, as opposed to user- based, or using a massive registry of users like the IM systems we're used to," Goubert said.
http://www.instantmessagingplanet.co...le.php/3075841


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

"How much are they going to regulate without destroying what is really so great about the Internet?"

Assistant Professor To Testify On File Sharing At U.S. Senate Hearing
Kathy Summy

An assistant ISU professor will be testifying in front of the full Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., Tuesday at a hearing concerning peer-to-peer networks and how they are used to transfer pornography.

Doug Jacobson, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and president and chief technology officer of Palisade Systems, Inc., a company he founded in Ames in 1996, was asked to testify at the Senate hearing because of his company's research on searches on a file- sharing network. He will present the results and statistics to the judiciary committee.

For the study, the company acted as a user on a file-sharing network from February 6-23, 2003, collecting 22 million search results, according to the peer-to-peer executive summary on the Palisade Systems, Inc. Web site, www.screendoor.com.

"Part of the reason [the Senate] contacted me was because the study shows quite a bit of searches were for pornography," Jacobson said. "42 percent of all requests were for pornographic material."

Six percent of the total requests were for child pornography, he added.

When most people think about file searches and downloads they think about MP3s, not pornography, Jacobson said.

According to the executive summary, a strong reason for using peer-to-peer file sharing looks to be for easy access to pornography.

The summary reported pornography was requested in 63 percent of video file searches and child pornography in 10 percent. It also reported that 75 percent of image file searches were for pornography and 24 percent were for child pornography.

Jacobson said he was shocked by the overall number of pornographic materials requested on the network, but not as much with the child pornography results because of the anonymity of peer-to-peer networks.

The Palisade Systems, Inc. research summary explains that peer-to-peer networks are made up of individual computers that use similar software to communicate over the Internet. KaZaA, Napster, Morpheus, LimeWire and BearShare are all identified as peer-to-peer applications. A user who connects to the network connects to a web of computers that are all linked by the peer-to-peer application, which allows information and files to be freely exchanged among users.

"[Peer-to-peer] is like anything -- it's a tool," Jacobson said. "There are few legitimate uses of peer-to-peer networks."

Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science, said the government is becoming more interested in these networks because of their increased use.

"The problem of peer-to-peer file-sharing has been growing over the last few years," Schmidt said.

He said at first there was much reluctance from the government to get involved or pay attention to the issue because exchange of information was considered a part of the freedom of the Internet.

It was when people started exchanging intellectual property, things a company has rights to own and keep from duplication, that Congress started looking into it, Schmidt said.

Jacobson warned users should be concerned when searching and downloading from networks because much of the material is copyrighted and illegal to possess.

"Be aware of what you're doing," he said.

This warning is backed up by results from the Palisade Systems, Inc. study. Ninety-seven percent of all the searches tracked by the company on the peer-to-peer network could have resulted in a criminal or civil suit for copyright infringement, sexual harassment or felony- level charges.

The music industry first began filing lawsuits for the exchanges of copyrighted material on peer-to-peer applications.

"Many said that they were suing their own best customers," Schmidt said. "So the music industry started looking around for a tastier and more powerful way to control peer-to-peer networks."

He said they began to research what users were exchanging to control file-sharing, and it was then discovered that many of the files were sexual in nature.

The Senate hearing is titled "Pornography, Technology and Process: Problems and Solutions on Peer-to-Peer Networks."

Other witnesses testifying are representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Verizon Communications, Recording Industry Association of America and the U.S. Copyright Office, according to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Web site, http://judiciary.senate.gov.

Jacobson said Tuesday's hearing is the second on peer-to-peer networks.

The first hearing, held June 17, dealt with the personal and national security risks that peer- to-peer networks pose, according to the Senate Judiciary Web site.

"A hearing is really to get the facts and then have the [Congressional] staff draft legislation that will impose some sort of restriction on peer-to-peer applications," Schmidt said.

"Now the question is, how much are they going to regulate?" he said.

"How much are they going to regulate without destroying what is really so great about the Internet?"
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/.../3f5be89a63245


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

Columbia Turns In Student for File-Sharing

The Recording Industry Association of America is seeking to sue a CC senior.
Rachael Scarborough King

Columbia University on Friday released the name of a senior whose IP address had been identified by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegal file-sharing.

The student, Lauren Venezia, CC '04, has yet to be served papers, but she has been aware since July that Columbia was issued a subpoena to release her name. It's unclear whether or not the RIAA will pursue a lawsuit, but in recent weeks Venezia has been scrambling to cobble together a legal defense.

The subpoena was issued last spring as part of a push by the RIAA to crack down on illegal file-sharing. The RIAA filed 261 suits Monday against individuals whose names it had obtained through the subpoenas filed to universities and other internet service providers it linked to file-sharing over the summer. These were the first such copyright infringement suits against private citizens.

Among those being sued were Venezia, as well as a 12-year-old girl from Manhattan, who yesterday settled a $150,000 lawsuit with the RIAA for $2,000.

These universities and internet service providers are not legally responsible for their clients' actions, but RIAA subpoenas demand that these organizations release the names of the individuals whose IP addresses are ports for file- sharing.

The subpoena that the RIAA charged to Columbia said that illegal file-sharing had occurred on a specific Internet Protocol address operated by the university. It required that Columbia turn over the name of the student using this IP address. They did so last Friday.

"[The RIAA] has the right under the [Digital Millennium Copyright] Act to issue a subpoena," said Beryl Abrams, associate general counsel and the lawyer in charge of internet property law at Columbia. "Initially we filed motion to quash [the subpoena] because it was issued out of the district court of Washington, D.C., but then RIAA issued another out of the federal court in New York." Law Professor Eben Moglen represented Venezia during her fight to prevent the University from releasing her name.

"It should be clear that Columbia University, when it receives an order from a court, must turn over information if it has any," Moglen said. "On the other hand, the University is also obliged to take certain steps to keep information that is accumulated in the course of a student's education private. This is a federal statute. The legal situation is a compromise between obligations to students about their privacy and obligations to the court."

In filing these suits, the RIAA is going after those who not only download music from the internet, but also allow their computers to share downloaded information with other people using the same network. This is often done unintentionally, since when a person downloads a file-sharing program such as Kazaa it comes with the sharing option already activated.

"When I first spoke to the guy at AcIS [after I had been informed that I was suspected of copyright infringement], I said, 'Why me? Everyone else is doing it'. He said, 'You were sharing files'. I didn't know there was an option to turn it off," Venezia said. But, she added, "I don't think ignorance is valid excuse for anything."

Although downloading and sharing music may seem to be an anonymous, risk- free activity, it is fairly easy for an entity like the RIAA to obtain an offender's IP address. An IP address is a series of numbers that corresponds with a certain internet connection. Since Columbia's ethernet system uses static IP addresses, this number refers to a specific ethernet outlet. If this outlet is in a dorm room, it can then be determined who is using this IP address.

The RIAA can run a downloaded audio file through a sophisticated program to determine whether it is an original track that an artist recorded in a studio--which can be shared legally--or whether it is a pirated copy. If it is pirated, they can then determine the IP address from which it originated.

The IP address is as far as the RIAA can go on its own, which is why it has to subpoena ISPs in order to obtain the IP address user's name.

For Venezia, this lawsuit follows a string of personal tragedy. "This year for me has been so awful, and I really don't know how much more tragedy I can take," she said. "I was physically assaulted by my ex-boyfriend, then my best friend got a rare infectious disease, my dog died, my father died, and now here I am dealing with this. It's just one thing after another."

Venezia is also worried about her future, as the lawsuit could potentially cost her a great deal of time and money.

"My dad, when he was sick, didn't have any insurance," she said. "The month or so he was in hospital pretty much ate up all our funds. Columbia gave me financial aid to finish this year, but I can't afford a lawyer, and I can't afford to pay the RIAA if they win the suit."

The list of artists on whose behalf the RIAA filed suit against Venezia includes U2, Michael Jackson, Guns and Roses, and Duran Duran.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vne.../3f6030024aedd


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

File Sharing Wars
Version 2.0
Andrew Gilman And Ben Kupstas

Contentious Alliance: Music and Technology

The age-old marriage of the music and technology industries has found itself on the rocks again. Over one hundred years ago, artists protested the proliferation of sheet music because they feared parlor room piano players would steal their art and livelihood. With the invention of the phonograph, one of the first devices to play music carved onto discs, the sheet music industry did everything it could to protect its monopoly on the means of dissemination. Despite their best attempts, the personal record player caught on, and began the century long evolution that eventually culminated in the compact disc. Throughout the process, from records, 8-tracks, tapes, to CDs, the recording industry has most often resisted technological innovation out of fear for falling profit margins. Nevertheless, these fundamental changes in the standard medium have ended up benefiting the industry in the long run, especially when many record collectors re- bought their collection for the CD-changeover. To some extent, the dominant medium for music is decided by the listeners, not the recording industry. Clearly, the will of the people has at times subjugated the top-down control the recording industry has attempted to wield. And so, with scientific developments and changing preference for listening devices (not to mention shifting musical tastes), the recording industry has been forced rapidly to adopt new distribution paradigms over the years. The modern age of digital and Internet technology is no exception to this pattern.

Music listeners today, especially on a college campus, need no explanation of how Napster and like-minded peer-to- peer file sharing networks revolutionized the distribution of music -- they were the revolutionaries (or pirates, depending on your point of view) trading MP3s over fat, college ethernet bandwidth. Despite the Recording Industry Association of America crack down on Napster, peer-to- peer networks only seemed to multiply to match the insatiable desire for "free" music. With the availability of MP3s, affordability of CD burning technology, and inflation of CD prices to $18 or higher, the recording industry's distribution system faced sizeable challenges. Instead of recognizing the staying abililty of the MP3 as the next media mutation, the recording industry scrambled to preserve the flawed distribution system by bolstering CD- based sales. The RIAA quickly tried to fight the new medium in court with a multi-million dollar legal campaign. Now, in retrospect, it would have made more sense for the industry to devote these resources to developing a new, digital- based distribution system, where artists and recording companies are compensated and prices are reasonable. It has taken too much time for industry to readjust as it has squandered the precious few years since the demise of Napster.

Pay-digital music services, like Apple's iTunes, Real Music's Rhapsody, or Buymusic.com present the beta-versions (so to speak) of the new distribution paradigm. With more artists allowing their catalog to be purchased on these services, it seems the recording industry is finally making some forward progress. Though CD sales have dropped considerably in the past years, 300 million from 1999 to 2002 according to the RIAA, this slump can only in part be attributed to file-sharing. As a result, it remains essential for recording companies to take aggressive steps toward recapturing profits through such business strategies as Universal's 24-32% price reduction on their retail prices (to bring the price down from the current $18.98 to $16.98) or the inclusion of bonus DVDs with CDs. The recording industry might have to endure some losses during this period of transition as businesses, artists, and listeners adapt, but in the end, this industry shift opens a new realm of possibilities: improvements in the means through which the listener buys, and the industry sells, music.

An Apple today keeps the RIAA at bay.

If, by analogy, we see the RIAA as a one-eyed (maybe blind) giant like Goliath and we see underdogs like Shawn Fanning (the now deified Napster founder) and Jesse Jordan (one of the college students sued by the RIAA this past April) as modern-day Davids, then Apple may just be this fable's closest thing to Gandhi. Their message has always seemed to be, "Can't we all just get along" -- the musicians, the record companies, the fans, and the technology.

Since its inception, Macintosh has fought the battle against the PC at least partly by catering to artistically minded computer users, specifically musicians. With the recent plethora of laptop-toting composers, producers, and performers, the Apple PowerBook has emerged as the musician's computer of choice (everyone from Jim O'Rourke to Cex to Kid 606 uses an Apple). Many of the modern editing software and digital synthesizers are tailored to Apples, and as the computer is fast becoming a studio and stage touchstone as integral as the guitar, the PowerBook is the veritable Stratocaster of this revolution. So, Apple is no stranger to the realm of music.

In the post-Napster world of music distribution, the war is still against the PC, but the acronym now refers to political correctness (at least as dictated by the RIAA). While many in the music industry are scrambling to either exploit modern distribution technologies (file-sharing stalwarts like Kazaa and Limewire) or stomp it out completely (the Philistine RIAA), few are seriously and realistically proposing ways of helping this mess evolve into a mutually beneficial arrangement. Apple's iTunes is thus far the most feasible and appealing alternative to the current state of anarchic trading and absurd lawsuits, a climate that ultimately alienates the fans, the artists, and the distributors.

In April, while the RIAA was busy prosecuting undergraduates for hundreds of millions of dollars, Apple head honcho Steve Jobs launched the iTunes Music Store, which basically sells songs for $.99 each (adding up to roughly the price of individual songs on full-length CDs). What makes Apple the apparent "good guys" in this story are the relationships they've been fostering with independent record labels and individual artists. Apple has expressed a commitment to helping independent labels, and representatives from labels such as Matador and Sub Pop have already met with Apple to discuss possible partnerships. Bands like Dashboard Confessional are now top-sellers for iTunes. While mainstream artists are still a major part of Apple's initiative, their attempts to befriend the indie crowd have been largely successful. In a Rolling Stone interview, Sub Pop boss Jonathan Poneman said he is "psyched" about their participation with iTunes, which pays the label about $.65 per song.

Even the musicians and members of the file-sharing community are supporting iTunes. In an interview with Magnet, Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke expressed his endorsement of iTunes. In the words of one Soulseek user, "Apple has done the unthinkable by convincing labels and artists that making it easy for people to do the right thing is infinitely more constructive and lucrative than throwing money into a fight against the consumer that smacks a little too much of the drug war" (from the Soulseek message board).

So, Apple has stepped up to the plate preaching peace through iPods. Concerns about the looming death of the album aside, iTunes is looking like the people's choice for the future of legal musical distribution.
http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/8982/