P2P-Zone  

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

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25-04-18, 06:43 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - April 28th, ’18

Since 2002































April 28th, 2018




Historic Case: Danish Man Convicted of Promoting Illegal Film Service

Ruling in Odense sets precedent for future cases
Christian W

A Danish man has become the first European to be convicted of taking part in the promotion of an illegal online film site.

The 39-year-old man was handed a six-month suspended sentence by an Odense court for promoting the illegal online film streaming service Popcorn Time via his website popcorntime.dk.

“Never before has a person been convicted of participating in the promotion of streaming services. The ruling is therefore an important step in the fight against illegal streaming on the internet, and it will reverberate across Europe,” said Dorte Køhler Frandsen, the senior prosecutor in the case.

“The decision is a clear signal to those who help spread illegal pirate services. The film industry and others lose billions in income every year because criminals offer films for free illegally. That’s a loss for everyone, including the consumer.”

Ad earnings stripped

More specifically, the man was convicted of offering a guideline about how Danish users could download the Popcorn Time app, how to install and use it, and how to avoid being discovered by the authorities.

Aside from his suspended sentence, the court also ruled to confiscate 500,000 kroner the man had earned in advertising income via his website. He also faces 120 hours of community service. He has two weeks to appeal to the higher courts.

Popcorn Time was founded in Argentina in 2014, while the Danish version of it was closed down in 2015 by the police, who arrested two people in connection with the closure.
http://cphpost.dk/news/historic-case...m-service.html





Netflix, Amazon, and Major Studios Try to Shut Down $20-Per-Month TV Service

It's the third lawsuit against TV box makers filed by Netflix and film studios.
Jon Brodkin

Netflix, Amazon, and the major film studios have once again joined forces to sue the maker of a TV service and hardware device, alleging that the products are designed to illegally stream copyrighted videos.

The lawsuit was filed against the company behind Set TV, which sells a $20-per-month TV service with more than 500 channels.

"Defendants market and sell subscriptions to 'Setvnow,' a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and television shows," the complaint says. Besides Netflix and Amazon, the plaintiffs are Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.

The complaint was filed Friday in US District Court for the Central District of California. The companies are asking for permanent injunctions to prevent further distribution of Set TV software and devices, the impoundment of Set TV devices, and for damages including the defendants' profits.

Live TV channels

Set TV's website says its applications let customers view TV channels on Windows, Mac, Android, and other platforms. The company also sells an $89 set top box that is preloaded with its software.

"Whether their customers choose a subscription or a preloaded box, what Defendants actually sell is illegal access to Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works," the complaint says.

The Set TV service offers "a user-friendly interface and reliable access to popular content," just like legitimate streaming services, but "customers only pay money to Defendants, not to Plaintiffs and other content creators upon whose copyrighted works Defendants' business depends," the lawsuit says.

Set TV's website advertises access to live channels such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, Bloomberg, TNT, FX, USA, Bravo, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, and many others. Customers are told that they can watch all those channels for $20 a month, with "no long-term commitments, no activation fees, no cancellation fees, [and] no credit check."

"The Setvnow application provides a built-in media player and curated menus of live television channels and on-demand television show episodes and movies," the industry lawsuit says.

When a user selects a channel, "Setvnow begins streaming the selected content from third-party sources," the complaint says. "These sources capture live transmissions of the above-listed television channels, convert the copies of the television programs into streaming-friendly formats, and then retransmit the entirety of the live broadcasts over the Internet."

Set TV provides access to on-demand video in a similar way, "rel[ying] on third-party sources that illicitly reproduce copyrighted works and then provide streams of popular content such as movies still exclusively in theaters and television shows," the lawsuit says. The industry says that Set TV advertises its service "as a substitute for authorized and legitimate distribution channels such as cable television or video-on-demand services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix."

Netflix shows such as Stranger Things and some of Amazon's original movies are among the on-demand videos whose copyrights were violated by Set TV, according to an industry court filing.

Set TV's terms of use tell customers that they may not use the Set TV service to violate copyrights. The terms instruct copyright owners to notify Set TV by mail if "any Content, User Material, or other material provided through the Services, including through a link, infringes" their copyrights.

Set TV owner Jason LaBossiere is also a defendant in the case. In 2014, Google filed a complaint against LaBossiere in order to gain control of the androidtv.com and xbmcandroidtv.com domain names, alleging that he misused Google's trademark to sell TV devices. Both domain names are now controlled by Google.

We left a message with Set TV today and will update this story if we get a response. Calls to a phone number listed for LaBossiere could not be completed.

Netflix, Amazon, and the studios previously sued the makers of the similar "Dragon Box" and "Tickbox." A lawyer for the Dragon Box company told Ars in January that the product merely links to content online and that the entertainment industry is "fighting tooth and nail against innovation and technology."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...th-tv-service/





Comcast Pursues Sky While Assessing Bigger Move for Fox Assets

Cable giant officially bids $31 billion for pay-TV operator Sky, explores whether to play interloper on Disney’s pending acquisition of Fox’s entertainment assets

Comcast continues to lose cable TV subscribers.
Shalini Ramachandran, Amol Sharma and David Benoit

Comcast Corp. CMCSA -1.54% posted strong first-quarter earnings growth, despite continuing cable TV subscriber losses, and formally submitted its $31 billion proposal to buy Sky PLC , SKYAY -0.17% one of several deals it has contemplated that could transform its business and roil its rivals.

The company reported 21% profit growth compared with the year-earlier period. Revenue at its NBCUniversal media unit rose 21% to $9.5 billion, boosted by its Winter Olympics and Super Bowl broadcasts, which offset a weak performance in the film division. Comcast lost 96,000 cable TV customers, compared with a gain of 42,000 in the prior-year quarter, as it continues to feel the impact of rising competition from streaming services. This was its fourth consecutive quarter of subscriber losses.

As it faces pressures in cable television, Comcast has been pursuing transformative deals. On Wednesday, it made official its bid to buy European pay-TV operator Sky, topping an existing offer from 21st Century Fox , which already owns a 39% stake in Sky. Comcast said it was considering such an offer in February.

The official Comcast offer sent Sky shares more than 2% higher—and above the Comcast bid, suggesting investors are positioning for a bidding war.

The formal bid officially kicks off what has been a long-expected corporate takeover battle pitting Comcast against Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Fox over the European TV giant. Sky said in response to the official offer Wednesday that it was terminating its previous pact agreeing to the 21st Century Fox takeover. It said its board would also withdraw its recommendation for the Fox bid. 21st Century Fox, meanwhile, said Wednesday it remained committed to buying all of Sky.

Separately, Comcast is weighing whether to play interloper on the pending Walt Disney Co. acquisition of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets, people familiar with the situation say. Comcast is gaming out the possibility of making a public case to the company’s shareholders that they should reject the Disney deal, which is expected to come to a vote this summer, and opt for a Comcast tie-up instead, people familiar with the situation say.

Comcast lost out to Disney in December when Fox rejected its bid, which was 16% higher, according to a Fox regulatory filing last week. Fox cited concerns about regulatory risk. The assets in play include Fox’s film and TV studio, cable networks and international properties including Star India and the Sky stake.

Comcast may choose to leave the Disney-Fox deal alone, and it doesn’t expect to make a decision in the near term, the people familiar with the situation said.

If it chose to go hostile, Comcast would need to woo Fox investors, which may not be easy. Comcast has had conversations with several shareholders in the wake of its Sky bid, including British investor TCI Fund Management, known for its activism, people familiar with the situation said.

TCI has been building a significant stake in Fox, people close to the situation say. As of December, the firm held 0.7% of Fox’s class A common shares. Including Class B shares, its voting power on a merger proposal would have been 0.46%. The size of its current stake isn’t clear; the next disclosure would likely come in a May filing. As of December, TCI also was among the top holders of Comcast shares, with a 1.5% stake, according to FactSet.

In recent weeks, TCI founder Chris Hohn spoke on the phone with Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts and probed about Comcast’s interest in launching a public bid for Fox’s assets, people familiar with the situation said. Mr. Roberts didn’t respond, the people said. Other TCI officials have also had conversations with Comcast’s investor relations team that left Comcast executives with the clear indication that TCI wants the cable giant to continue its pursuit of Fox, the people said.

In an email, Mr. Hohn said he didn’t urge Mr. Roberts to go hostile in pursuit of Fox’s assets.

Mr. Hohn is one of the best-known activists in Europe and has historically not shied from being aggressive with big companies and significant shareholders. In 2016, Mr. Hohn took a stake in SABMiller PLC and got Anheuser-Busch InBev to up its offer for the brewer even when more than 40% was in the hands of two investors.

Rupert Murdoch and his family have a 39% voting interest in Fox. Their economic interest, which is what would count in a shareholder vote on the Disney-Fox merger, is roughly 17%. (The Murdoch family is also a major shareholder in Wall Street Journal-parent News Corp )

Besides lining up investor backing, there are other considerations for Comcast in whether to go to war over the Fox assets. One is its stock price, since its shares would likely be used to help pay for a major acquisition, the people familiar with the situation said. Comcast shares have declined 22% since late January, wiping out more than $40 billion in market value.

Comcast is also watching closely the government’s antitrust case against AT&T and Time Warner , which is playing out in court. If AT&T wins, Comcast would feel more emboldened to make a move, the people said.

As it weighs big deals, Comcast is continuing to invest in areas to help its existing business offset the challenges of traditional TV. It has expanded its “X1” smart-video platform, raised internet speeds and launched a new wireless cellphone service.

Though broadband customer growth slowed in the first quarter to 379,000 additions from 429,000 in the prior-year quarter, revenue for the unit grew 8%.

Quarterly profit rose to $3.1 billion, or 66 cents a share, up from $2.6 billion, or 53 cents a share, a year ago. Adjusted profit per share for the latest quarter was 62 cents. Revenue grew 11% to $22.79 billion. Both figures exceeded estimates from analysts, who were projecting adjusted earnings of 59 cents a share on $22.74 billion in revenue, according to Thomson Reuters .

In its official offer for Sky, Comcast didn’t change the terms of its informal offer, which it first disclosed in February. It said it is offering £12.50 ($17.46) a share for Sky, or 16% more than Fox’s £10.75-a-share bid. That is the price Comcast said it would offer when it announced its intention to bid for Sky in February.

Fox, which owns 39% of Sky, originally proposed buying the 61% of the British pay-TV company it doesn’t already own in December 2016, but British regulators have held up the takeover bid as it examines whether it would give Mr. Murdoch and his family too much influence in U.K. media.

Mr. Murdoch and his family are major shareholders in Fox and in News Corp, which publishes three major British newspapers, as well as The Wall Street Journal. Regulators are expected to deliver a final recommendation on Fox’s proposal on May 1, and then the British government will decide whether to approve the merger outright, approve it with conditions, or reject it.

Sky and Disney have both offered the U.K. government assurances that both would protect the independence of Sky News. On Wednesday, Comcast offered similar assurances.

Comcast said in a statement that it would establish an independent board for Sky’s news channel, and would commit to funding it for 10 years. Fox has also offered to create an independent board for the channel, which it would fund for 15 years.

—Ben Dummett contributed to this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/comcast...wth-1524651713





How the New LED Cinema Screen Could Change Filmmaking and Moviegoing

Studio execs and ASC members are starting to demo the new Samsung system.
Carolyn Giardina

The first LED cinema screen in the U.S. was unveiled Friday at Pacific Theatres Winnetka in Chatsworth, California, a suburb of Los Angeles, where Warner Bros.’ Ready Player One will be the first movie offered on the new exhibition system, starting Saturday.

The Samsung LED Cinema Screen marks a radical shift from the theater projection systems that have been used since the birth of cinema. Instead, the LED screen is more akin to a giant television screen, and its use would render the projection booth a thing of the past.

At its unveiling Friday, Samsung shared new details about content creation for the screen — and what it might mean for both studios and filmmakers.

Why switch to LED screens? Samsung vice president Stephen Choi argues that “there hasn’t been anything new to draw audiences into the theaters” and they need “a new experience, to provide the ‘wow’ factor.”

So far, the images that the screen produces have impressed many in Hollywood, including Jerome Dewhurst, senior color scientist at postproduction facility Roundabout Entertainment. He contends that the LED screen’s “pure black is much deeper" than other systems.

It remains to be seen whether the non-expert eye of the average moviegoer will see a noticeable difference, and whether audiences will then be willing to pay a premium for it. At launch, Pacific Theatres Winnetka is not charging a premium for the LED auditorium. But, in time, theaters may choose to charge a premium ticket price to watch movies on a LED screen.

In order to prep movies for exhibition on the new LED screen in theaters, Samsung hopes to outfit postproduction facilities so that filmmakers can view their work on an LED display. The first color grading (digital intermediate) postproduction suite to offer a Samsung LED Screen in North America has now opened at Roundabout’s Santa Monica facility. It offers a 17-foot screen that can play 2K resolution, standard or high dynamic range, 7.1 surround sound and offers a Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve color grading system. Samsung hopes to add its screens in more post houses.

According to Samsung, its Cinema Screen can play a standard DCI-compliant Digital Cinema Package (the digital equivalent of the film print) if the images are standard dynamic range. But for a high dynamic range (HDR) grade, it would require a separate version, meaning that the studios would need to make another deliverable. Studios are already creating multiple versions of their films, including digital 2D, digital 3D at different light levels, Imax, Dolby Cinema and local languages. The more deliverables, the more time and expense films must spend in postproduction.

The reason for the new HDR version — meaning that the images have a wider range between the whitest whites and blackest blacks — is that the LED screen is brighter than what is typically projected in theaters, which is 14 foot-lamberts (a measure of luminance in cinema). In comparison, the LED screen has a peak brightness level around 300 nits (a measurement of brightness), which Samsung estimates could display roughly 88 foot-lamberts.

The new Samsung LED Cinema Screen in Chatsworth is 34 feet wide and 18 feet high, with all of the features of the smaller screen at Roundabout, but it can additionally support 4K resolution.

When introduced to the press on Friday, the theater presented trailers of Black Panther and A Wrinkle in Time in standard dynamic range; various Amazon trailers including Life Itself in HDR; and some ARRI-provided demo material shot with its new Alexa LF large format camera, also in HDR.

Ready Player One was screened in its entirety in standard dynamic range, and Samsung confirmed that it therefore didn’t create a new version of the film.

But on the HDR front, this screen does underscore a concern voiced by many cinematographers last week at NAB Show, that in the digital realm, their images can be manipulated and changed all too easily in postproduction. In fact, Ready Player One cinematographer and two-time Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski lamented that cinematographers are losing control of the images they shoot.

The cinematographers’ participation in color grading can vary, as some lensers have guaranteed involvement in their contracts while others do not.

Roundabout’s Dewhurst emphasized that he encourages the DP’s involvement. “It’s Roundabout’s view that an HDR theater requires a dedicated grading session, not an automated system, to create the deliverable,” he added, recommending that the LED HDR grade could be the master version, used as the starting point for other versions of a movie.

Dewhurst also revealed that Roundabout has already started to invite members of the American Society of Cinematographers to see the screen and discuss the creative work.

Samsung has additionally been showing their LED screen to filmmakers and Hollywood studio execs. The screen might be of particular interest to James Cameron, Ang Lee and other filmmakers exploring the use of higher frame rates. Ready Player One was screened on the Samsung system at 24 frames per second, the standard in cinema. But the tech manufacturer contends that it’s working to get the system up to a high frame rate of 60 frames per second.

The question of how to handle the sound has been a topic of discussion for the past year, since Samsung first announced its LED Cinema Screen plans. This is because in traditional cinema, there are speakers directly behind the screen, which is not doable with LED panels.

For this theater auditorium, Samsung-owned Harman International developed a JBL Professional cinema sound audio system that can accommodate up to 7.1 Surround Sound. Harman’s cinema solutions manager Dan Saenz explained that the new configuration places the front speaker directly above the screen and incorporates some filtering technology, designed to make it appear as though the sound was coming from the screen; and it places an additional speaker in front that bounces high frequency sounds off the screen and into the audience, also aimed at creating the sonic experience of a traditional theater.

Still, the biggest hurdle to a rollout could come down to the cost. Samsung said the cost of a screen could run anywhere from $500,000 to $800,000, a hefty price for a theater owner. Pete Lude, chief technology officer of engineering firm Mission Rock Digital, estimates that in comparison, top-of-the-line laser projectors generally cost between $150,000 to $300,000.

Samsung argued that there are other benefits that could help offset some of the cost, citing as an example that the LED Cinema Screen’s life span is estimated to be 17 years. “And we’re looking at financial companies to see if there are options available,” said Samsung’s Choi.

The company also pointed out that unlike projection systems, a LED screen could be used with ambient light in the room, potentially making it an attractive option for dine-in theaters, gaming or other such users.

While Pacific Theatres Winnetka is the first U.S. theater installation, the Samsung LED Cinema Screens are available in several international venues, including two in South Korea and one each in Zurich, Bangkok and Shanghai. Samsung expects to have at least 10 installed worldwide by the summer, and roughly 30 by the end of the year.

While currently focused on 34-foot screens, Samsung is also working on a 46-foot 4K LED screen, which it aims to introduce in late 2018.

The Samsung LED screen will be on display next week at the theater owners convention CinemaCon, and Sony will show its Crystal LED cinema screen during the confab as well.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/be...egoing-1104745





8K TVs are Coming, but Don't Buy the Hype

Now isn't the time to spend $13,000 on a TV with no native content.
Rob Pegoraro

If the 8,294,400 pixels of resolution on an Ultra High Definition television just don't seem to convey enough detail, fear not: The electronics industry has heard your cry.

Even as UHD TVs, often called 4K TVs for their nearly 4,000 pixels of horizontal resolution, approach half of display shipments in the U.S., set manufacturers have been stepping up their demos of 8K sets that, with their 7680-by-4320 resolution, pack in a full 33,177,600 pixels.

And Sharp is now expanding its distribution of one such set, the 70-inch LV-70X500E. Following its October debut in China and subsequent arrivals in Japan and Taiwan, this 8K display will go on sale across Europe at the end of April for €11,199 -- about $13,800 at current exchange rates. Sharp hasn't announced anything about U.S. availability, but during a conversation at CES in January, Sharp marketing vice-president Rey Roque said an American price for this set would be in the "low five figures."

That, apparently, is supposed to be a reasonable price for a set that supports a video format that offers next to nothing to watch, that can't be streamed on most broadband connections or fit onto Blu-ray discs and which can't even be properly appreciated unless you get a set too big to fit in many living rooms.

An upsell based on upscaling

Sharp laid out its pitch for 8K TV last week at the IFA Global Press Conference, a spring event hosted by the organizers of the IFA electronics trade show that runs in Berlin each summer. One thing it doesn't include: Having lots of video to watch in 8K.

Sascha Lange, Sharp's European vice president for marketing and sales, instead emphasized how this and other 8K sets could electronically upscale 4K content (although even that remains scarce, especially for live programming like sports) and could show still images at their full resolution.

Actual 8K video will be a small part of the picture at first. The Japanese broadcaster NHK has been testing 8K transmission over the air as well as via cable and satellite, but it stands alone in that respect.

Blu-ray discs now support 4K video, but they won't be able to accommodate 8K, predicted Mark Vena, senior analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy. For that, you'd need "really high-density drives," he said.

Streaming allowed 4K video to find an audience without the cooperation of cable and satellite firms. But while, for instance, YouTube has offered 8K video since 2015, video at that resolution demands far faster download speeds than 4K streaming.

The highlights reel playing on a demo unit of Sharp's 8K set required 300 megabits per second of bandwidth to stream, said Adrian Wysocki, group product manager at UMC, the Sharp-owned firm that builds TVs in Poland for the company. He suggested in a conversation Friday that more efficient formats could cut that to 100 Mbps.

Only 23.2% of U.S. fixed-broadband connections hit that speed at the end of 2016, according to to the Federal Communications Commission's latest report on internet access services.

Wysocki added that an 8K display can also show four 4K streams at once, a possibility Sharp demonstrated at CES in January. He allowed that Sharp's 70-inch set was not really a product for average consumers but would definitely appeal to the right sort of videophile.

"If you're a freak and if you have enough money, of course you will want to have this at home."

You're going to need a bigger living room

Sharp also emphasized that 8K will make bigger screens possible -- which is another way of saying that you'll need giant screens to appreciate 8K's extra resolution, much as 4K's added pixels can't be seen from most couches unless the screen is bigger than 50 inches or so.

"It enables larger screens at home," said Sharp's Lange during the presentation. "8K is the technological condition to start selling and enjoying more 70-inch-plus screens at home."

But as set sizes increase, so do their costs, warned analyst Paul Gray of IHS Markit. Ultra-large TVs incur shipping, delivery and installation costs that don't apply to smaller sets.

"Between 65 and 75, the volume of the box goes up by a factor of four," Gray said, noting the extra reinforcement required for the larger display to survive shipment.

Installation of something that won't fit in a car and may not fit through some doors adds to the expense. "It's got to be delivered by two people, when the owner is in, and it's probably gotta be installed by them," Gray said.
Some people will probably buy this

The entire 8K concept -- something that Sharp has been pushing since CES 2012 -- can seem like one of the electronics industry's more annoying exercises in fetishizing newness over convenience or cost. Think of Apple dropping the headphone jack, but with much larger price tags all around.

But 8K probably will draw some shoppers. IHS Markit predicts that China will be an early success for it, thanks to an enormous and expanding market of early adopters of technology. The firm projects 8K will account for 9% of the display market there by 2021, versus just over 2% in North America.

And a flood of 8K content may not be necessary for 8K to secure a niche as a luxury product if just bringing more pixels to the party can suffice. Or as Gray summed up: "It's numbers marketing."
https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/25/...-buy-the-hype/





The Music Industry had a Fantastic 2017, Driven by Streaming Revenues
Michael Grothaus

Global recorded music revenues soared by $1.4 billion in 2017 largely due to the increased adoption of music streaming services among consumers, reports the Music Industry Blog. Global recorded music revenues reached $17.4 billion in 2017, putting it just a hair below 2008’s $17.7 billion in revenues. That means that most of the decline in recorded music revenues over the past 10 years has now been reversed. Streaming was the largest driver of that growth, accounting for 43% of all revenues. In 2017 streaming revenues surged by 39%, topping out at $7.4 billion.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40562569...aming-revenues





Global Recorded Music Revenues Grew By $1.4 Billion in 2017
Mark Mulligan

2017 was a stellar year for the recorded music business. Global recorded music revenues reached $17.4 billion in 2017 in trade values, up from $16 billion in 2016, an annual growth rate of 8.5%. That $1.4 billion of growth puts the global total just below 2008 levels ($17.7 billion) meaning that the decline wrought through much of the last 10 years has been expunged. The recorded music business is locked firmly in growth mode, following nearly $1 billion growth in 2016.

Streaming has, unsurprisingly, been the driver of growth, growing revenues by 39% year-on-year, adding $2.1 billion to reach $7.4 billion, representing 43% of all revenues. The growth was comfortably larger than the $783 million / -10% that legacy formats (ie downloads and physical) collectively declined by.

Universal Music retained its market leadership position in 2017 with revenues of $5,162 million, representing 29.7% of all revenues, followed by Sony Music ($3,635 million / 22.1%) while Warner Music enjoyed the biggest revenue growth rate and market share shift, reaching $3,127 million / 18%. Meanwhile independents delivered $4,798 million representing 27.6%. However, much additional independent sector growth was absorbed by revenue that flowed through digital distribution companies owned by major record labels that were thus reported in major label accounts.

But perhaps the biggest story of all is the growth of artists without labels. With 27.2% year-on-year growth this was the fastest growing segment in 2017. This comprises the revenue artists generate by distributing directly via platforms such as Believe Digital’s Tunecore, CD Baby and Bandcamp. All these companies performed strongly in 2017, collectively generating $472 million of revenue in 2017, up from $371 million the year before. While these numbers neither represent the death of labels nor the return of the long tail, they do reflect the fact that there is a global marketplace for artists, which fall just outside of record label’s remits.

Up until now, this section of the market has been left out of measures of the global recorded music market. With nearly half a billion dollars of revenue in 2017 and growing far faster than the traditional companies, this sector is simply too large to ignore anymore. Artists direct are quite simply now an integral component of the recorded music market and their influence will only increase. In fact, independent labels and artists direct together represent 30.3% of global recorded music revenues in 2017.

A Growing and Diversified Market

The big take away from 2017 is that the market is becoming increasingly diversified, with artists direct far outgrowing the rest of the market. Although this does not mean that the labels are about to be usurped, it does signify – especially when major distributed independent label revenue and label services deals are considered – an increasingly diversified market. Add the possibility of streaming services signing artists themselves and doing direct deals with independent labels, and the picture becomes even more interesting.

The outlook for global recorded music business is one of both growth and change.

The report that this post is based upon is immediately available to MIDiA Research subscription clients herealong with a full excel with quarterly revenue from 2015 to 2017 segmented by format and by label. If you are not yet a MIDiA client and would like to learn more then email info@midiaresearch.com
https://musicindustryblog.wordpress....llion-in-2017/





Charter Suffers Worst Selloff in Nine Years After Shedding Subscribers
Gerry Smith

• Cable-TV giant lost 122,000 TV customers last quarter
• CEO highlights broadband focus, says strategy still ‘on track’

Charter Communications Inc. suffered its worst stock plunge in nine years following dismal results, renewing concerns that the second-largest U.S. cable provider can’t hold on to TV customers.

The shares tumbled as much as 16 percent to $250.10 -- the worst decline since 2009, the year the company emerged from bankruptcy. The rout followed an 11 percent drop this year through Thursday’s close.

The results mark a troubling reversal since Charter’s last earnings report in February, when it added video subscribers for the first time in nearly two years and brought a glimmer of hope to a beleaguered business.

But this quarter, the Stamford, Connecticut-based company returned to what has become almost routine in the industry. Charter lost 122,000 residential video subscribers -- even more than during the same the period a year ago, when 100,000 disappeared.

“While financials were generally as expected, subscriber metrics were weaker,” Jefferies LLC analyst Scott Goldman said in a note. He had projected that the video-customer rolls would only drop by about 30,000.

Charter isn’t alone in struggling to hang on to TV customers. Earlier this week, market leader Comcast Corp. reported a loss of 96,000 video subscribers during the first quarter -- worse than the 60,800 drop analysts were predicting. It marked Comcast’s fourth straight quarter of video losses.

Charter acquired two other cable companies -- Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks -- in May 2016. Since then, Chief Executive Officer Tom Rutledge has warned that integrating three companies into a single pricing and packaging strategy would mean losing customers in the short term. The hope is that the company can acquire longer-lasting subscribers over time.

But nearly two years later, the steep cable-TV losses are another sign of how new online TV providers, such AT&T Inc.’s DirecTV Now, are threatening the cable-TV business. DirecTV Now, an online service starting at $35 a month for 60-plus channels, added 312,000 customers this quarter.

Peers Tumble

Charter’s performance dragged down other cable companies on Friday. Comcast fell as much as 4.2 percent, while Altice USA Inc. dropped 7.8 percent.

The shift has forced Charter and its peers to find more growth in their broadband business. In other words, they’re more focused on being a supporting player to internet video, rather than the TV supplier itself.

The good news is Charter gained 331,000 internet subscribers in the quarter. While cord cutting may be eating into Charter’s TV business, the cable company still delivers the high-speed broadband needed for customers to stream Netflix and other popular online alternatives. But even on that front, there are some dark clouds. Charter added 23 percent fewer broadband customers than it did a year ago.

Dropping Users

Charter executives said Friday that a major factor in their quarterly loss of video and internet subscribers was disconnecting customers who didn’t pay their bills. They said the situation was temporary, and they expected trends to improve by the end of the second quarter.

Rutledge reiterated that the company’s integration strategy “remains on track,” noting its 5 percent revenue growth and 6.5 percent profit increase during the quarter. He said his goal was in part to deliver “fast, reliable bandwidth-rich connectivity products” -- a sign of how internet has become the main focus for the cable industry.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ds-subscribers





Ajit Pai Is Intentionally Delaying His Net Neutrality Repeal and No One Knows Why

Despite claims that net neutrality officially died this week, the FCC has not officially posted the repeal yet.
Karl Bode

More than four months after the Trump FCC formally voted to kill net neutrality, the rules remain on the books. And there’s every indication that the agency is intentionally delaying the final, killing blow—just to further help AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.
While numerous news outlets claimed net neutrality officially died this week, that’s not technically true. Before net neutrality rules can truly be scrubbed from the books, the repeal needs to not only be posted to the Federal Register, but the US Office of Management and Budget needs to sign off on the flimsy replacement protections proposed by the FCC.

But consumer advocates this week pointed out that the FCC appears to be intentionally delaying the final repeal via intentional, bureaucratic gridlock.

Harold Feld, one of the foremost authorities on FCC and telecom policy, wrote a blog post this week noting that the delay is particularly unusual for an FCC that (falsely) proclaimed that the rules had a massive, negative impact on ISPs ability to invest in broadband networks.

“This is, to say the least, highly unusual,” Feld observed. “There is absolutely no reason for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to have stretched out this process so ridiculously long. It is especially puzzling in light Pai’s insistence that he had to rush through repeal of net neutrality over the objections of just about everyone but the ISPs and their cheerleaders…”

So why is the Trump FCC stalling on formally killing rules it professes were devastating to the telecom sector?

The most popular theory is that ISPs and the FCC wanted more time to garner support for their effort to pass a bogus net neutrality law. A law they promise will “solve” the net neutrality feud once and for all, but whose real intention is to pre-empt tougher state laws, and block the FCC’s 2015 rules from being restored in the wake of a possible court loss.

While it may seem like ISPs scored a major victory with last December’s vote at the FCC, that’s simply not the case. Given the FCC’s bizarre behavior during the repeal (ranging from ignoring comment fraud and identity theft during the public comment period to making up a DDOS attack), the repeal remains on some shaky legal ground courtesy of FCC ethical gaffes.

In addition to their looming legal challenge, ISPs are worried that more than half the states in the country are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules. And while ISPs successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in their repeal trying to ban states from protecting consumers, their legal authority on that front is dubious as well.

While it’s the least likely path toward restoring the rules, ISPs are also wary of an effort in Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse the repeal. That effort lets a majority Congress vote reverse any regulatory action within 60 days of its appearance in the Federal Register, but obtaining the necessary votes in a ISP cash-compromised Congress has proven to be a challenge.

Facing new state rules, overwhelming public anger, a potential CRA reversal and shaky legal prospects in court, ISP lobbyists have come up with a novel policy solution to these threats: throwing their support behind a fake net neutrality law.

ISP lobbyists have convinced loyal lawmakers (Marsha Blackburn in the House and John Kennedy in the Senate) to push a law they claim will finally put the long-standing debate to rest. Their proposed law prohibits things ISPs never had any real intent of doing (blocking websites), while carving out vast loopholes to numerous other anti-competitive behaviors.

Potentially anti-competitive behaviors like zero rating (using usage caps to penalize competing services) or paid prioritization (letting deeper-pocketed companies buy a distinct network advantage over competitors) are all allowed under the proposal. Blackburn spent much of last week trying to make anti-competitive behavior sound appealing.

Except the legislation’s real goal isn’t to protect net neutrality. The goal is to pre-empt tougher state proposals, and to prevent the FCC’s 2015 rules from being reinstated should ISPs and the FCC lose in court.

As such, it’s believed that the FCC intentionally dragged out the official repeal to give ISPs time to drum up support for their trojan horse.

“It's the one thing that makes sense,” Feld tells me. “They thought they could stampede Democrats into caving. They totally misread the political reality.”

Given that net neutrality rules have broad, overwhelming bipartisan public support, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time ISP lobbyists misread their advantage. And while ISPs have funded countless editorials from ISP-funded groups trying to generate support for their gambit, most net neutrality advocates in Congress appear to see the effort as the ruse it is.

By and large the best chance to restore net neutrality rests with the looming court battle, which should begin sometime in the next few months. Barring that, the best remaining option will be to vote lawmakers out of office that were willing to sell out consumers, competition and the health of the internet simply to help regional telecom monopolies.

Meanwhile, as ISPs grow increasingly nervous about the repeal chances for survival, they’re going to be pushing harder than ever for a bogus legislative solution to a problem they themselves created.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...t-official-yet





Power-Sucking Bitcoin 'Mines' Spark Backlash
Michael Hill

Bitcoin "miners" who use rows of computers whirring at the same time to produce virtual currencies began taking root along New York's northern border a couple of years ago to tap into some of the nation's cheapest hydroelectric power, offering an air of Silicon Valley sophistication to this often-snowy region.

But as the once-high-flying bitcoin market has waned, so too has the enthusiasm for bitcoin miners. Mining operations with stacks of servers suck up so much electricity that they are in some cases causing power rates to spike for ordinary customers. And some officials question whether it's all worth it for the relatively few jobs created.

"We don't want someone coming in, taking our resources, not creating the jobs they professed to create and then disappear," said Tim Currier, mayor of Massena, a village just south of the Canadian border, where bitcoin operator Coinmint recently announced plans to use the old aluminum plant site for a mining operation that would require 400 megawatts — roughly enough to power 300,000 homes at once.

In Plattsburgh, where two cryptocurrency operations have been blamed for spiking electricity rates, the prospect of more cryptocurrency miners plugging in spooked officials enough in March to enact an 18-month moratorium on new operations. The small border village of Rouses Point also is holding off on approving new server farms and Lake Placid is considering a moratorium.

For local officials, the power struggle has been a crash course in the esoteric bitcoin mining business in which miners earn bitcoins by making complex calculations that verify transactions on the digital currency's public ledger.

Since it often uses hundreds of computers that throw off tremendous heat and burn a lot of power, it has tended to gravitate towards cooler places with cheap electricity, such as geothermal-rich Iceland or along the Columbia River region of Washington state.

The stretch of New York near the Canadian border similarly fits the bill. Cheap hydropower from a dam spanning the St. Lawrence River is doled out by a state authority to local businesses that promise to create jobs. Additionally, some municipalities such as Massena and Plattsburgh receive cheap electricity from a separate hydropower project near Niagara Falls.

In Plattsburgh, electricity is so cheap most residents use it instead of oil or wood to heat their homes. The couple of commercial cryptocurrency mines here can get an industrial rate of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour — less than half the national average.

But Plattsburgh Mayor Colin Read said its largest operator, Coinmint, which has two plants employing 20 or fewer people, can consume about 10 percent of Plattsburgh's 104 megawatt cheap electricity quota. When the city exceeded its allocation like it did this winter, customers ended up paying $10 to $30 more a month for the extra electricity. For a major employer like Mold-Rite Plastics plant, it cost them at least $15,000 in February.

State regulators have since given municipal utilities the ability to charge higher rates to cryptocurrency miners. At least one bitcoin miner in Plattsburgh says he's working with the city on solutions to the power worries.

Ryan Brienza, founder and CEO of the hosting company Zafra, said those could include mining on behalf of the city for an hour a day or harnessing the heat from mining computers to warm up large spaces.

While the direct number of jobs associated with mines can be small, Brienza said they can bring revenue, investments and talent to the city while employing local contractors.

"It can start snowballing," Brienza said.

Coinmint's plans for a new plant in Massena, for example, come with a promise of 150 jobs. That's welcome in an area that in the past decade has suffered though the loss of aluminum-making jobs and the closure of a General Motors powertrain plant.

"J-O-Bs. Yup. What we need up here," said Steve O'Shaughnessy, Massena town supervisor.

Coinmint had asked for a cheap power allocation from the New York Power Authority for Massena for part of its energy needs, but that request was deferred.

The power authority has separately enacted its own moratorium on allocating hydropower to cryptocurrency operations — mirroring municipalities that have effectively pushed the "pause" button on a rush of miners coming in.

Coinmint representatives said this month they hope to begin the Massena operation in the second part of this year. The company stressed that mines can be a good fit for this job-hungry area.

"They're also going to get substantially more efficient over time," said Coinmint spokesman Kyle Carlton. "So to the extent that Plattsburgh or Massena or anybody else can get in on that and establish themselves on the ground floor, I think that's going to help those cities to be successful."
https://www.newstimes.com/business/t...h-12859077.php





E-Waste Recycler Eric Lundgren Loses Appeal on Computer Restore Disks, Must Serve 15-Month Prison Term
Tom Jackman

A California man who built a sizable business out of recycling electronic waste is headed to federal prison for 15 months after a federal appeals court in Miami rejected his claim that the “restore disks” he made to extend the lives of computers had no financial value, instead ruling that he had infringed Microsoft’s products to the tune of $700,000.

The appeals court upheld a federal district judge’s ruling that the disks made by Eric Lundgren to restore Microsoft operating systems had a value of $25 apiece, even though they could be downloaded free and could be used only on computers with a valid Microsoft license. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit initially granted Lundgren an emergency stay of his prison sentence, shortly before he was to surrender, but then affirmed his original 15-month sentence and $50,000 fine without hearing oral argument in a ruling issued April 11.

Lundgren, 33, has become a renowned innovator in the field of “e-waste,” using discarded parts to construct things such as an electric car, which far outdistanced a Tesla in a test on one charge. He built the first “electronic hybrid recycling” facility in the United States, which turns discarded cellphones and other electronics into functional devices, slowing the stream of harmful chemicals and metals into landfills and the environment. His California-based company processes more than 41 million pounds of e-waste each year and counts IBM, Motorola and Sprint among its clients.

“This is a difficult sentencing,” Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley told him last year, “because I credit everything you are telling me, you are a very remarkable person.”

Before he launched his company, IT Asset Partners, Lundgren lived in China, learning about the stream of e-waste and finding ways to send cheap parts to America to keep electronics running. One of his projects was to manufacture thousands of “restore disks,” usually supplied by computer-makers as a way for users to restore Windows to a hard drive if it crashes or must be wiped. The disks can be used only on a computer that already has a license for the Windows operating system, and the license transfers with the computer for its full life span. But computer owners often lose or throw out the disks, and though the operating system can be downloaded free on a licensed computer, Lundgren realized that many people didn’t feel competent to do that, and were simply throwing out their computers and buying new ones.

Lundgren had 28,000 of the disks made and shipped to a broker in Florida. Their plan was to sell the disks to computer refurbishing shops for about 25 cents apiece, so the refurbishers could provide the disks to used-computer buyers and wouldn’t have to take the time to create the disks themselves. In turn, the new users might be able to use the disks to keep their computers going the next time a problem occurred.

But in 2012, U.S. customs officers seized a shipment and began investigating. The disks were never sold. Eventually, the Florida broker, Robert Wolff, called Lundgren and offered to buy the disks himself as part of a government sting, Lundgren said. Wolff sent Lundgren $3,400, and the conspiracy was cemented. Both were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and criminal copyright infringement. Wolff made a plea deal and received a six-month home-arrest sentence.

Lundgren pleaded guilty but argued that the value of his disks was zero, so there was no harm to anyone. Neither Microsoft nor any computer manufacturers sell restore disks. They supply them free with new computers and make the software available for free downloading for those who have paid for the software and received a license — typically a sticker with a “Certificate of Authenticity” number on it. Lundgren said that he was trying to make the disks available for those who needed them and that they could be used only on licensed computers.

Initially, federal prosecutors valued the disks at $299 each, the cost of a brand-new Windows operating system, and Lundgren’s indictment claimed he had cost Microsoft $8.3 million in lost sales. By the time of sentencing, a Microsoft letter to Hurley and a Microsoft expert witness had reduced the value of the disks to $25 apiece, stating that was what Microsoft charged refurbishers for such disks.

But both the letter and the expert were pricing a disk that came with a Microsoft license. “These sales of counterfeit operating systems,” Microsoft lawyer Bonnie MacNaughton wrote to the judge, “displaced Microsoft’s potential sales of genuine operating systems.” But Lundgren’s disks had no licenses and were intended for computers that already had licenses.

Glenn Weadock, a former expert witness for the government in its antitrust case against Microsoft, was asked, “In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [Certificate of Authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation disks?”

“Zero or near zero,” Weadock said.

Why would anybody pay for one? Lundgren’s lawyer asked.

“There is a convenience factor associated with them,” Weadock said.

Still, Hurley decided Lundgren’s 28,000 restore disks had a value of $700,000, and that dollar amount qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term and a $50,000 fine. The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit deferred to Hurley in his judgment that Weadock was not credible and that “while experts on both sides may have identified differences in functionality in the discs, [Hurley] did not clearly err in finding them substantially equivalent.” The ruling was written by Judges William H. Pryor Jr., Beverly B. Martin and R. Lanier Anderson.

Randall Newman, Lundgren’s lawyer on the appeal, said there was no basis to seek a rehearing from the full 11th Circuit. Lundgren said an appeal to the Supreme Court would be a costly long shot.

But he said the court had set a precedent for Microsoft and other software-makers to pursue criminal cases against those seeking to extend the life span of computers. “I got in the way of their agenda,” Lundgren said, “this profit model that’s way more profitable than I could ever be.”

Lundgren said he wasn’t sure when he would be surrendering. He said prosecutors in Miami told him he could have a couple of weeks to put his financial affairs in order, including plans for his company of more than 100 employees. “But I was told if I got loud in the media, they’d come pick me up,” Lundgren said. “If you want to take my liberty, I’m going to get loud.”

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami declined to comment Monday.

“I am going to prison, and I’ve accepted it,” Lundgren said Monday. “What I’m not okay with is people not understanding why I’m going to prison. Hopefully my story can shine some light on the e-waste epidemic we have in the United States, how wasteful we are. At what point do people stand up and say something? I didn’t say something, I just did it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...h-prison-term/

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

April 21st, April 14th, April 7th, March 31st

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 30th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-07-11 06:58 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.


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