Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 2nd, ’05

[JackSpratts]

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.



He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


Signed,


New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton




















"It is so ordered." - Justice Souter


"What does it mean to induce someone to copyright infringement? If you think about it, any company would be liable. I think this is going to hammer the technology industry going forward." - Charles Baker


"I really think with all due respect, Fred, that that's fear mongering. It's not hard to see the commonsense difference between running a legitimate business where you tell people when they buy your product, don't steal music and running a business like Grokster and Streamcast where they help you find top 40 hits." - Don Verrilli, Content counsel


"Well, frankly, I wish I could rely on Mr. Verrilli's assurance that my concerns are just fear mongering. We've seen the entertainment industry sue every new technology for a century: starting with the player piano, the VCR, the first MP3 player, Replay TV, PVR's.

These are companies that are perfectly legitimate, not bad actors, as Mr. Verrilli suggests, and in an environment where entertainment companies have this track record of suing a whole variety of technology companies for making technologies they disapprove of, I think it's more than just fear mongering." – Fred Von Lohmann, Technology counsel


"If we can really make this work there will be enough electricity to last the world for the next 1,000 to 2,000 years." – Ian Fells


"I'm confident that after we see all the financial records from New Line and Warner Brothers that we're trying to get to, every dollar in [the LOTR] dispute will become four dollars." - Peter Nelson


"People read the words 'Supreme Court' and they think it's the bottom of the ninth, but this is clearly only the second inning." - Eric Garland


















Ignorance Is Power

The relative gulf between here and there, us and them, got a lot wider this week when the Supreme Court in a profoundly ill-advised decision unsupportable even by its own Byzantine logic or lack thereof found in favor of corporate giants and simultaneously created an entirely new class of law. When the court sent the MGM vs. Grokster case back to the lower courts the so-called Induce Act, battered about but never delivered by the senatorial Pawns of Big Media was ushered into life at 10:00 AM Monday morning in a sterile Washington DC stone edifice.

Measuring an anxiety provoking 55 pgs this mongrelized mish-mash of ill-conceived convolutions owes its sorry existence to nine dottering theorists who resembling many love struck parents were if not quite certain on what, specifically, the decision was based, were unanimous in their opinions that its hideous features were in fact things of beauty.

Thanks to this court, not only is the light at the end of the tunnel dimmer but the tunnel itself has gotten longer. It just goes to show that baby making is a job best left to those younger and more vital.

About the only thing the little gargoyle has going for it is it didn’t kill Sony. But that’s not exactly what it seems either, because by the courts own admission Grokster/Streamcast met the Sony challenge in full – something already recognized by the lower courts – but using a snoot full of pique in place of a head full of logic they overruled them anyway. Said the court, “We do not revisit Sony further, as MGM requests…It is enough to note that the Ninth Circuit's judgment rested on an erroneous understanding of Sony and to leave further consideration of the Sony rule for a day when that may be required.” Like when Grokster wins again in the lower courts.

But Sony itself was based on a 90%/10% ratio of alleged infringing to non-infringing use, that is, something like nine percent of the uses people put their VCRs to - at the time – were authorized. As it turns out that’s exactly the same ratio found among Grokster users, and this wasn’t overlooked. It was deliberately ignored. It’s one thing to miss it entirely, it’s another to stare at it head on then and dismiss it, but that’s exactly what happened. A point even a justice remarked on with concern.

Justice Breyer in a clarifying opinion identified that important ratio, he wrote “When measured against Sony's underlying evidence and analysis, the evidence now before us shows that Grokster passes Sony's test--that is, whether the company's product is capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses. Id., at 442. For one thing, petitioners' (hereinafter MGM) own expert declared that 75% of current files available on Grokster are infringing and 15% are ‘likely infringing.’ See App. 436-439, 6-17 (Decl. of Dr. Ingram Olkin); cf. ante, at 4 (opinion of the Court). That leaves some number of files near 10% that apparently are noninfringing, a figure very similar to the 9% or so of authorized time-shifting uses of the VCR that the Court faced in Sony.” Furthermore Breyer wasn’t taken in by doomsday scenarios put forth by content extremists claiming unauthorized file-sharing would destroy the media companies and the artists in their service. “The extent to which related production has actually and resultingly declined remains uncertain, though there is good reason to believe that the decline, if any, is not substantial,” observed Breyer correctly. But in a deeply disappointing twist typical of the present generational battles over Internet policy he doesn’t seem to have tried to educate the other eight Justices of the importance of his facts nor even base his own decision on the fundamental evidence he knows to be true. Instead he ignored it himself, and voted with the majority.

This is a case of nine clueless people who, as the oft-repeated saying goes, just don’t get it. There is little question that had the Court been composed of people young enough to actually feel comfortable with the Internet the outcome would be one we’d be celebrating this week instead of grieving. We are in the grips of a worldwide Geezer vs. Geek conflict, a centralized vs. decentralized vision of the future that is as dispiriting as it is predictable. Pulled in opposite directions we are as equally ruled technologically by the youthful Decentralists as we are politically by the ignorant and aged but iron fisted Centralists.

But you know, time waits for no one and the old farts aren’t getting any younger. People do get tired. They quit. They drop dead. They may be writing their briefs in their Depends. TBH after a good five years of this I figured a new crop of subversives would be infiltrating the corridors of power with their WASTE keys, secret geek handshakes and all. I was ready for a little relief. Instead the tension just keeps getting stronger. On Monday I was agitated enough by the Supreme Court’s iniquitous decision I prescribed myself a 7 GB download of 100 CDs just to steady my nerves. Bittorrent obliged the next day and I must admit I felt much better, which brings up another issue. One of the things in the original Sony case was the movie moguls contention that recording a TV show was in and of itself illegal, you know, the old “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone” thing to quote from the worst Hollywood huckster of off the wall hyperbole Jack Valenti. That even if the Betamax was good for other things bedsides the infringing ones (that 91 %), one couldn’t count time-shifting among them, because that was a violation too. Well, as it happens TV had been around awhile and even the Geezers had plenty of comfy tube time under their belts, some twenty-five years worth, so it’s no coincidence that concurrent with the Sony decision they also ruled copying TV shows for later viewing was legal too, and that made Sony so much easier to decide. I mean if you suddenly snap your fingers and decree the overwhelming majority of uses a consumer will throw at some controversial new gizmo are legal, it’s going to be an easy walk to home to decide the device itself is non-infringing. Would that it was so easy with file-sharing but if anything, it’s gotten worse in that regard.

Perhaps because the seventies were a special time of individual promise, perhaps because the present Justices are as old in spirit as they are in age or perhaps because of some specific animosity towards a brazen new technology that doesn’t evolve the art but completely reconstructs it - in the most democratic and people-centric way in history - we heard no pronouncements that the non-profit sharing of files was OK to do by the people, you know, the actual ones who support this entire edifice of art, commerce, culture and society. As a matter of fact Breyer himself griped it was “common theft.” Please. Of all people he should know better. It’s insightfully weird because when a Real Pirate was busted for making and selling recordings the court lectured the prosecutor that no, selling wasn’t “theft”, it was “infringement.” Apparently they draw the line at just plain listening. If you expect any mercy from these fossils whose boney butts barely keep the bench warm you’ll have to do this for the money baby. Limiting yourself to the pleasure of time-shifting tunes now seems to be their idea of a national disgrace. Maybe they’re just disappointed by the lack of criminal ambition. Or just cranky in general. A younger jurist would have seen it differently.

The real problems occur when technologists sit down with venture capitalists and work out the funding for their next killer apps. The VC guys may decide all this ass covering is too distracting for their partners and move their brain trusts to some safe haven overseas, allowing America’s competitors to utilize her technological brilliance while exploiting her political short comings. That would be a real shame and it remains the likeliest threat of this dangerous and myopic decision from a court that barely deserves to be called Supreme.

Strangest of all is the effect this will have on file-sharing, regardless of how the lower courts dispose of the case when it finally reaches them, because it won’t have any at all. A few apps will close, the centrally serviced ones mostly, but people will keep sharing files, people will keep improving the art and people will keep doing basically what they’ve been doing for the last five years, and why not? We’re not bemoaning the immorality of violating natural laws here - there are none against copying - we’re talking about the people’s own laws, and how a string of bad decisions by officials acting in their own narrow self-interest have forced the people to interpret those laws themselves. This may shock the drama queens in congress and the windbags on the courts, but I don’t think they’re going to be around all that much longer anyway, so like a lot of ephemera associated with the Internet their agitation will be as short-lived as their careers.

Finally I couldn’t help noticing the courts referral to “common law.” It came up a half dozen times in Souter’s decision and it invariably comes up in IP cases to buttress shaky arguments when the law itself is murky. It purports to describe how some ancient group or another worked stuff out back in near prehistory, a sort of “they did it then, so it’s ok now” defense. Whether that has much relevance to today’s highly factionalized societies in the grips of sweeping cultural and technological changes is open to debate, but more often than not the common law cited is left deliberately vague and stretched unrecognizably thin to fit the argument of whatever lawyer is abusing it. But it is highly respected by the courts all the same, as is the recognition that the common behaviors of people carries bona fide authority. Well let me say something about common law. We’re making it right now and it’s no courtroom conceit. When 100 million people are copying and sharing files on a daily basis it’s as strong an example of true common law as you’re ever going to see. Stick that in your brief you geezers.
















Enjoy,

Jack















July 2nd, 2005




Justices Reinstate Suits on Internet File Sharing
Linda Greenhouse and Lorne Manly

The Supreme Court handed a major victory to the entertainment and recording industries on Monday by reinstating a copyright-infringement suit against two file-sharing services.

In a unanimous opinion, the court strongly suggested that the services, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, should be found liable for the vast copyright infringement committed by those using their software to download music and movies.

Two lower federal courts in California had ruled in favor of the two companies, dismissing the lawsuit without a trial on the basis of a legal analysis that the Supreme Court found seriously flawed.

In his opinion for the court on Monday, Justice David H. Souter suggested that when properly evaluated, the evidence against Grokster and StreamCast was, in fact, so strong that the entertainment-industry plaintiffs might be entitled to summary judgment.

At the least, he said, MGM Studios and the other plaintiffs - including the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America and a class of 27,000 music publishers and songwriters - were entitled to a trial to prove their accusations that the file-sharing companies were in business primarily to enable and induce computer users to find and download copyrighted material.

In the Supreme Court's view, the plaintiffs have effectively made that case already. Justice Souter called the record "replete with evidence" that the companies "acted with a purpose to cause copyright violations by use of software suitable for illegal use." The opinion referred to "evidence of infringement on a gigantic scale" and said that "the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering." [Excerpts, Page C5.]

The movie and music industries, even armed with a decision affirming their legal recourse, have a long way to go to capitalize on it, and they plan new efforts to persuade or force those actually doing the downloading to desist.

Digital rights advocates, while somewhat relieved that the court did not go further, were concerned that the ruling could invite a deluge of lawsuits and a risk that they would inhibit innovation.

There is no dispute that individual users violate copyright law when they share files of copyrighted material, and the industry has had some modest success in seeking fines from college students and others. But with millions of users downloading billions of files each month, retail prosecution proved inefficient, so the music and entertainment industries turned their attention several years ago to the commercial services that make the file sharing possible.

That effort led to the Supreme Court's most important copyright case since its ruling in 1984 that shielded the manufacturers of the videocassette recorder from copyright liability for possibly infringing use by home consumers.

The court based its decision then, in Sony v. Universal City Studios, on a finding that the VCR was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," like time-shifting, in which home users simply recorded programs for viewing later.

In ruling last year for Grokster and StreamCast, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco relied on the Sony decision, finding that the file- sharing software had possible noninfringing uses. Because the software operates in a decentralized way without using a central computer, the appeals court found, Grokster and StreamCast could not track users and had no direct knowledge of any specific instance of infringement.

The Supreme Court on Monday held that the appeals court had misapplied the Sony decision by focusing only on the technology, without regard to the business model that the technology served.

"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.

Movie and music industry executives hailed the decision. "If you build a business that aids and abets theft, you will be held accountable," said Dan Glickman, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying organization for the major Hollywood studios. BMI, representing more than 300,000 songwriters and composers, called the decision "good news indeed for the creative community whose work has been blatantly infringed."

The movie and music industries had warned that file sharing was hurting them financially, and could ultimately inhibit the creation of content. The music industry has blamed song-swapping over the Internet for its decade-long sales slump.

While movies and television shows are more difficult to trade online because of the size of their files, technological advances are making that easier and threatening the rich source of cash that DVD sales have become for the studios.

On the other hand, groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumers Union, the Consumer Electronics Association and other elements of the computer and technology industries warned the court that too broad a rule of contributory copyright infringement would stifle innovation if there was a possibility that consumers might put a product to an infringing use.

It was clear from the opinion, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inv. v. Grokster Ltd., No. 04-480, that the justices had taken note of that argument and tried to draw a line that would protect both copyright holders and innovators. The court identified the line as "inducement" - deliberately urging consumers to make illicit use of the product or showing them how it could be done.

"Mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability," Justice Souter said. He added: "Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves. The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise."

James Gibson, a professor of intellectual property and computer law at the University of Richmond School of Law, applauded what he called a balancing act between artistic creators and technological innovators.

By putting so much weight on proving companies' bad behavior, he said, the decision could create more legal expenses and unpredictability for technology companies. At the same time, he added, it should provide peace of mind to creators of technology that could be used for both legitimate and infringing uses.

But several technology advocates expressed concern, saying innovators would now be saddled with the befuddling notion of "intent." Matthew Neco, StreamCast's general counsel, said the ruling turned Hollywood and the recording industry into "thought police."

Michael Petricone, vice president for technology policy at the Consumer Electronics Association, said that without clear guidelines from the court on what a company must do to avoid being held liable for contributing to copyright infringement, "the legal clarity has decreased and the risk of litigation has increased."

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he was pleased the court had "determined that those who intentionally induce or encourage the theft of copyrighted music, movies, software or other protected works may be held liable for their actions." The Bush administration joined the argument in support of the studios.

While the court's judgment was unanimous, the justices did not share the same view of how useful the Sony precedent remained after more than 20 years of changing technology. A concurring opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined, suggested that the Sony case's reference to "substantial noninfringing use" was too easily misunderstood by lower courts and might have to be tailored for different types of technology.

The file-sharing software might be used to swap large numbers of noninfringing files, Justice Ginsburg said, but even a big number would be "dwarfed by the huge total volume of files shared."

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in a concurring opinion also signed by Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, said the Sony decision had basically achieved its "innovation-protecting objective" and struck the right balance between protecting copyrights and technology. It should be retained, he said.

Linda Greenhouse reported from Washington for this article and Lorne Manly from New York. Jeff Leeds and Tom Zeller Jr. contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/te...HWhmhgmFWv4V3Q






Day Of Decisions
PBS NewsHour

GWEN IFILL: Another one that was perhaps not as close a call as one would have thought, Grokster, which is most -- grownups don't know what Grokster is. But teenagers understand this is how you share and video and music files on the Internet or using the Internet. And the court ruled in favor of the entertainment industry?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Yes. This was a big victory for the entertainment industry, which has long argued that file sharing services like Grokster and Streamcast, the other company at the center of t his litigation, have cost them, you know, billions of dollars because people steal their songs and movies, instead of having to go out and buy it, by using these file-sharing services.

They had sued Grokster and Streamcast; a lower court sided with the software companies. It said that they could not be held liable. But today the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision set that ruling aside and said, in fact, that Grokster and Streamcast could, in fact, be held liable. And they sent the issue back down to the lower courts for a trial on whether or not there should be liability.

This was a big win for the entertainment industry, which contends that this issue has cost it untold amounts of money. And the court today in its opinion recognized that the violations here, that the copyright violations that people have done have been staggering. The issue here and why this was also such a significant case was that the industry is trying to hold Grokster and Streamcast liable for copyright infringement for the actions of third parties, the teenager sitting at home or the college student in their dorm, who download - use their software to download these files - which violates copyright.

The companies argued that they had done nothing wrong. They weren't violating copyright; they weren't even -- they didn't have any centralized server and that there were many other legitimate uses for their product.

GWEN IFILL: But this wasn't even close. When was the last time you saw a unanimous court decision?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, on the last day of the term, you don't see them often because the last day of the term and as things progress, those are always the most controversial, contentious decisions, the ones that so bitterly divide the court, the ones that have all the dissenting opinions and the concurring opinions.

For example, in the Ten Commandments case that we just talked about, those two cases produced ten separate opinions from the Justices. So you don't often see it on the last day. And of course the court will not have - this isn't the last word -- this goes back now to the lower courts to decide if these companies will be liable.

GWEN IFILL: And it was the last day, but we may still be hearing more from the court -

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right.

GWEN IFILL: So we'll be keeping our ear to the ground. Thanks a lot, Jan.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You're welcome.

GWEN IFILL: For more on the battle between Hollywood and the technology companies, we turn to Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us to discuss the implications of today's decision in the MGM- Grokster case is Fred Von Lohmann, co-counsel for Streamcast Networks, a co-defendant with Grokster, and Don Verrilli, counsel to both the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.
Welcome to you both.

Don Verrilli, as Jan was just making the point, this unanimous decision, tell us in favor of your clients, tell us what your fundamental argument was.

DON VERRILLI: Well, there are three critical points that we took to the court and the court accepted all the three of them and accepted them unanimously.

The first one is this: That the downloading of songs and movies from services like Grokster, and Morpheus, Streamcast, Kazaa is illegal and wrong, plain and simple.

Justice (Stephen) Breyer, in his concurring opinion, described it as garden variety theft. That's really important because as these industries have shown, there's really a devastating impact here from the billions and billions of unlawful downloads that occur every month. The royalties for songwriters are drying up. There's been thousands of layoffs in the record industry and the motion picture industry and recording companies are forced to slash their roster of artists because their revenues have taken such a hit from this. So it's really important message from the court on that question that this is unlawful activity.

The second important point is what the court said is that if you go out and build a business based on promoting that unlawful activity, then you are going to be on the hook. You are going to be responsible for the unlawful actions and the harms that your promoting activity cause.

TERENCE SMITH: Promoting being the key word.

DON VERRILLI: Promoting being the key word. And that's the key reason why the court held and held unanimously that companies like Grokster and Streamcast can be on the hook for the activity of the users who use that software.

And the third point that's critical is that what the court did here was accept our call for balance. The right answer in the law here is one that achieves a balance, protecting the rights of copyright owners and providing real, effective protection and providing real breathing space for legitimate innovation.

And what the court said is if you are out there running a legitimate business like the Apple iPod and iTunes business, you have nothing to worry about. But if you are out there building a business based on the promotion of infringement, then you are on hook for the consequences of your actions.

TERENCE SMITH: Fred von Lohmann, what's your reaction to this decision?

FRED VON LOHMANN: Well, as you might imagine, I have a slightly different view than Mr. Verrilli does. I think what the Supreme Court has done here is really open a new era of uncertainty for not just companies involved in peer-to-peer file sharing but, in fact, for all of America's technology industries.

So all of the parties went to the Supreme Court asking the court to clarify the existing doctrines around copyright law, which addressed a central question: When will a technology company be held responsible for what its end users, what the customers, what the person sitting in the dorm room, to use the earlier phrase, might be up to?

Now, that's obviously not important just to the file sharing companies; it's also important to people that make CD burners, personal computers, people who provide broadband Internet service. All of these technology companies depend on a clear answer to that question.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court really declined to give us a clear answer. Instead of clarifying the existing law, they instead created a new form of liability, the so-called "inducement liability," as you pointed out, premised on a notion of promoting infringement.

In that, we think the Supreme Court really missed a crucial opportunity here. In the wake of this ruling, I think peer-to-peer file sharing will continue unabated. There are obviously hundreds of millions of people around the world who are using file sharing applications.

I don't think this ruling is going to magically change that. What it is going to do is make America's technology companies have to look over their shoulder and ask: well, what is this new promotion liability?

If I say the wrong thing in a marketing meeting or if a company like Apple, for example, says rip, mix, burn in its ad campaign as it did a few years ago, will that be the kind of thing that gives rise to liability? Or will I have to redesign my product, which is something that was always a serious threat for the technology industry here.

So the Supreme Court frankly, I think, has opened more questions than they've answered today.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Don Verrilli, what about Fred von Lohmann's point that peer-to- peer sharing of files is not going to go away and it is universally spread, or so widely spread, that as function it is not going to go away. How does the industry deal with that?

DON VERRILLI: You know, I think that - you know, it may not go away entirely, but I think this is an important step to changing the dynamic from this sphere from the unlawful, illegal downloading where you take without paying the artists, and the creators there do, and shifting to a legal model of downloading where you get on iTunes, you pay the modest price to get what you want in a lawful legitimate way, so I guess I disagree with that.

I think that this is going to be a really important moment to move the center of gravity from the unlawful activity to the lawful activity and the court has sent a powerful signal that it is unlawful here, but if you build a lawful business model over here, you are going to be just fine.

That's what we want. That's what my clients are aiming to do. We think that there's enormous potential in the digital area for efficient, positive, user-friendly distribution of songs and movies, but in a lawful way that respects copyrights.

And we think that we're going to migrate from the unlawful universe to a lawful universe. Will we squelch this entirely? No, but I think we'll make a major migration in the right direction.

TERENCE SMITH: Fred von Lohmann, what happens now with your case? Do you have to go back to the lower courts and argue particularly this point about whether or not you promoted - or your clients, rather, promoted an illegal use?

FRED VON LOHMANN: That's right. That's at least part of what we'll have to address.
Unfortunately, there are other theories of liability that are still at issue in the case. So, for example, Mr. Verrilli's clients have argued from the beginning that my client - the maker of Morpheus, the maker of Grokster - they should be held responsible based on a so-called "contributory infringement" theory, which is really sort of an aiding and abetting kind of theory.

And, unfortunately, the Supreme Court today has told us nothing about how the court is going have to deem with that claim. There's also another claim that Mr. Verrilli's clients have made from the beginning that there should be liability because this software could have been designed differently in a manner that would have satisfied the entertainment industries more than the way it was in fact designed.

So the district court will have to look at all these theories and frankly isn't going to have very much guidance in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the two other theories I mentioned or, for that matter, a clear road map even as to this new theory of inducement.

Now, the court has really left a lot of questions open, and I predict not just in this case, but in other cases, lawyers will have to go through expensive litigation before we have the clear line that I mentioned at the beginning our technology industry needs so that they can understand: what can they build; when do they have to spend money on lawyers; when can they spend money on engineers?

DON VERRILLI: Can I just make a -- say a word about that? I really think with all due respect, Fred, that that's fear mongering. It's not hard to see the commonsense difference between running a legitimate business where you tell people when they buy your product, don't steal music and running a business like Grokster and Streamcast where they help you find top 40 hits.

And the court was drawing a commonsense distinction. That's been in the law for a century as Justice (David) Souter recognized in his opinion. So I really think that the uncertainty that you're talking about is really an overblown fear; it's not a concern at all.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Just a final word quickly if you will, Fred von Lohmann.

FRED VON LOHMANN: Well, frankly, I wish I could rely on Mr. Verrilli's assurance that my concerns are just fear mongering. We've seen the entertainment industry sue every new technology for a century: starting with the player piano, the VCR, the first MP3 player, Replay TV, PVR's.

These are companies that are perfectly legitimate, not bad actors, as Mr. Verrilli suggests, and in an environment where entertainment companies have this track record of suing a whole variety of technology companies for making technologies they disapprove of, I think it's more than just fear mongering.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Thank you both. Obviously it's going to be argued further in the lower courts. But thank you both very much.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...ions_6-27.html






A Supreme Chill For P2P Technology?
Roy Mark

What will a post-Grokster world look like? Very rosy indeed, a jubilant Hollywood says. A new era of legal headaches that will stifle innovation, peer- to-peer (P2P) supporters moan.

In Monday's Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster, the justices put P2P companies on notice that they can he held responsible for the illegal acts of their file- sharing end users.

Content providers say it's about time that companies that encourage illegal sharing of copyrighted works be held accountable.

The unanimous decision stressed that the issue was not about technology, but bad behavior. The justices noted both Grokster and StreamCast actively promoted their software as an alternative to the original Napster, the P2P bad boy forced into bankruptcy over the same copyright infringement issues.

"Grokster and StreamCast's efforts to supply services to former Napster users, deprived of a mechanism to copy and distribute what were overwhelmingly infringing files, indicate a principal, if not exclusive, intent on the part of each company to bring about infringement," Justice David Souter wrote in the court opinion.

The opinion added, "There is no evidence that either company made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."

In other words, the court said Grokster and StreamCast are inducing users to commit copyright infringement.

"What does it mean to induce someone to copyright infringement?" asked Charles Baker, attorney for Porter & Hedges, which represented StreamCast in the case. "If you think about it, any company would be liable. I think this is going to hammer the technology industry going forward."

Ed Black, the CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, called the decision "dangerous for technology and innovation while Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation predicted the court action would "unleash a new era of legal uncertainty for technology developers."

In Hollywood, though, music and movie publishers said the decision was straightforward.

"The court spoke to the culture as well as the law: thou shalt not steal," said Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "The legitimate marketplace has a real shot to take off now. We've had a tough few years, but now the law is fair."

Jim DeLong of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which submitted an amicus brief in support of Hollywood, said he saw "no way that this decision will impede technology and innovation."

DeLong added, "If not getting a free ride is inhibiting, then, yes, technology may have a problem."

Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast, said the decision is "certainly another legal hurdle for our company, but the David versus Goliath battle will continue."

Weiss and Grokster may have good reason to be worried.

"There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," The court opinion states. MGM is expected to return a district court and seek a summary judgment against Grokster and StreamCast.

Not everyone supporting Grokster, however, was bemoaning the decision.

"Today's Court decision underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted: punish infringers, not technology," Gigi Sohn, president of the public advocacy group said. "What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law."

Sohn was also encouraged the court upheld the legal principle it established in the 1984 Sony Betamax case.

"The Court is clearly aware that any technology-based rule would have chilled technological innovation," she said. "That is why their decision re-emphasized and preserved the core principle of Sony v. Universal City Studios -- that technology alone can't be the basis of copyright liability -- and focused clearly and unambiguously on whether defendants engaged in intentional acts of encouraging infringement."
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/ne...le.php/3516021






MPAA copyright victory is 'website killer'

Motion Picture Association of America DMCA Ruling Opens Pandora's Box
Robert Jaques

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of InternetMovies.com (Rossi) vs. Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a move which InternetMovies.com warns will set the stage for a continued subjective interpretation of the 'good faith' provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

"This decision threatens website owners and sets the standard for unrelenting shut downs prompted [by] copyright holders [alleging] copyright violations without reasonable investigation," warned Michael Jay Rossi, president of InternetMovies.com.

The ruling concerns a case originally filed in 2002 when the MPAA shut down InternetMovies.com for allegedly offering copyrighted materials for illegal download.

The MPAA issued a cease-and-desist letter to the site's host service claiming that Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was available for download. The host was forced to shut down InternetMovies.com under the provisions of the DMCA.

The MPAA claimed that it had behaved in good faith and swore under oath that the 2003 release of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was made available for download in 2001. Rossi denied that the film had been available on the site.

"All I was doing was reporting news about movies online. This now proves that there are no freedom of speech or due process rights on the internet for the common person," said Rossi.

"The MPAA did not dispute that it had made an error in judging the site's content. The District Court, Ninth Circuit Court and Supreme Court have all sided with the subjective interpretation of the DMCA and ruled in favour of the MPAA."

According to Rossi, the ruling will allow copyright holders to continue to abuse website owners with a 'shoot now, ask later' legal attack based on the good faith belief in the DMCA.

"This opens a Pandora's box of troubles for website owners and individuals. I am very sad to see that American rights have been an illusion all this time. The DMCA is meant to serve our constitutional rights," he said.

"I can only hope that copyright holders do not abuse this DMCA super-power, but as you can see they already do. Look for the book downloadable soon: 'In Hollywood we trust, no liberty or justice for all.'"
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...website-killer






Sharing Culture Likely to Pause but Not Wither
Tom Zeller Jr.

Will the legal defeat of two file-sharing companies change anything?

The Supreme Court's ruling against Grokster and StreamCast Networks yesterday created serious concern among advocates of file-sharing technology, along with some sighs of relief that the decision left room for future technological innovations.

"The Supreme Court decision will unleash a new era of uncertainty," said Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group. Mr. Von Lohmann successfully argued the software companies' case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year.

"America's entire innovation sector is now facing a new era of copyright uncertainty," he said, adding that the decision "created a new theory of liability that will tie up the courts for a long time."

In overturning lower court decisions that had favored the two peer-to-peer software makers, the court ruled that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

But the court provided little guidance on just how one might determine whether a company was purposely inducing its users to violate the law, and in this, many technology advocates saw reason for concern. The entertainment industry, they argue, can now use the ruling to sue without restraint, seeking to show bad "intent" or "purpose" behind every technology it does not like.

Still, some file-sharing advocates did see hope in the court's preservation of what has come to be known as the Sony doctrine - a 1984 Supreme Court decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios that has provided an umbrella of protection for technology innovators from claims of contributing to copyright infringement.

Gigi B. Sohn, the director of Public Knowledge, a public interest advocacy group focusing on intellectual property, said there was cause for optimism because the court "reaffirmed the core position of the Sony Betamax case," and that peer- to-peer technology can be used for noninfringing uses.

She also said that the drive for potentially stifling legislation on peer-to-peer technology - something the entertainment industry has pursued in Congress, including last year's failed Induce Act - has been rendered unnecessary.

Given this decision, "there's nothing that Hollywood should want or need from Congress," Ms. Sohn said.

Indeed, the decision did seem to indicate that peer-to-peer technology - and by extrapolation, whatever unknown innovations are to arise out of the minds of new generations of tinkerers - was not liable for copyright infringement simply because it might be used that way.

"A purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement," the court said, would have to be demonstrated in order to hold a company responsible for the illegal ways its software is used.

"I think there's plenty more to be written on this," said Jonathan Zittrain, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and the co- author of an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of Grokster. "And I think Sony emerges not in tatters," he said.

Even so, the decision's emphasis on finding the "intent" of a company could mire new technologies in a litigious limbo. Every e-mail message, every conversation, every cocktail napkin on which an entrepreneur scribbles a vision for a new technology, Grokster supporters said, could become evidence in a future lawsuit, making unfettered blue-sky innovation a risky business without lawyers vetting every move.

"If you're making a new piece of software with all kinds of cool Swiss Army-knife uses, and even if your motives are pure as the driven snow, you'll be given pause" by this decision, Mr. Zittrain said. "But there are a lot of tinkerers who don't follow Supreme Court decisions" and presumably will not be burdened with concerns and will keep on tinkering.

Mark Gorton, the chief executive of the Lime Group, a brokerage firm that makes LimeWire, a file-sharing alternative to Grokster, said he was likely to stop distributing LimeWire in reaction to the ruling. He said it appeared too difficult to meet the implied standard for inducement.

"Some people are saying that as long as I don't actively induce infringement, I'm O.K.," he said. "I don't think it will work out that way."

The court, Mr. Gorton said, has "handed a tool to judges that they can declare inducement whenever they want to."

The potential implications of the decision were not lost on young users of file-sharing programs.

"The record companies are spending Grokster and Morpheus into submission, so they won't be able to keep fighting the case," said Rick Hendrickson, 22, a student at Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts who said he avidly used Morpheus, StreamCast's file-sharing software, and operates a weekly radio blogcast called P2P Revolution.

"It might make people think twice," he said, about making the next peer-to-peer applications.

And the argument that the recording industry was actually hurting itself by suing file-sharing companies continued to be a familiar refrain yesterday.

Before Napster, the original file-sharing service, went dark in 2001, Brian Anderson, 33, a network administrator in Salt Lake City, downloaded an album by a British artist called Badly Drawn Boy. "I wanted to hear his music after reading an article about him," Mr. Anderson said, "so I burned a few copies for myself and my friends and ended up loving it."

Since then, Mr. Anderson said, he has purchased three of the artist's albums, as have many friends who first heard of Badly Drawn Boy through him. "Because I illegally downloaded his album for free," Mr. Anderson said, "he and his label ended up making hundreds of dollars from me and my friends."

According to Eric Garland, the chief executive of Big Champagne, a company that tracks peer-to-peer network use, the question of whether file-sharing has been a boon or a bust for the entertainment industry is irrelevant.

File-sharing technology is endlessly mutable, he said, and its users are a migratory species. From Napster, which used central servers to index the files its users stored on their computers, file-sharing enthusiasts turned to upstarts like Kazaa, Grokster and StreamCast, which had no central indexes. And in a world where innovations and programming wisdom can be shared across oceans and borders, there are always new options emerging, so it was never likely that users would stick with advertising- supported software anyway.

"Would anyone among the tens of millions of people in this country who use file-sharing tools to share copyrighted works - would anyone miss the businesses?" Mr. Garland said. "The banner ads, the bundled third-party software, the subscription offers, the paid upgrades?"

The answer, he said, is no.

Distributing file-sharing software has been profitable because the providers often installed other software programs on the computers of each user. The makers of pop-up advertising software and other programs paid as much as $1 each time their software was installed.

Still, industry experts say that the total revenue of most of the file-sharing companies can be measured in a few million dollars a year. Kazaa, once the largest file-sharing company, may have taken in tens of millions of dollars a year at its peak. But this revenue was dwarfed by the recording industry's spending on lawsuits and other antipiracy measures.

But even if the Grokster decision ultimately makes it difficult for companies to turn a profit as distributors of file-sharing software, that would not solve Hollywood's problems, Mr. Garland said.

"Businesses have never been responsible for innovation in the peer-to-peer file-sharing space," he said. "Businesses came as an afterthought. Shawn Fanning created the tools that made Napster possible, and the business just grew around the imagination of that teenager."

And with open source software continually evolving, it is not likely that even the shutting down of Grokster and StreamCast would eliminate peer-to-peer networks.

"People read the words 'Supreme Court' and they think it's the bottom of the ninth, but this is clearly only the second inning," Mr. Garland said. "We are continuing down a winding path here, and more questions have been asked than answered."

Roben Farzad and Saul Hansell contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/te...gy/28peer.html






DCIA Addresses Supreme Court Decision in MGM v. Grokster Case
Press Release

DCIA Addresses Supreme Court Decision in MGM v. Grokster Case

The Distributed Computing Industry Association (www.dcia.info), which focuses on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing and last week celebrated the milestone of recruiting fifty (50) Members in less than two years, responded to today’s US Supreme Court ruling in the MGM v. Grokster case by committing to redouble its efforts to foster the industry’s commercial development.

“The DCIA welcomes the Court’s refusal to rework the Betamax decision, and is optimistic that the grounds for secondary liability that it announced today will prove to be fair and workable. As the case works it way back through the lower courts, we anticipate clarification of the rules of engagement between content providers and technology suppliers in the digital realm generally, and with respect to peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing in particular. We are confident that today’s decision in the MGM v. Grokster case will ultimately lead to the continued expansion of our industry,” said DCIA CEO Marty Lafferty in making the announcement.

“We urge all affected parties to focus now on deploying new business models for content distribution that are non-infringing and expand the marketplace for digital content, and not to pursue legislative intervention, which would only be counter-productive. The private sector, with added clarity that will result from such lower court outcomes, should manage the process from here,” he added.

“This ruling provides impetus for the P2P distribution channel to grow and flourish. P2P digital rights management (DRM) technologies and micro-payment services have been proven with computer games, software, and independent music and films. Major labels and studios can avail themselves of these tools to develop marketplace solutions – starting today.”

“We hope the Court’s decision will lead to a shift away from conflict and toward commerce, and we encourage everyone to come to the table and develop new business partnerships. The MPAA and RIAA and their powerful members control 90% of popular entertainment content distribution and can now move forward to license responsible P2P companies using this highly efficient and extremely popular channel for the distribution of their copyrighted works to create new markets and revenue opportunities. P2P file-sharing technologies are part of the larger movement to an increasingly distributed computing environment. As the Court affirmed, this kind of technological progress is inevitable – embracing it to harness its capabilities will prove to be much more gainful than resisting or trying to stop it,” Lafferty concluded.
http://press.namct.com/content/view/2022/9/






Supreme Court Sows Uncertainty

Let's measure today's opinion against the chief issues mentioned in the "Grokster Reader's Guide" last week.

· It's Not About P2P: It's still not about P2P. Whether or not today's ruling unleashes new litigation against innovators, it will have no effect on the tens of millions of Americans who continue to use P2P file-sharing software, nor will it deter off-shore programmers living beyond the reach of US copyright laws. Hilary Rosen is right: giving music fans a compelling legitimate alternative, whether through collective licensing or simply competing with free, is the only solution.

· No Matter What, We've Won: There is reason to celebrate in today's ruling. It could have been much worse. As many have noted, the Court rejected many of the more extreme positions that the entertainment industry argued for in the courts below. As discussed below, the Court left intact several important legal bulwarks for innovators. While the Court didn't shore them up, it also didn't tear them down.

· Main Event #1: Sony Betamax. The Supreme Court left the Betamax defense intact by essentially refusing to say anything about it, although the sniping between the two concurrences suggests that a future battle may be coming. Neither side can declare total victory on this score and future cases are probably inevitable (especially where well-advised companies use today's decision as a roadmap for avoiding any hint of inducement).

· Main Event #2: Vicarious Liability. The Court chose to punt on this issue, choosing to base its decision on inducement instead of addressing the entertainment industry's "you could have designed it differently" theory of vicarious liability. The Court's exposition of inducement, however, suggests that it would be hostile to any theory that imposed a free-floating obligation to redesign (without any evidence of inducement) on technologists. That's good news.

· Main Event #3: Inducement. The Court conjured a new form of indirect copyright liability, importing inducement from patent law. Lawyers will be reading the tea leaves here for years to come, trying to divine the precise boundaries of this new form of copyright liability (and, contrary to what the patent lawyers will tell you, patent precedents don't resolve all the questions). The opinion suggests that copyright plaintiffs must show some overt act of inducement; the design and distribution (along with the usual incidents of distribution) of a product, by itself, are not enough. But the Court's opinion may lead lower courts to conclude that once you find an overt act, however small, virtually everything else becomes relevant to divine your "intent." That would be a bonanza for entertainment lawyers eager to foist huge legal costs on defendants. Reminiscent, in some ways, of the securities class actions that have bedeviled high tech companies for years.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003749.php






P2P Could Get You 10 To Life
Online staff

Being a peer-to-peer (P2P) technology provider could now get you in as much hot water as the illegal downloaders themselves.

The Supreme Court rules Monday that P2P software providers could be held liable for copyright infringements committed by the users of their software. Indeed, the majority rule found that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement."

From research firm Gartner’s point of view, the ruling links the deployment of P2P technology to the underlying business model of the P2P software provider. However, pointed out Mike McGuire, Gartner Research, the court did not expressly rule that P2P technologies are illegal, but applied a standard for inducement that holds that a developer had to engage in "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct" that led users to infringe copyrights.

“This last phrase will be pivotal when the case goes back to the lower courts,” McGuire said in a statement. “Technology companies engaged in developing new rich-media products and services will also have to pay close attention to this language.”

With the court's ruling, P2P providers will need to ensure that their underlying business models and promotional campaigns do not induce or encourage copyright violation. More importantly, P2P providers will have to decide whether unregistered "free" content will be blocked from user's search results, Gartner said, noting that that is crucial because music labels may take legal action against those P2P providers that allow free unregistered or unidentified material to show up next to licensed content

Meanwhile, McGuire believes legitimate online music services such as iTunes, Napster and eMusic, and other rich-media services, will benefit to some degree by virtue of the fact that an entire class of competitors will have to revamp their offerings, Gartner said.

Gartner’s advice to tech companies is to closely monitor and support legislative efforts to create protection for consumers using emerging search, sharing and redistribution programs. The firm also said content providers and rights holders need to develop or adopt platforms that allow the tagging of content for transmission across an increasing number of legitimate distribution services.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec.../CA622503.html






Suspected File-Swappers Arrested In Global Raid
Lucas van Grinsven

AMSTERDAM - Police in more than a dozen countries have seized computers and made arrests in a crackdown on illegal file- swapping instigated by U.S. investigators, the Dutch government said on Thursday.

Authorities raided several locations in The Netherlands on Wednesday as part of an operation initiated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and arrested three people on suspicion of computer file-sharing, the Finance Ministry said.

More computers were seized on Wednesday in Australia, Israel, Germany, South-Korea, Norway, France, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Poland, Canada and Hungary, said a spokeswoman for the ministry, which is responsible for preventing economic crime.

The people arrested in The Netherlands are suspected of infringing the copyright of films, software and video games. Some of the titles had yet to be published, she said.

It is the second internationally orchestrated raid on computer file swappers, after the April 2004 arrest of members of the "Fairlight" group in another FBI investigation.

U.S. ARRESTS

Authorities in the United States made arrests as well, and were expected to announce the results of their raid at 2 p.m. Eastern time (1800 GMT). An FBI official declined to comment.

Illegal swapping of copyright-protected music, films, games and software over the Internet, using programs such as BitTorrent and KaZaA, is responsible for about half of all Internet traffic in many developed nations, according to market research groups.

In many countries it is not illegal to download certain digital files such as music, but it is illegal to upload them and make them available to other computer users on the Internet.

The suspected group also used other, more direct ways of swapping files, by using File Transfer Protocol (FTP) computer servers. Group members tell each other the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of these computers, to find them on the Internet.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that Internet file-trading networks, which also include Grokster and Morpheus, can be held liable when their computer users copy music, movies and other protected works without permission. (Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan in Washington)
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eur...n_global_raid/






Sharing isn’t pirating…

Software Piracy 'Seen As Normal'
Alfred Hermida

Campaigns to persuade people to stop downloading pirated games or software from the internet are not working, a report suggests.

Two UK university researchers found that people did not see downloading copyrighted material as theft.

The findings are unwelcome news for the games industry, which says it loses more than £2bn annually from piracy.

The results of the government-funded study were previewed at a games conference in London.

The report, called Fake Nation, is due to be formally presented next week by Dr Jo Bryce of the University of Central Lancashire and Dr Jason Rutter of
the University of Manchester.

Crime? What crime?

The study was commissioned to find out if the anti-piracy message was having an impact on people's attitudes.

Most campaigns in the UK have focused on the damage being done by software or film piracy.

They have also pushed the idea that consumers are supporting organised crime when they buy a game or DVD from someone in the street.

Despite ads in the cinema, magazines and newspapers, the message is falling on deaf ears.

"Consumers have an awareness of the scale of the problem and cost, but don't take onboard industry concerns or government messages," said Dr Bryce, a senior lecturer in psychology.

The researchers found that people did not equate downloading a game with the idea of shoplifting the disc from a shop.

"People are more accepting of it, even if they didn't engage it in themselves," said Dr Bryce. "They don't see it as a great problem on a social or economic level.

"They just don't see it as theft. They just see it as inevitable, particularly as new technologies become available."

Unsurprisingly, the main reason people grab games from the net was because they are free.

But scratching beneath the surface, the researchers found that not having to pay for games was particularly attractive for teenagers, as it meant they had more money for other things.

"Teenagers are being tactical spenders," said Dr Bryce. "The money saved lets them spend more on mobile phones, going to the cinema or eating out."

Pub pirates

In the past, much of the anti-piracy drive has been directed against people selling counterfeit discs at markets or on street corners.

The games trade body, the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association, (Elspa) has a 40-strong anti-piracy unit.

Last year, it carried out 538 raids across the UK, seizing £4m worth of copied games and successfully prosecuting 67 software counterfeiters.

But the Fake Nation study suggests these efforts may also be misguided. The researchers found that most people did not buy counterfeit software from dodgy dealers on street corners.

Instead they bought games from people they knew in places like the office, the pub or at school.

"The purchase of counterfeit goods or illegal downloading are seen as normal leisure practices," said Dr Bryce.

"The downloading of games is a burgeoning issue, and with broadband growing, this is likely to increase and drive access to pirated games away from commercial interests into people's homes."

Cost to creativity

Despite the study's results, Michael Rawlinson, deputy head of Elspa, remained confident that attitudes towards pirated software could be changed.

"It is possible to effect a change in young people's behaviour once you explain the process of creation in bringing these products to market," he said.

But he admitted that wiping out illegal downloads would take time and money.

"The government has spent millions of pounds to change public awareness of drink-driving and smoking.

"As a society, we need to go through a similar process for creativity and intellectual property."

Around 2,400 people were questioned via the post and the web for the study between August and September last year. The researchers also held 12 focus groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/4122624.stm






High Court Hands Big Victory To Cable

Court overturns ruling requiring cable companies to open up high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a prior ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

At issue in the case, FCC v. Brand X, was whether cable operators should be required under federal law to lease their cable lines to competitors, much the way local phone companies were forced years ago to open up their lines to long-distance phone companies.

The justices overturned the U.S. appeals court ruling by a 6-3 vote.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the government and cable companies argued the U.S. appeals court had not extended the required deference to the FCC's expertise and decision-making process.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed in the majority opinion that the appeals court had erred.

Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The decision is a big victory for the Federal Communications Commission and major telecommunications companies, including Charter Communications (Research), Time Warner (Research) and SBC Communications (Research).

On the losing side are small Internet service providers, including Earthlink (Research), consumer rights groups, and a host of local governments.

The case, which turned on the technical classification of cable modem services under federal communications law, has been described as crucial to the future of competition in the market of high-speed, or broadband, Internet service -- including how fast broadband service becomes available, what features it has, and what it costs consumers.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/tech...ling/index.htm






RIAA Sues 784 More, But College Students Unafraid

The Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA) has announced its latest round of lawsuits against illegal file sharers. "John Doe" suits were filed against 784 more people around the country. In a statement, RIAA Chairman/ CEO Mitch Bainwol said, "On Monday, the Supreme Court provided a real shot in the arm to legitimate online music services and unanimously injected moral clarity into this debate. If there was any doubt left, there should now be none - individuals who download music without permission are breaking the law. Our efforts to defend the rights of record labels, musicians, songwriters and others in the music community from theft will certainly continue and likely be strengthened in the weeks and months ahead."

However, it seems that there is a bit of doubt out there, at least according to a new study from the Business Software Alliance (BSA). According to their results, two-thirds of college and university students do not find illegal download and file sharing unethical, with just over half believe it is an acceptable workplace practice.

Additionally, 45 percent of students surveyed said they use their campus networks for file-sharing. The same percentage believes that campus policies against illegal file-sharing are effective, though almost three-fourths of the schools' academics believe their policies work.

"Generation Y has largely grown up using the Internet and the majority of this group is extremely comfortable with technology. Unfortunately, this survey shows students who engage in these illegal behaviors are likely to continue after college and when they enter the business world," said BSA VP of Public Affairs Diane Smiroldo.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=97506






On Screens, but Not Store Shelves: Casual Games
Michel Marriott

Far from the bloody streets of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," and light years from the deep space, run-and-gun menace of "Halo 2," lives Flo.

She is the cartoon-cute stockbroker who chucked it all to operate a modest diner that is the centerpiece of a highly successful yet relatively low-budget video game called "Diner Dash."

The game is not found on the shelves of video game or consumer electronic stores. Nor is it sold on the DVD's that deliver interactive 3-D fantasies to millions of PlayStation 2 and Xbox game consoles.

This game, sold exclusively on the Internet and downloaded onto players' personal computers, is challenging many of the conventions of video gaming. Such simple games - often called casual games - are growing more prominent in the ever-broadening game marketplace, becoming big sellers on a small budget.

"Diner Dash does not have a single end goal," said Eric Zimmerman, co-founder and chief executive of GameLab, the New York game development company that created it. "You are into it for the play."

The premise is simple: The mounting challenge is to seat, serve and collect from diners, tasks that bring to mind the "I Love Lucy" episode in which Lucy is overwhelmed by the increasing demands of a candy factory's conveyor belt.

Since the release of "Diner Dash" late last year, the hand-painted, drag-and-drop game quickly became the most requested item on major online game sites, including Yahoo Games, Real Arcade and Shockwave.com. Peter Seung-Taek Lee, co-founder and president of GameLab, said "Diner Dash" remained in the top five best sellers of downloadable games, showing considerable shelf life for a video game that never existed on a shelf.

"We wanted something that people can easily relate to," Mr. Lee said. "There is something about very simple play that gives pleasure. You can just click on it and enjoy the game."

John Welch, president and chief executive of PlayFirst, a publisher of casual games, including "Diner Dash," said the $20 game had sold more than 50,000 copies and continued to sell about 1,000 a day.

And games like "Diner Dash" have become big business. Casual games - generally simple-to-play, short-duration games that are graphically unsophisticated - will represent about $250 million a year in sales, Mr. Welch estimated. They are a small but growing sector of the overall United States game industry, which is expected to generate $8.4 billion in sales in 2005, according to a forecast by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"It's huge in the way millions of people are playing them," said Chris Sherman, executive director of the first Casual Game Conference, scheduled for July 19 and 20 in Seattle.

He said the games' simplicity also made them ready candidates to be adapted for the increasingly attractive market of cellphones and other mobile devices.

At GameLab, which was founded five years ago, about 20 artists, programmers, animators and game designers work in closely arranged workstations in a long, narrow space carved out of an aging industrial building near Chinatown in Lower Manhattan. At one point, GameLab veterans say, the workspace looked more like a bowling alley.

Mr. Zimmerman, the chief executive, says his team generally works on three to four projects at once, taking about five to six months to complete a game. GameLab is a private company and its executives would not disclose detailed financial data, but they did say that "Diner Dash" cost between $100,000 and $200,000 to make. It sells for about 40 percent of the price of a major video game title that could cost more than $10 million to produce.

"Our modus operandi is to really create innovative games, new ways for people to play," he said as he recently walked through GameLab's studio, pointing out its museum-quality collection of vintage video game consoles, toys and stacks of traditional board games.

"For us, the company culture and the process, is really important," he said, adding that GameLab employees are given a $50 a month to spend on whatever game-related materials they want. He said they were encouraged to bring what they buy to the office. Video games, he said, must be considered within the larger category of play, a field that requires research and experimentation.

"I think part of the problem with the game industry is that there are these big projects, that people work sweatshop hours and that there's no sense of research and experimentation," Mr. Zimmerman said. "It's hard to do that. I'm not saying that we are doing it successfully, but at least we are trying to get there."

Mr. Lee, the company's president, said "Diner Dash" was designed to look and feel warmer and friendlier than expensive 3-D counterparts aimed at hard-core gamers.

"We wanted it to have a particular look," he said, noting the rich colors of the interface. "Console games look very cool and futuristic, but cold."

Yet "Diner Dash," which its makers say is quite popular among women, is not a simple "pop game," as Mr. Zimmerman refers to popular downloadable games like "Collapse" and "Bejeweled" that are descendants of Tetris and other animated puzzle games.

Mr. Welch of PlayFirst said he was drawn to GameLab's penchant for smart experimentation. His company, based in San Francisco, plays a role much like that of a record label: It fields pitches from game developers and finances the ones that seem to show the most promise.

"There is a good market opportunity while everybody is trying to figure out where the next killer app is going to be," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/te...ual.html?8hpib

[JackSpratts]

MPAA studio ripped off film director for $100,000,000, suit alleges

The Lawsuit of the Rings
Ross Johnson

What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?

The real-life corollary is going on now in Hollywood where Peter Jackson, one of the film industry's most powerful and popular directors, is suing New Line Cinema, the subsidiary of Time Warner that financed and distributed his Oscar-winning "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Jackson claimed that New Line committed fraud in its handling of the revenues generated by 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring," and as a result, he was underpaid by millions.

The suit does not specify a damage award. But in an interview last week, his lawyers said that, after New Line applied its contract interpretation from "Fellowship" to the other two movies, Mr. Jackson was underpaid by as much as $100 million for the trilogy.

Lawsuits in Hollywood are as common as hobbits in Middle Earth. What makes Mr. Jackson's suit draw such widespread interest here, other than his clout in the industry and the amount at stake, is one specific allegation about New Line's behavior. The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.

Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.

According to people on both sides of Mr. Jackson's lawsuit, the claim strikes at the heart of the modern vertically integrated media company. One of the apparent - though largely unproven - benefits of media integration is the ability of conglomerates like the Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, the News Corporation, Viacom, Sony and General Electric to sell subsidiary rights to the many divisions within the company.

By painting this corporate synergy as "self-dealing," Mr. Jackson's lawsuit and similar suits filed in the last few years, called vertical integration lawsuits, argue that the idea of the media conglomerate is at odds with the interests of the creative minds behind the content.

If that idea was not enough to make studio heads very nervous, Mr. Jackson's status in the business could encourage other directors and stars who take a percentage of gross revenues to look more carefully at the accounting on their films. And because deals between corporate siblings are approved at the highest levels, vertical integration lawsuits often focus on senior division executives and their sales chiefs..

Since no studio head or corporate executive wants to be subpoenaed in a lawsuit over accounting, vertical integration lawsuits are almost always settled before reaching open court.

Citing corporate policy, Richard Socarides, a New Line spokesman, declined to comment on details of the litigation, but released a statement that said, "We don't agree with plaintiff's claims, and will defend ourselves vigorously." A litigator for New Line, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is working on this lawsuit, said the money paid to Mr. Jackson so far is in line with the contract he signed.

"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

Mr. Jackson's suit was filed on Feb. 28. In an April 29 court filing, New Line categorically denied all of his claims. Currently, both sides are sending out deposition notices, and Mr. Jackson's lawyers are preparing discovery demands allowing them to see detailed financial statements of New Line and its corporate sibling, Warner Brothers.

According to Peter Hoffman, a tax lawyer for leading Hollywood producers in the 1980's and a former chief executive of Carolco Pictures, all the legal saber rattling around claims of self-dealing and pre-emptive bidding could be avoided if studios turned the clock back and compensated stars based on net profits, not gross revenues.

"Once upon a time, Hollywood studios paid a lot of money to net profit participants, and it was a fair deal," said Mr. Hoffman, who is known in Hollywood for his knowledge of arcane deal making. "Then the studios got greedy and stopped paying, and now we have gross players who used to be net players fighting over vertical integration. The studios brought this problem on themselves."

Time Warner does not break out the revenue of feature films from total entertainment revenue in its statements, and a spokesman for New Line declined to comment on financial numbers. Mr. Jackson, who is directing a remake of "King Kong" for Universal Pictures with a budget of $150 million that includes a $20 million advance to Mr. Jackson to be applied against his share of gross revenue, was also not available for comment.

John Schulman, who since 1984 has been general counsel at Warner Brothers Entertainment, the sublicensee of many of the rights of the "Rings" film trilogy, said that the studio has never used self-dealing to cheat profit participants, and always sets any pre-emptive bid at market rates. "We value our relationship with talent, and it is in our interest to maximize profits to our participants."

The "Rings" film trilogy, produced for an aggregate $281 million, has made more than $4 billion in retail sales from worldwide film exhibition, home video, soundtracks, merchandise and television showings, and cleared more than $1 billion for New Line after payments to profit participants, according to one of Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Peter Nelson.

Thanks to escalators in the contract Mr. Jackson signed to serve as director, co-writer and co-producer of the trilogy, he reportedly receives about 20 percent of the gross revenue realized by New Line for the trilogy, minus expenses such as taxes.

Mr. Nelson declined to confirm the terms of the deal he negotiated for his client, but did state that Mr. Jackson had received almost $200 million to date from New Line for the trilogy.

One thing is certain: if it were not for Stanton Stein of the Santa Monica firm of Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan, life would be much easier for studio accountants.

Mr. Stein, the litigation lawyer who filed Mr. Jackson's suit against New Line, first brought a vertical integration action for the producers of the "Home Improvement" television series against Disney in 1997.

Mr. Stein, known as Larry, would later file similar suits against the Fox Television, a division of the News Corporation, for the producers of the show "Cops," and for Alan Alda and David Duchovny, the stars of the shows "M.A.S.H." and "The X-Files."

Mr. Stein's legal strategy in these lawsuits was to use a "top down" theory of insider conspiracy. According to Mr. Stein, there was only one place to point the finger of blame. "The foot soldiers inside a studio can't do this self-dealing," he said, "without the people at the top knowing what's going on."

Mr. Stein has sought to depose the News Corporation chairman, Rupert Murdoch, in all of his vertical integration lawsuits against Fox. All the suits, as well as the "Home Improvement" suit, were settled before Mr. Stein could depose a company chairman or chief executive.

"It's true I don't do trials, because if you have a good lawyer, you don't have to go to trial," Mr. Stein said. "A lot of attorneys think what I do on vertical integration litigation is easy, and they take a run at it. But if you don't know a hell of a lot about studio accounting and intellectual property law, it's amateur hour."

In the "Rings" matter, home video, television and merchandising were handled by divisions of New Line, except for certain foreign rights, which were handled by Warner Brothers. Soundtrack sales were handled by Warner Records, a Time Warner subsidiary that was recently sold to an investor group led by Edgar Bronfman.

But Mr. Socarides said some lucrative rights did not go to Time Warner companies. The pay television deal went to Starz, not Time Warner's HBO. He added that the "Rings" book trilogy remains with Houghton Mifflin, which is not a Time Warner subsidiary (although editions related to the films were released by Warner Books).

To defend itself, New Line has hired Robert Schwartz, the head of entertainment litigation at O'Melveny & Myers, who has gone against Mr. Stein in many profit participation cases.

Mr. Schwartz declined to comment on the specifics of Mr. Jackson's claims, except to say that he is accustomed to dealing with litigants "who say they're not going to settle for anything less than 100 cents on every dollar in dispute." He added that "in my experience, these are the guys who in the end walk away with a nickel on every dollar."

When told of Mr. Schwartz's comment, Mr. Nelson replied, "I'm confident that after we see all the financial records from New Line and Warner Brothers that we're trying to get to, every dollar in dispute will become four dollars."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/bu...a/27movie.html






IPTV

SBC's TV Project Isn't Happening at 'Lightspeed'
Matt Richtel and Ken Belson

SBC, the telecommunications giant, calls its planned television service, "Project Lightspeed."

Unfortunately, its introduction is not living up to the name.

Technical, legal and programming stumbling blocks have disrupted SBC's ambitious plan to sell television programming over high-speed lines. The first limited commercial roll-out of the service planned for later this year may be modest at best. And SBC is unlikely now to meet its timetable for offering the service over its 13-state region in the next three years.

The service, known as IPTV, sends video streams over the Internet. The technology allows users to get an endless number of television channels while offering new functions like displaying caller ID on televisions. For SBC and other Bell companies, offering television services is crucial in their fight to compete with cable providers like Cablevision and Time Warner Cable, which are invading the Bells' domain with their digital phone services.

But getting the SBC service up and running has proved to be an enormous challenge. Some overseas carriers that are using Microsoft's software in their networks have run into deployment problems, which could hint at future problems for SBC. In recent months, SBC, based in San Antonio, has also been unable to win battles in state legislatures that would speed up the process for gaining local approval to sell its television service. Reaching agreements with the program providers in Hollywood has been slow, too.

For Microsoft, which signed a 10-year, $400 million deal last year to supply SBC with the complex software needed to deliver television via broadband lines, the technical problems have been an blow to its longstanding effort to break into the home entertainment business.

SBC and Microsoft said that any delays would not hamper the ultimate success of the service. But Lea Ann Champion, the executive in charge of SBC's television service, said the company now planned to make it available to 18 million homes, or half its customers, by the end of 2008, six months later than previously announced. Ms. Champion said SBC had pushed back its target date because of problems installing high-speed lines, not because of problems with the Microsoft software.

Wall Street analysts have taken note of the delays, but said they were not surprised given the scope of SBC's undertaking; regardless, the television service would not make up a significant piece of the company's revenue for years to come.

"You can expect delays given the size and scale" of the project, said John Hodulik, who covers SBC for UBS Securities. "They're focusing on getting all the technology in place. Once they get the infrastructure in place, they will be able to accelerate quickly."

SBC said that it began testing the software in its labs several months ago and that it recently finished a trial of the service with company employees. It plans to expand the testing this summer.

Ms. Champion said SBC and Microsoft were now fine-tuning the software for the tests. Ed Graczyk, director of marketing for Microsoft TV, said the company was on schedule to publish a commercial version of its software by the fall. "We're confident we can support the full feature set our customers want," he said.

Analysts, however, say Microsoft may be encountering problems substantial enough to affect SBC's plans.

Last month, Swisscom, a Swiss carrier, delayed the commercial introduction of its IPTV, which stands for internet protocol television, using the Microsoft technology until 2006, instead of the latter half of 2005. The company said that some of its technology was not ready to be delivered to a mass market, though it did not single out Microsoft as being the source of the problem.

But some industry analysts said sound and picture quality were poor on Swisscom's IPTV. Mr. Graczyk of Microsoft said that Swisscom's problems had more to do with the complexity of integrating IPTV with a variety of other products, including set-top boxes and digital video recorders.

Other industry experts, like Mauro Bonomi, the chief executive of Minerva Networks, a maker of IPTV software for small telecommunications companies that is based in Santa Clara, Calif., said that if Microsoft was having troubles, it might be the result of its efforts to deliver many sophisticated features over Internet lines that were not fast enough.

"They have very ambitious goals, which is great," Mr. Bonomi said. "But they're pursuing them in a way that may overburden the networks."

Verizon is also in the race to offer television, but it is expanding its fiber network by digging trenches to run fiber cables through the streets and then to individual homes. It is using technology that is a hybrid of traditional television and IPTV.

Another hurdle is getting licensing deals for the programming. Ms. Champion declined to say whether SBC has reached any such deals yet.

Verizon, by contrast, says it has a signed more than half a dozen agreements with programmers including NBC Universal Cable, A&E Television Networks and Showtime.

Meanwhile, both SBC and Verizon are pushing for legislation that would allow them to sign statewide franchise agreements rather than having to reach deals with hundreds of municipalities where they intend to sell television services, a process that could take years.

So far, they have been unsuccessful. The Texas legislature so far has declined to approve such a bill. In New York, the public service commission this month ruled that Verizon still had to acquire local franchise agreements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/te...gy/27iptv.html






It Takes a Superhuman Effort to Escape Human Control
Janet Maslin

It takes outlandish nerve and whopping messianic double talk to inaugurate a new science fiction project on the scale of "The Traveler." No genre is riskier. Either the author concocts a true Orwellian synthesis of the world's ills and envisions an epic struggle to remedy them or the author cannibalizes other, more legitimate visionaries, tacks on some silly jargon and winds up sounding embarrassingly second rate.

Regardless of his abilities, such a writer is liable to prompt strong reactions from readers - provided they can find him. But the individual now known as John Twelve Hawks shows at least as much genius for publicity as for anything else. So this author's studied anonymity - he communicates with his publisher only by satellite phone or through his lawyer, which is the technological equivalent of Deep Throat's moving flower pots and meeting in shadowy garages - threatens to become the best-known thing about him. And it would have been if "The Traveler" weren't so ferocious on its own.

Amazingly, this novel sustains a new voice even when its roots show. And the list of obvious influences is long indeed. There are traces of "Star Wars," "The Matrix," "Kill Bill" and "Minority Report." There are echoes of Stephen King, Michael Crichton, Joseph Campbell, Jeremy Bentham, various samurai stories and (could it not have been thus?) "The Da Vinci Code."

Mr. Twelve Hawks may live in cyber-seclusion (or "off the Grid," as the book jacket puts it, in what may prove to be the best-known phrase associated with him), but he does not live in a vacuum. He has drawn upon both pop-cultural and literary touchstones and modified them to create a cyber-"1984."

"The Traveler" begins with a prologue in London. A 12-year-old girl named Maya finds herself caught up in a violent uproar and is forced to defend herself. This turns out to be a training exercise contrived by her father to prepare her for life as a Harlequin. That name is unfortunate (most sci-fi names are) but convenient: Harlequins signal one another with diamond-shaped drawings. These will be nicely eye-catching once the "The Traveler" blasts its way onto the screen. At least the Harlequins eschew clown clothes in favor of "dark, expensive fabrics and custom tailoring," supposedly to look inconspicuous and to be ready to fight.

Harlequins guard those rare creatures known as Travelers: mystics capable of out-of-body experiences, born to threaten the status quo. But the world is controlled by bad guys, known variously as the Brethren or the Tabula, who favor a tightly controlled society and a paramilitary look (one of their henchmen resembles "a chemical engineer who ran marathons on the weekend"). They serve all too plausibly as this book's equivalent of Big Brother.

The Tabula's tricks for high-tech invasion of privacy are frighteningly comprehensive - and not so far removed from what is actually possible today. They store and analyze data about the citizenry, to the point where even grocery shopping becomes indicative of political preferences. Their heat sensors can spot a coffee machine through a wall. Their ability to identify facial structures prompts Maya to inject herself with drugs when she travels, so as to appear puffy and avoid detection. A set of syringes and fake fingerprints take Maya to California, where she assumes a Harlequin's appointed mission: seeking out two potential Travelers and protecting them from harm.

Along come two brothers, Gabriel and Michael Corrigan, who have Traveler genes but very different personalities. Gabriel lives simply and loves motorcycles. Michael plays golf and is involved in real estate development. Please stop reading if you can't tell who will turn out to be the hero of this projected multibook series.

"The Traveler" waits for the Corrigans to discover their unusual powers, and for outside forces to begin hunting them. It doesn't take long. Michael is co-opted by a group of scientists in Westchester County, N.Y., who need a Traveler upon whom to experiment. Should their efforts be successful, world domination will, of course, ensue. Gabriel stays on the other side of the continent. But "The Traveler" will reach the point where its visionary brothers can encounter each other anywhere, regardless of where their actual bodies happen to be.

By the time it leaves the realm of the mundane and moves into eerie suspense, "The Traveler" has expanded its already large range of styles. Now ("There were four barriers that blocked his access to the other realms") it is in the world of video gamesmanship. Now it roams amid different theologies, looking for evidence of Traveler influence, from the New Testament to (yes) the cabala. Now it is positing membrane theory as an alternative to string theory in applying quantum mechanics to account for occult phenomena. The book's informed mixture of all these disciplines is trippy indeed.

"The Traveler" is written with unlikely buoyancy. The ponderousness that afflicts so many big visionary books does not take hold here. The novel's style is page-turningly swift, and its theories are delivered without pseudoscientific harrumphing. Yet for all of the futuristic details that help shape the story, what holds it together is good old- fashioned utopian sunshine.

"You know why I like snakes?" one character asks. "God created them to be clean, beautiful - and unadorned. Studying snakes, I've been inspired to get rid of all the clutter and foolishness in my life." The whole book exhorts the reader to follow this path, and to avoid the needless stress and anxiety of life amid the Grid and its resident evils. The book's main characters are en route, they hope, to a world without mortgages, credit cards, commercials, antidepressants and frightening headlines. They are guided by an ideological agenda that becomes increasingly pronounced.

But if "The Traveler" is the author's soapbox, it is also an invigorating parable, with a cliffhanger ending that cries out for future installments. When last seen, Gabriel is lying low with a group of well-drawn secondary characters. Maya is praying for guidance. And even as a Harlequin bred for life without emotions, Maya is beginning to notice what was obvious to a waitress earlier in the novel.

"You got a real cute boyfriend," the waitress told her. Stay tuned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/books/27masl.html






FTC Issues Report on Peer-to-Peer File Sharing
Press Release

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technology offers significant benefits but also poses risks to consumers who use it, according to a Federal Trade Commission staff report issued today. The staff report, “Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition Issues,” analyzes the consumer protection, competition, and intellectual property issues that were discussed at the FTC’s December 2004 workshop on P2P file sharing. The report recommends that industry and government take steps so that consumers receive the many benefits from this technology while avoiding the risks that it creates.

i-Newswire, - P2P technology enables computer users to share communications, processing power, and data files with other users. Use of P2P technology can yield significant benefits, such as enhancing efficiency by allowing faster file transfers, conserving bandwidth, and reducing storage needs. Businesses, government agencies, academic institutions, and others use P2P applications for a variety of tasks. However, the most common application by far is commercial file-sharing software programs used by consumers to exchange files, such as music and movie files, with others; information presented in the FTC’s report indicates that tens of millions of individuals have used a P2P file-sharing program.

The FTC’s P2P workshop was held on December 15-16, 2004, and included seven panels, featuring representatives from the P2P file-sharing software industry, the entertainment industry, hi-tech research firms, government agencies, academic institutions, and consumer groups. The Commission also received 51 public comments concerning a variety of issues related to P2P file sharing.

The FTC staff’s report states that the workshop provided “valuable insight.” It concludes that P2P technology continues to evolve in response to market and legal forces. Consumers face risks when using commercial P2P file-sharing software programs, including risks related to data security, spyware and adware, viruses, copyright infringement, and unwanted pornography. There was little empirical evidence submitted in connection with the workshop, however, addressing whether these risks are greater with P2P file-sharing programs than with other Internet-related activities such as surfing websites, downloading software, and using e-mail or instant messaging.

The report makes recommendations concerning what industry and government should do to decrease the risks associated with the use of P2P file-sharing programs. Industry should engage in technological innovation and development, industry self-regulation ( including risk disclosures ), and consumer education. Government should investigate and bring law enforcement actions when warranted, work with industry to encourage self-regulation, and educate consumers about the risks associated with using P2P file-sharing software.

The report also presents the competition and intellectual property issues that were discussed at the workshop. The FTC staff report generally concludes that policymakers should balance the protection of intellectual property and the freedom to advance new technologies, thereby encouraging the creation of new artistic works as well as economic growth and enhanced business efficiency. Nevertheless, the report concludes that it would not be prudent at this time to make specific recommendations for policymakers about the intellectual property issues that P2P file sharing raises, because the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster, Ltd., expected in the near future, may have a profound effect on the future structure and impact of P2P file-sharing programs.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to issue the report was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Leibowitz not participating.

Copies of the FTC staff report are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish ( bilingual counselors are available to take complaints ), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP ( 1-877-382-4357 ), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
http://i-newswire.com/pr26885.html






U.S. Wins Chip Ruling

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization ruled yesterday that the United States could maintain a duty of 44 percent on memory chips made by Hynix Semiconductor of South Korea, one of the world's largest producers.

A W.T.O. panel ruled in December that the American charges were illegal, but the Appellate Body in Geneva reversed that decision yesterday. As a general matter, rulings issued at this level are final.

The United States argued that the South Korean government had unfairly subsidized Hynix by putting pressure on banks to provide loans at below-market rates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/te...y/28hynix.html






AMD's Case: Market Forces Or Manipulation?
Michael Kanellos

Coercion or circumstance--that's the big question in the antitrust case filed by Advanced Micro Devices against rival Intel.

The suit, filed late Monday, provides a fairly detailed and lengthy laundry list of alleged misdeeds by Intel. The complaint alleges that in 2002, for instance, Intel agreed to pay NEC more than 300 million yen per quarter in exchange for caps on purchasing from AMD. AMD's share of NEC's consumer business went from 84 percent to virtually zero in six months, the complaint says. It also states that NEC constrained sales efforts around Opteron-based servers.

HP even turned down free microprocessors from AMD in 2002 and threatened to fire an executive because of threats from Intel, the complaint states.

"There is no reason, other than Intel's chokehold on the OEMs, for AMD's inability to exploit its products in important sectors, particularly commercial desktops," paragraph 58 of the complaint states.

AMD, though, will also likely have to counter assertions that its success or failure comes as a result of demand, product delays or customer inertia. Simply put, larger chipmakers typically can produce products for less money than smaller ones, and price and familiarity often trump technology.

"The question is, 'can AMD find the smoking gun?'" said Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of the Microprocessor Report. "There is some circumstantial evidence that something is not right."

The complaint, for example, alleges that in late 2000, then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas stopped buying AMD desktop processors because Intel "had a gun to his head."

AMD further alleges that it was negotiating with IBM on a commercial PC business partnership, which ended after Intel offered IBM "millions" in market development funds.

But in late 2000, the PC market was in a free fall. Jerry Sanders, then-CEO of AMD, said at the time that the company's goal of getting IBM, HP or Compaq to adopt an AMD chip for a business PC that year was being pushed out because of sluggish demand.

Corporate customers are also notoriously conservative, said Krewell, adding that having only one type of chip (versus chips from two companies) can reduce support costs. For AMD, getting that close to a corporate desktop deal was, in fact, a milestone for the company. The company had suffered through five years of financial losses and several product delays from 1995 to 1999. The situation began to turn in late 1999 when Intel began to falter and benchmarks testers said that its Athlon chip bested Intel's desktop parts.

Another opportunity to surge ahead in desktops came in 2003 when AMD came out with a 64-bit desktop chip. While this move could have beat Intel handily, Microsoft had to delay its Windows for 64-bit chips so many times that AMD's potential advantage became ameliorated.

Other parts of the complaint allege that bundling discounts offered as part of the Centrino chip package for notebooks, which debuted in 2003, have also harmed AMD.

But, at the same time, AMD has put most of its efforts in the past few years into breaking into the server market and expanding its reach in the desktop market. The company only came out with a product, Turion, that more directly competes against Centrino notebooks a few months ago. HP has adopted it.

Servers present another likely AMD said/Intel said situation. Paragraph 83 of the complaint alleges that Intel tried to intimidate Fujitsu-Siemens into backing out of supporting AMD's Opteron chip at its April 2003 launch, and said that the European manufacturer would be the only major computer maker present.

As it turned out, IBM showed its support for Opteron at launch. Through Opteron, AMD has also gone from having virtually zero market share in servers to more than 6 percent and contracts with HP, IBM, and Sun Microsystems.

Overall, AMD tends to do well in years where Intel is suffering through problems of its own, such as in 2000 and 2004. When Intel recovers, AMD's opportunities fade, even if it is still scoring better on benchmarks. Still, the growing acceptance of AMD and its track record should, logically, let the company succeed even if Intel is not flailing.

If anything, the complaint will likely be pored over in minute detail by the legal departments of PC makers. So far, PC makers have adamantly refused to comment on the cases. Nonetheless, executives from many of those companies, including the alleged executive HP almost fired for making overtures to AMD, may be compelled to testify.
http://news.com.com/AMDs+case+market...3-5766776.html






Windows 2000 Moves To The Back Burner
Ina Fried

Microsoft on Tuesday issued what is expected to be its last significant revision of Windows 2000.

The software maker released what it calls an Update Rollup for the 5-year-old operating system, which is due to shift at the end of this month from receiving mainstream support to extended support. Microsoft does not generally add features to a product under extended support, and the Update Rollup is largely a collection of previously released patches as opposed to a batch of new features.

In addition to already released fixes, the collection "may contain fixes for non-public low- and moderate-level security issues that did not warrant individual security bulletins," a Microsoft representative said.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker said last November that it would release the Update Rollup rather than offer a fifth service pack. As a result, the final service pack for Windows 2000 becomes the SP4 release that came out in March 2003.

Although Windows 2000 has been followed by several other Windows versions, the software remains extremely popular in corporations and small businesses. It still accounts for nearly half of all Windows-based business desktops, according to a recent survey by AssetMetrix.
http://news.com.com/Windows+2000+mov...3-5766696.html






Bagle Shanghais PCs For Zombie Army
Joris Evers

A new version of the Bagle virus is attempting to turn PCs into zombies for use in cyberattack networks.

The variant surfaced over the weekend and was spammed to tens of thousands of Internet users, Ero Carrera, a researcher at F-Secure, said Tuesday. The antivirus software maker is calling the offshoot Mitglieder.CN, but it is known by other names, such as Bagle.BQ or Tooso.J, at other security companies.

The latest Bagle behaves in a similar way to its predecessors that don't self-propagate. It arrives in an e-mail with a attachment. When the file is executed, the malicious program tries to disable firewalls and antivirus software. It then attempts to download and run a Trojan horse that hijacks the infected PC for use as part of a botnet.

Botnets are groups of compromised PCs, often numbering in the thousands per network, that are rented out to relay spam, to launch denial-of- service attacks, or to perform other malicious acts.

"Compromised PCs could be used to send out new variants of Bagle," for example, Carrera said.

Bagle has spawned at least 70 variants since the virus emerged in January 2004. Some iterations have been more sophisticated than others, blending mass-mailing and Trojan horse techniques.

Most antivirus companies updated their products over the weekend to protect customers against the new virus. "It is not going to be a major issue," Mikko Hypponen, director of research at F-Secure, said Monday.

Symantec rates the new variant a low risk because it has not spread much. "Our rate of submissions is slowing down on that variant, so we don't consider it to be a significant threat," a Symantec representative said Monday.
http://news.com.com/Bagle+shanghais+...3-5766772.html






More Magazines Report Profitable Web Sites

A little more than half the world's consumer magazines said their Web sites are profitable, up from about a quarter two years ago, according to the results of a small survey released on Tuesday by a trade group.

Another 17 percent said they were losing money, down from 38 percent in 2003, the magazine publishing group International Federation of the Periodical Press reported.

The study comes at a time when advertisers are shifting more of their spending from television to the Internet.

About two-thirds of consumer magazine Web site revenues came from display advertising, the study found. The rest was from sponsorship, e-commerce, subscriptions and syndication.

"Most publishers of successful magazine Web sites have gained new advertisers on the Web who do not advertise in the print products," the report said.

The survey was based on information from only 71 Web sites, but represented some of the world's biggest publishers including magazines owned by Conde Nast, Emap, Axel Springer, Reader's Digest, Hachette Filipachi, IPC and Time Out Group.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...toryID=8918698






Live 8 Rock Stars 'Need To See The Real Africa'

The Live 8 rock concerts highlighting Africa's woes should have been staged in the world's poorest continent with global stars performing alongside

local acts, organizers of the Johannesburg gig said Tuesday.

Nine Live 8 gigs featuring top acts like U2, Elton John and Madonna will be held on July 2, but critics have lambasted Irish rocker Bob Geldof, mastermind of Live 8, for shunning African stars in an event meant to underline the continent's problems.

"If we had a collaboration with these European and U.S. stars, if we stood on stage with them, that would have had a bigger impact," said South African star Zola, who will perform at a concert in Johannesburg endorsed by Live 8 Saturday.

"It would have been nice for them to come here ... they need to see the real Africa," he told reporters.

Live 8 organizers, under pressure to mount an African effort, approached local campaigners at the 11th hour to suggest a local concert with a link to the bigger gigs.

Hassen Lorgat, South Africa spokesman for the Global Call to Action against Poverty, one of the organizing groups, said he was thrilled Africa would be given the global exposure that comes with being affiliated to Live 8, but said he would have done things differently if he had been in Geldof's shoes.

"Sometimes he worries about the prize, so the idea is to raise the maximum amount of funds. Geldof is not a bad guy, but I would do it differently," he told a news conference.

There is a chance that former South African President and anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela might appear at the Johannesburg concert, although this had not been confirmed, organizers said.

The Live 8 gigs will call for more aid for Africa, debt cancellation and fairer trade ahead of a July 6-8 meeting of the G8 group of seven industrialized nations and Russia in Scotland.

Concerts are being held in London, Berlin, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, Tokyo, Moscow and near Toronto.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...EESBURG-DC.XML






What Supreme Court Copyright Case Means For Real Estate

Experts discuss possible impact on property listings
Glenn Roberts Jr.

While a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relating to online file-sharing networks may not have any direct repercussions on the sharing of real estate property listings, it does appear to be a victory for Internet content providers, said a lawyer who specializes in information technology issues.

J.T. "Jay" Westermeier, a partner with the DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP law firm, said the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. decision appears to give copyright owners more legal authority to pursue technology providers that somehow encourage users to engage in copyright infringement.

"One could conceivably extend that to real estate listings," he said. For example, providers of real estate listings might have a legal claim against a company that encourages people to use its technology to make copies of online real estate listings and to display those listings on another site, he said.

"Conceivably, the Grokster (decision) would give the copyright owner more legal authority to go after them," he said.

Protection of property listings information is an important question for the real estate industry, with a lot at stake. Legal questions over ownership, control and protection of computerized information are relevant and pressing for real estate organizations in this Internet era.

Brian N. Larson, a former multiple-listing service executive who now serves MLS clients and real estate brokerage firms as a lawyer, said he doesn't see any immediate impacts from the Grokster decision on the real estate industry. Larson said he's not aware of any company that advocates wholesale duplication of online property listings.

The entertainment industry, in the Grokster case, had sought to stop copyright infringement that they claimed was facilitated by a type of file- sharing network known as a peer-to-peer network. While that case centered on copyright infringement, Larson said that some information in property listings tend to be protected in two ways: by contract law and by copyright law.

The courts have generally held, though, that factual information in such listings is generally not protected by copyright laws, while property descriptions and property photos are generally considered by industry lawyers to be creative works that can be protected.

Brian Larson
"Most people who have access to MLS data have that access under some kind of license agreement. Those license agreements usually very specifically restrict use of that data. MLSs are really better positioned to protect their content than are the publishers of music," Larson said.

If peer-to-peer networks become popular in the industry, then the Grokster case may have more relevance, he said.

Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said it's not clear to him whether the Grokster decision will actually strengthen copyright law. "This (ruling) is not what the recording industry wanted," he said.

"It puts the weight on the copyright holders to show that the technology developers have overtly and actively promoted copyright infringement." If it cannot be proven that a technology developer actually promoted copyright infringement, then copyright holders cannot succeed in their legal action, Cooper said. The Consumer Federation of America is an advocacy, research, education and service organization that works to advance pro-consumer policies.

Meanwhile, Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has provided legal assistance in defending peer-to-peer networks, said in a statement that the Grokster ruling "could impede makers of all kinds of technologies with expensive lawsuits.

"(The ruling) means that inventors and entrepreneurs will not only bear the costs of bringing new products to market, but also the costs of lawsuits if consumers start using their products for illegal purposes," Cohn stated. The foundation promotes the free exchange of information over the Internet.
http://www.inman.com/inmannews.aspx?ID=46830






Rejected TV Pilot Thrives on P2P
Michael Grebb

How's this for irony?

A sacked TV pilot about a large number of people who stay in touch through an underground data network has popped up on ... well, an underground data network.

The WB television network passed on the pilot for Global Frequency, a sci-fi adventure series based on the graphic novel by English scribe Warren Ellis.

But that didn't stop someone from leaking the pilot on the internet. The file eventually found its way into the BitTorrent network.

Over the last couple of weeks, enough people have downloaded and viewed the pilot online to give producers hope that TV executives might take a second look at the show.

"There's a large and growing fan base for a show that never aired," said John Rogers, the show's writer and executive producer, on Wednesday. "Now I have an extra 10,000 hits a week on my website, and I've got to figure out what to do here."

Rogers, who said he had nothing to do with the leak, has already received 350 e-mails from people praising the show. He said he would like to release the pilot as a DVD.

"If that's successful, that's a pretty good argument to pick up the show," he said.

Of course, the decision to broadcast the show is up to Warner Bros., which owns the rights to the pilot. The studio declined to comment about the future possibility of airing the show. However, it wasn't shy this week about slamming the BitTorrent leak.

"Whether the pilot was picked up or not, it is still the property of Warner Bros. Entertainment and we take the protection of all of our intellectual property seriously," said Craig Hoffman, a company spokesman. "While Warner Bros. Entertainment values feedback from consumers, copyright infringement is not a productive way to try to influence a corporate decision."

Hoffman added that the pilot's unauthorized distribution is "unacceptable and illegal ... no matter what the underlying motives" and said the company hasn't ruled out taking legal action "when it comes to stopping the illegal distribution of our copyright material."

The show's plot revolves around Global Frequency, a secretive global organization comprised of 1,001 members, who each possess a special talent they use to fight bizarre world threats.

The leader of Global Frequency is the enigmatic Miranda Zero, played by actress Michelle Forbes. (Forbes is fast building a tech-geek pedigree: She's also the voice of Dr. Judith Mossman in the video game Half Life 2).

The pilot's creative team, meanwhile, is a who's who of Hollywood and TV heavyweights, including reality-show king Mark Burnett (The Apprentice), writer Diego Gutierrez (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dawson's Creek), and director Nelson McCormick (Alias and Third Watch).

In describing the show, blogger Chuck Lawson wrote, "imagine the X-Files has world-class sex with Alias, and produces a mutant offspring with a taste for crank that lives 20 minutes in the future."

But with the current buzz wholly the result of unauthorized peer-to-peer activity, show creators are a bit unsure how to proceed.

"I'm officially against downloading files when they violate the laws of the country you live in," Rogers said on Wednesday.

On his June 19 blog, Rogers wrote that "illegal file-sharing is a bad, bad thing, and I in no way encourage it.... All references to downloading sites will be immediately deleted from ... this website. You, despite your enthusiasm, should be ashamed of yourselves. Ashamed."

In his June 21 blog post, he asked people to "spread the word (but not the file. Bad TV audience. Baaaaaad)."

P2P advocates aren't surprised that Rogers would ask fans not to trade the file even though that very activity seems to be helping his cause.

"In Hollywood, he knows he has to say those words or get thrown off the reservation," said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "But we're seeing more and more of this. People are downloading things and clamoring to pay for it. It shows that fans want to support content, not just steal it."

Morpheus CEO Michael Weiss called the leak "just another positive example" of P2P.

"There have already been countless success stories on how musicians -- either aspiring or established -- have turned to P2P to build or reinvigorate their careers," he said. "It is not surprising that the same effect is now beginning to happen in film and TV."

Meanwhile, Global Frequency creator Ellis has chimed in on his own website, noting that "the TV pilot (is) all over the net right now, on that filthy BitTorrent thing which is illegal and nasty and I certainly don't use it to watch The Daily Show or anything.... I don't have the torrent link, and I haven't seen the pilot, so don't ask. But feel free to buy the book."

Whether all the internet buzz ultimately revives the show, Rogers said he has learned much from the leak and about the power of the internet.

"It changes the way I'll do my next project," said Rogers. If he owned the full rights, he said, "I would put my pilot out on the internet in a heartbeat. Want five more? Come buy the boxed set." He urged other creators to do the same.

"It's a model and a reminder to the next guy who comes along," he said.

Meanwhile, Rogers, who is currently busy writing big-budget screenplays such as the Transformers movie due out from Dreamworks in 2006, said he plans to try to set up some meetings with Warner Bros. in the coming weeks to discuss whether Global Frequency has a future.

For now, the ball remains firmly in Warner Bros.' court.
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67986,00.html






Go Ask Hollywood

Why Can’t You Back Up Your DVDs? Because Entertainment Execs Don’t Want You To
Cory Doctorow

The holiday shopping guides were all atwitter over the new DVD formats, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD—competing systems for recording and playing back high-definition movies. Both feature hugely increased pixel counts, more bit-depth and a surfeit of storage. But here’s an important question that goes unasked in all the hype: What features won’t your next-generation DVD device have?

It won’t have a button for making a backup copy of the DVD you just bought, or for sending the movie to any portable video player. And if you put one of these long-awaited new discs in your PC, you won’t have the option to rip it to your hard drive the way you do when you insert a CD.

No matter how pretty its picture, what you’re expected to do with a DVD today is the one thing you could do in 1994: watch it on your TV. Why? Because when tech companies created the DVD, they sold you out. They let Hollywood hold its content hostage so that they could control who gets to build players and what those players can do. Tech execs have not only rolled over, they’ve joined the other side, advocating laws and restrictions that serve the entertainment conglomerates first and us second.

If that doesn’t seem like such bad news, think about the way it used to be. When Sony created the VCR in 1976, it enabled anyone to make near-perfect copies of movies. Sony did this without permission, and Hollywood went nuts. The Motion Picture Association of America launched an eight-year battle against the VCR that culminated in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision declaring the device legal and changing copyright law to address these new capabilities. That ruling is the reason you don’t get sued for recording a TV show. (During one Congressional hearing, MPAA spokesman Jack Valenti uttered this infamous hyperbole: “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” Today, pre-recorded media earns the studios more revenue than box-office ticket sales.)

The phonograph, radio, jukebox, cable TV—all share similar stories. New technologies inherently defy existing rules and scare the entertainment establishment. But if consumers want the devices, copyright laws adjust and profitable new business models evolve.

The DVD broke that system. The studios—by then aware of the lucre in home video—controlled the format from its inception by agreeing en masse to a patented encryption scheme for the discs; anyone who wanted to build a player or create a DVD feature had to ask them for the key. They set up a cartel in 1995, now called the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD-CCA), to dole out these licenses. Anyone making players without one is breaking the law. A Fox Studios executive told me, “It’s a polite marketplace.” Sure, if polite means stagnant.

Think of all the things you can do with a track from a CD now that you couldn’t do 10 years ago: rip it to your laptop, turn it into a ring tone, send it to your friends, burn a mix. Many of these capabilities are illegal, and the recording industry has tried to stop them all, but they’re out there, challenging the old rules and feeling their place in the market. Innovators have tried to enable the same flexibility for the DVD. Last year 321 Studios released software that let you back up prerecorded DVDs, but the MPAA sued it into bankruptcy before a court could rule on whether or not the product was legal.

Just last month, this magazine gave a Best of What’s New award to a $27,000 movie jukebox from Kaleidescape, praising the maker’s efforts to appease Hollywood by locking down content on the device so it can’t be shared. Kaleidescape thinks the product is within the boundaries of its DVD-CCA license, but my Deep Throat on the cartel says the group disagrees and is currently deciding how the company will be punished. Penalties range from a stern warning to fines to lawsuits. (When I called the DVD-CCA for an official line, I got this reply: “I’ve been asked to tell you we have no comment.” “Who asked you to tell me that?” “I can’t tell you.”)

The VCR exists because a behemoth with deep pockets stood up for it. But today, only easily crushed upstarts are willing to take chances, and the big tech firms are all in the entertainment business themselves. Sony recently bought MGM to secure content for Blu-Ray. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple and of the animation studio Pixar, told studio heads and tech leaders in a private meeting that studios shouldn’t release anything for the DVD-HD format until they get a promise that recorders will never appear in a PC.

We can’t rely on the vendors to act in our interest these days, dragging the entertainment execs kicking and screaming to the money tree. The irony is that the tech companies say that this is all done in your interest, that by pleasing the studios, they can give you a device for which Hollywood might make a few movies available. But it will be on their terms, not yours. With friends like that, who needs the Boston Strangler?
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/compute...006968,00.html






Now playing on Google: 'Matrix,' 'Family Guy'
John Borland

Google's new video search tool is turning out to be a little more expansive than the company planned, with users uploading copyright content ranging from the last "Matrix" movie to the "Family Guy" cartoons.

Consumers browsing the service, which was opened to the public just two days ago, have uncovered links to full versions of feature-length movies, TV shows and other content. As of Thursday morning, much of that content could be watched in its entirety on Google's site.

The company's terms of service clearly state that anyone uploading content to the search tool must have the rights to distribute the video and that copyright material is barred without the express consent of the copyright holder. However, the company's site also says that it does a preliminary review of content, looking for the most egregious "adult content or obvious copyright violations."

"We encourage anyone who has a copyright concern or complaint to send us a DMCA content removal notice. However, if we see content in Google Video that clearly violates copyright we will remove it," according to a company statement.

A Google spokesman said the company is in the process of removing all material that violates copyright.

Coming just days after a Supreme Court ruling that sharply strengthened Hollywood's legal hand against unauthorized movie distribution online, the incident highlights the dangers that Google is facing with its new service.

The new video search is designed not only to search what's already available on the Web, but to host video for producers that don't have the resources to post it themselves.

Web portals and Internet service providers that allow users to post their own content have been shielded from liability for copyright violations, as long as they remove violations when asked by a rights holder. However, Hollywood studios and record labels have been unhappy with the increasing ability of automated technology such as search engines and peer-to-peer technology to provide access to copyright material under these rules.

Much of the content uploaded to Google's search tool had been in the system for weeks. A watchable copy of "The Matrix Revolutions" was stamped with a June 9 upload time, and the "Family Guy" cartoons were uploaded on June 7, according to the Web page.

While the "Matrix" link was still up Thursday morning, the "play" buttons for screen captures of "The Simpsons" episodes had been removed.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5770212.html





'DVD Jon' Breaks Google Video Lock
Ryan Naraine

Norwegian hacker Jon Lech Johansen has cracked the lock on Google's new in-browser video player.

Johansen, also known as 'DVD Jon' for his work on decrypting DVD security codes, has created a patch for
the Google Video Viewer—less than 24 hours after the search giant shipped the video playback plug-in, a tool based on the open-source VideoLAN media player. ADVERTISEMENT

The patch, released on Johansen's 'So Sue Me' blog, effectively disables a modification Google made to the VideoLAN code to prevent users from playing videos that are not hosted on Google's servers.

Johansen said the patch, which requires the .Net run-time framework, will remove Google's restriction and allow the playback of video files that aren't on the video.google.com server.

The 21-year-old hacker, who faced two trials in Norway in 2002 and 2003 for his role in the release of the DeCSS decryption software, is a hero to many for his efforts to defeat DRM (digital rights management) mechanisms built into media player technology.

He has been involved in a public cat-and-mouse game with Apple Inc., releasing several tools to bypass the DRM software used to encrypt music sold on the iTunes Music Store. LINK TO: PyMusique Unlocks iTunes Copy Protection. Again. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1779526,00.asp

Johansen has also cracked Apple's AirPort Express's encryption and released a proof-of-concept program that allows Linux users to play video encoded with Microsoft's proprietary WMV9 codec. The proof-of-concept is based on the VideoLan code.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1832464,00.asp






Senate Punts On Broadcast Flag Option
Declan McCullagh

A key U.S. Senate panel on Thursday decided not to intervene in a long-simmering dispute over the "broadcast flag," a form of copy prevention technology for digital TV broadcasts.

At a meeting reserved for voting on spending bills, not one member of the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed an amendment authorizing federal regulators to mandate the broadcast flag.

Consumer groups had predicted that such an amendment would be offered at the 11 a.m. PDT meeting and had asked their supporters to contact senators in opposition to the idea. Their worry: The broadcast flag could be injected into an appropriations bill for the Federal Communications Commission.

The strategy seems to have worked. "The broadcast flag amendment was not included in the bill," said Virginia Davis, press secretary for Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

"That appears to be a good sign," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge. Brodsky warned, though, that the requirement could be inserted when the appropriations bill heads to the Senate floor for a final vote. The broadcast flag would curb consumers' rights to make fair use of digital TV content, Public Knowledge says.

At the meeting, which lasted about 75 minutes, committee members unanimously approved a spending bill--which in part funded the FCC--without any major amendments.

In November 2003, the FCC voted unanimously to adopt the broadcast flag rule, which required manufacturers of digital TVs and computer HDTV tuners to abide by a complex set of regulations designed to limit Internet redistribution of video clips. Manufacturers that did not comply would be subject to government sanctions.

But a federal appeals court in May tossed out the FCC's rule, saying the agency had exceeded what Congress had permitted. The court did, however, note that Congress had the power to authorize the broadcast flag if it chose.

Since then, politicking over the broadcast flag has shifted to Congress. Motion Picture Association of America chief Dan Glickman said in an opinion article last month that the rule is necessary "to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air digital television consumers," and a copy of draft legislation has surfaced.
http://news.com.com/Senate+punts+on+...3-5759807.html






BitTorrent May Be Next Target for Copyright Cops

LONDON -- U.S. content companies are riding high this week after their courtroom victory over illicit file-sharing networks, and the popular BitTorrent software may be next in their crosshairs.

BitTorrent, created by programmer Bram Cohen, is a file-sharing program that distributes large files quickly by breaking them into many pieces, sharing the pieces among a large number of users, and reassembling them upon delivery.

Like Grokster, which ended up on the losing side of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday, BitTorrent is widely used to trade copyrighted materials such as movies and television shows. But it also has many non-infringing uses, and legal experts say it may fare better than Grokster under the freshly minted legal precedent handed down this week.

Uncertain Legal Ground

"BitTorrent has a more realistic case for non-infringing users than Grokster or the others ever had," said Mark Schultz, an associate law professor at Southern Illinois University who has studied the software. "(Cohen) didn't set out to trade Ammonium or Britney Spears. But we have to be realistic because we know it's used for massive illegal filesharing."

The Supreme Court verdict centered on intent, with the court concluding that Grokster was liable because it induced users to illegally download copyrighted material.

Since Cohen has repeatedly counselled people against using BitTorrent for illicit means, there is little evidence that he has behaved in a similar fashion, Schultz said.

However, there are several factors that could put BitTorrent at legal risk.

Cohen recently created a search engine on the BitTorrent home page, which could be seen as encouraging piracy. And in a manifesto on his Web site from several years ago, he stated that one of his goals was to "commit digital piracy."

In an preface added this week, he has said the item -- which also stated a desire to "synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes" -- was intended as a parody.

Cohen declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

Hollywood on the Offensive

Regardless of BitTorrent's legal standing, Hollywood is not standing idly by while thousands of movies and TV shows are traded illegally.

Fearful of suffering the same fate as its peers in the piracy-plagued music industry, the Motion Picture Association of America began its BitTorrent offensive in December with a round of lawsuits against Web sites that posted special "tracker" files that enable BitTorrent downloads.

Similar lawsuits have followed, and in May U.S. federal agents shut down a computer network that was distributing pirated copies of "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" before the movie even hit theaters.

There are also signs that Hollywood has hired technology companies to impede BitTorrent downloads.

Users on several discussion boards say that unknown third parties are sabotaging downloads of copyrighted material, flooding the network with fake data and gathering information that could be used in future lawsuits against individual users.

"To screw up BitTorrent it's relatively straightforward," said Andrew Parker, chief executive of CacheLogic, a UK firm that measures BitTorrent usage. "The big weakness is ... it's only after you download the entire file that you find out it's corrupt."

Parker said that any strategy to impede BitTorrent downloads would probably not last for long.

"It's a bit of an arms race," he said. "You have a bunch of smart people looking to get access to content, then a much smaller number of smart people working for content owners to block this stuff."
http://www.rednova.com/news/technolo...opyright_cops/






Perfect for ice beer

Coming In Out Of The Cold: Cold Fusion, For Real
Michelle Thaller

For the last few years, mentioning cold fusion around scientists (myself included) has been a little like mentioning Bigfoot or UFO sightings.

After the 1989 announcement of fusion in a bottle, so to speak, and the subsequent retraction, the whole idea of cold fusion seemed a bit beyond the pale. But that's all about to change.

A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing.

Before going into their specific experiment, it's probably a good idea to define exactly what nuclear fusion is, and why we're so interested in understanding the process. This also gives me an excuse to talk about how things work deep inside the nuclei of atoms, a topic near and dear to most astronomers (more on that later).

Simply put, nuclear fusion means ramming protons and neutrons together so hard that they stick, and form a single, larger nucleus. When this happens with small nuclei (like hydrogen, which has only one proton or helium, which has two), you get a lot of energy out of the reaction. This specific reaction, fusing two hydrogen nuclei together to get helium, famously powers our sun (good), as well as hydrogen bombs (bad).

Fusion is a tremendous source of energy; the reason we're not using it to meet our everyday energy needs is that it's very hard to get a fusion reaction going. The reason is simple: protons don't want to get close to other protons.

Do you remember learning about electricity in high school? I sure do - I dreaded it whenever that topic came around. I had a series of well- meaning science teachers that thought it would be fun for everyone to hold hands and feel a mild electric shock pass their arms. Every time my fists clenched and jerked and I had nothing consciously do with it, my stomach turned.

In addition, I have long, fine hair, and was often made a victim of the Van de Graf generator - the little metal ball with a rubber belt inside it that creates enough static electricity to make your hair stand on end. Yeesh.

Anyway, hopefully you remember the lesson that two objects having different electrical charges (positive and negative) attract one another, while those with the same charge repel. It's a basic law of electricity, and it definitely holds true when two protons try to get close together. Protons have positive charges, and they repel each other. Somehow, in order for fusion to work, you've got to overcome this repulsive electrical force and get the things to stick together.

Here's where an amazing and mysterious force comes in that, although we don't think about it in our day-to-day lives, literally holds our matter together. There are four universal forces of nature, two of which you're probably familiar with: gravity and electromagnetism.

But there are two other forces that really only come in to play inside atomic nuclei: the strong and weak nuclear forces (and yes, the strong force is the stronger of the two, the weak is weaker. Scientists really have a way with names, dont they?) I'm going to focus on the strong force, as that's the one responsible for nuclear fusion.

The strong force is an attractive force between protons and neutrons - it wants to stick them together. If the strong force had its way, the entire universe would be one big super-dense ball of protons and neutrons, one big atomic nucleus, in fact.

Fortunately, the strong force only becomes strong at very small scales: about one millionth billionth of a meter. Yes, that's 0.000000000000001 meters. Any farther away, and the strong force loses its grip. But if you can get protons and neutrons that close together, the strong force becomes stronger than any other force in nature, including electricity.

That's important- all protons have the same charge, so they'd like to fly away from each other. But if you can get them close together, inside the volume of an atomic nucleus, the strong force will bind them together.

The whole trick with fusion is you've got to get protons close enough together for the strong force to overcome their electrical repulsion and merge them together into a nucleus. The sun does this pretty much by brute force. The sun has over 300,000 times the mass of the Earth, which means there's a lot of gravity weighing down on its core.

That pressure gets the sun's internal temperature up to several millions of degrees, which means that particles inside the sun's core are flying around at huge velocities. Everything is moving around so fast that protons sometimes get slammed together before their charges have a chance to repel. The strong force takes hold, and a new atom (helium) is born.

In this process, some of the mass of the protons is converted into energy, powering the sun and producing the light that will eventually reach the Earth as sunlight.

Scientists have gotten fusion to occur in the laboratory before, but for the most part, they've tried to mimic conditions inside the sun by whipping hydrogen gas up to extreme temperatures or slamming atoms together in particle accelerators. Both of those options require huge energies and gigantic equipment, not the sort of stuff easily available to build a generator. Is there any way of getting protons close enough together for fusion to occur that doesnt require the energy output of a large city to make it happen?

The answer, it turns out, is yes.

Instead of using high temperatures and incredible densities to ram protons together, the scientists at UCLA cleverly used the structure of an unusual crystal.

Crystals are fascinating things; the atoms inside are all lined up in a tightly ordered lattice, which creates the beautiful structure we associate with crystals. Sometimes those orderly atoms create neat side-effects, like piezoelectricity, which is the effect of creating an electrical charge in a crystal by compressing it. Stressing the bonds between the atoms of some crystals causes electrons to build up on one side, creating a charge difference over the body of the crystal. Other crystals do this when you heat or cool them; these are called pyroelectric crystals.

The new cold fusion experiment went something like this: scientists inserted a small pyroelectric crystal (lithium tantalite) inside a chamber filled with hydrogen. Warming the crystal by about 100 degrees (from -30 F to 45F) produced a huge electrical field of about 100,000 volts across the small crystal.

The tip of a metal wire was inserted near the crystal, which concentrated the charge to a single, powerful point. Remember, hydrogen nuclei have a positive charge, so they feel the force of an electric field, and this one packed quite a wallop! The huge electric field sent the nuclei careening away, smacking into other hydrogen nuclei on their way out. Instead of using intense heat or pressure to get nuclei close enough together to fuse, this new experiment used a very powerful electric field to slam atoms together.

Unlike some previous claims of room-temperature fusion, this one makes intuitive sense: its just another way to get atoms close enough together for the strong force to take over and do the rest. Once the reaction got going, the scientists observed not only the production of helium nuclei, but other tell-tale signs of fusion such as free neutrons and high energy radiation.

This experiment has been repeated successfully and other scientists have reviewed the results: it looks like the real thing this time.

For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. In the mean time, the crystal-fusion device might be used as a compact source of neutrons and X-rays, something that could turn out to be useful making small scanning machines. But it really may not be long until we have the first nuclear fusion-powered devices in common use.

So cold fusion is back, perhaps to stay. After many fits and starts, its finally time for everyday fusion to come in out of the cold.
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.c...5s01-stss.html






Bitchin’ Hot Fusion

EU Consortium, Japanese to build 100,000,000-degree reactor in France
Guy Faulconbridge

Science's quest to find a cheap and inexhaustible way to meet global energy needs took a major step forward on Tuesday when a 30-nation consortium chose France to host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor.

After months of wrangling, France defeated a bid from Japan and signed a deal to site the 10-billion-euro ($12.18-billion) experimental reactor in Cadarache, near Marseille.

The project will seek to turn seawater into fuel by mimicking the way the sun produces energy.

Its backers say it would be cleaner than existing nuclear reactors, but critics argue it could be at least 50 years before a commercially viable reactor is built, if at all.

"We are making scientific history," Janez Potocnik, the EU's Science and Research Commissioner, told a news conference in Moscow, where the multinational partners in the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project were meeting.

A nuclear fusion power station is the 'Holy Grail' for scientists trying to find a viable alternative to the world's depleting stocks of oil and gas.

Crude this week reached a record price of $60.95 a barrel in some trading and a summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations next week is to discuss climate change, widely blamed on burning fossil fuels for energy.

Decades Of Research

Unlike existing fission reactors, which release energy by splitting atoms apart, ITER would generate energy by combining them. Power has been harnessed from fusion in laboratories but scientists have so far been unable to build a commercially viable reactor, despite decades of research.

The 500 megawatt ITER reactor will use deuterium, extracted from seawater, as its major fuel and a giant electromagnetic ring to fuse atomic nuclei at extremely high temperatures.

One of the biggest challenges facing scientists is to build a reactor that can sustain temperatures of about 100 million Celsius (180 million F) for long enough to generate power.

"I give it a 50:50 chance of success but the engineering is very difficult," said Ian Fells of Britain's Royal Academy of Engineering. "If we can really make this work there will be enough electricity to last the world for the next 1,000 to 2,000 years."

The ITER project began in 1985 but wrangling over the site and financing have caused repeated delays.

At their meeting in Moscow, officials from ITER partners China, the 25-nation EU, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States chose France over Japan.

In its long battle to host the project, the EU, backing member France, used some of the tactics of unilateralism it often criticizes in the United States, vowing to go it alone or build ITER with a "coalition of the willing" if the Japanese did not yield.

In the end, the EU made huge financial and industrial concessions to the Japanese.

The EU will fund 40 percent of the 4.6 billion euro construction cost with France paying an additional 10 percent, while each of the other five members of the consortium will pay 10 percent.

In Tokyo's case, this will be offset by contracts for up to 10 percent of the procurement, EU participation in science projects in Japan with up to 8 percent of the cost of ITER construction, and a disproportionate share of Japanese staff on the ITER organization, including the post of director-general.

"We believe that the ITER project should start as soon as possible for the sake of mankind's future," said Nariaki Nakayama, Japan's science minister.

Building the reactor is expected to take about ten years, but some scientists say it could take three times that long and the sides have yet to reach a final agreement on a number of issues, including financing, before the builders can move in.

Environmental campaign group Greenpeace estimates that if the project yields any results at all, it will not be until the second half of this century.

"At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project," it said.

France has been a big producer of nuclear energy since the oil shocks of the 1970s and has 58 nuclear reactors, the most in the world after the United States.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...NUCLEAR-DC.XML






Phorum Phunnies

LMFAO Nobody Thinks Anymore Huh?
BoaR

I borrowed one of my friends cd's from the store to see. (The frickin manager of HMV lent me a cd to pirate lol)

I bring it home, undo the shrink wrap and pop it into the comp. Hmm now I have a choice! I can play it or pirate it. Gee :rolleyes:

They really don't realise that once it is IN my computer, physically IN the drive that any sort of protection is futile??

Fire up Winamp. Mp3 Lame output pluging. Configure my LamE encoder to background automate 360Kbps stereo 5.1 surround. Activate the plugin in winamp.

Now what do I do? hit play and let the cd kick out the tunes. when I am finished listening to it start to finish, I go get my saran wrap and the blow dryer.

Re-shrink wrap the cd and put it on the table. Come back to the comp, plug in my mp3 player, and open my folder on the HD where my winamp plugin kicked the LamE ripped mp3 files.

Drag and drop, wait for it to finish, run maketorrent to churn out a .torrent file for the web, and load it to seed, then I make a run for my bus.

I am back at HMV in less than an hour, handing back the perfectly shrink wrapped cd, and the headphones to the owner.

She laughs along with me as she replaces the cd on the shelf, jamming to the tunes coming from my flawless copy already being shared on the net to hundreds.


:harhar: *Gives the middle finger to the RIAA* :harhar:

That's what I think of your new copy protection. :happy:
http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?showtopic=4173






Boy of Summer

Don Henley Hails P2P Decision

The Eagles' drummer and lead singer Don Henley is applauding the US Supreme Court's decision that Internet file-sharing services can be held liable if they're used mainly to download songs and movies illegally. Henley, who is the president and cofounder of the Recordings Artists' Coalition (RAC), said, "By ruling against Grokster, the Supreme Court has vindicated the rights of artists, songwriters, and copyright owners. There is no more important case for the future of our business. These unauthorized (peer-to-peer) systems promote copyright infringement on an unprecedented scale. They make millions of dollars in advertising, but pay the artists nothing."

Henley and his Eagles bandmates Glenn Frey, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit all signed a brief with the Court back in January, urging that Grokster, Kazaa, and other file-sharing systems be held accountable for the copyright infringement going on on their networks. Others who signed and supported the RAC brief include: Jimmy Buffett, Bonnie Raitt, Stevie Nicks, Grateful Dead drummers Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzman, Boz Scaggs, Elvis Costello, and Brian Wilson.

Henley told us that the reason the RAC exists in the first place is because it's important for artists to make themselves heard on the important issues that directly affect them: "The unions represent us to some degree. The AF Of M (American Federation Of Musicians), and AFTRA (TV and radio union), and the collection agencies like BMI and ASCAP have tried admirably to represent us, but the fact is, is that artists themselves need a coalition and they need a voice in Washington."
http://www.therockradio.com/2005/06/...-decision.html






ProfNet Experts Round-Up: File-Sharing Lawsuits

**1. PETER VOGEL, attorney at GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP: "The Grokster ruling that Internet services may be liable for copyright infringement for setting up peer-to-peer (P2P) networks 'with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright' did not look at the technology of the P2P networks. Unlike the 1984 Supreme Court ruling, which said that although the Sony VCR could be used for copyright infringement, but was also provided consumers the convenience of 'time shifting' television broadcasts to watch at a more convenient time, the unanimous court ruling held that Grokster 'acted with a purpose to cause copyright violations by use of software suitable for illegal use.'"

**2. DAVID POST, I. Herman Stern Professor of Law at TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Beasley Law School, co-wrote amicus brief on behalf of Grokster and Streamcast: "The High Court’s decision marks the end of life as we know it in terms of the future of file sharing and the innovation of related technology that builds upon and interacts with P2P distribution networks." A cyberlaw scholar, Post teaches IP, copyright and cyberspace law; is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute; clerked twice for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg; founded Cyberspace Law Institute and contributes to the Volokh Conspiracy blog. He is frequently asked to comment on Internet law by local and national media.

**3. SANJIV SARWATE, partner of the intellectual property litigation firm PATTISHALL, MCAULIFFE, NEWBURY, HILLARD & GERALDSON in Chicago: "The Supreme Court hewed to tradition in deciding the MGM v. Grokster case, focusing not on P2P technology, but rather on the defendants' promotion of the infringing uses of that technology. In reaffirming the common- sense rule that those who promote their technology's infringing uses should be held liable, the Supreme Court provided guidance to technology developers as well as protection for content owners."

**4. ROBERT HOLLEYMAN, president and CEO at THE BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE: "The Supreme Court decision in MGM Studios v. Grokster reaffirms the need for balance between innovation and deterring piracy. The opinion states clearly that the mere act of developing and distributing multipurpose technologies, such as software and computers, does not create liability. We are gratified that the opinion ensures that persons intentionally and actively engaged in encouraging others to infringe, ‘inducing infringement,’ can be held liable under the law for their acts. The application of this new standard should make a real and positive difference in combating online piracy."

**5. COLE STUART, shareholder at HELLER EHRMAN LLP: "The court's ruling should sound a warning signal to technology companies large and small, and may have a significant chilling effect on commercial speech for companies making tools that can be used by individuals to facilitate copyright infringement. With the proliferation of consumer software and hardware tools and services that may be used (or misused) to capture, store and transmit copyrighted works, companies making such tools now need to be very conscious of how their marketing is perceived in the music and film studios in Hollywood and New York."

**6. MANNY D. POKOTILOW, managing partner with the intellectual property law firm CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. in Philadelphia: “Copyright owners have won a substantial victory. It means that unless a start-up company that is producing file-sharing software or P2P software has a large war chest, the music industry can stop its sale of such software in its infancy merely by filing a lawsuit for vicarious copyright infringement.”

**7. JAMES MITCHELL, attorney with the intellectual property law firm PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON LLP in Grand Rapids, Mich.: "This is an important milestone in the ongoing race between the law and rapidly advancing information technology. The remarkable advances in information technology over the past 15 years have made copyright infringement easy. Further, the average person tends to resent being told he or she cannot freely take advantage of this technology. An ongoing educational effort is required to help the average person understand that if the law does not respond to this challenge in favor of protecting copyrights, creativity will be discouraged."

**8. A. BLAIR HUGHES, attorney with MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP, an intellectual property law firm in Chicago: "While this decision allowing the recording and movie industry to sue file sharers may seem favorable, the next hurdle the industry faces in view of the Grokster decision may be insurmountable. In order to prevail in a suit against file sharers, movie and recording industry companies must prove -- as the Supreme Court decision requires -- that a file-sharing company offers its file- sharing product because they 'intend' their customers to use the software to illegally swap songs and movies. Since the software has legal purposes, it seems that all that file-sharing companies need to do is have users agree not to use the software in an illegal manner. Once that happens, the only recourse left to the big movie studios and recording companies will be to sue individuals who are using the file-sharing software illegally -- an immense and costly undertaking.”

**9. JONATHAN HUDIS, partner with the intellectual property law firm OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. in Alexandra, Va.: "The Supreme Court has breathed new life into copyright law’s ability to combat infringement over peer-to-peer networks. The Supreme Court took the Ninth Circuit to task for misapplying Sony v. Universal City Studios. In this case, the defendants distributed their peer-to-peer file-sharing software with the very obvious intent to cause the users of their software to trade in copyrighted files without authorization. This, said the court, distinguishes the case from the safe harbor of Sony, and potentially subjects the defendants to contributory liability under the theory of active inducement. In the technology-driven, file-sharing era, copyright protection remains alive and well as a tool to combat active inducements to infringe.”

**10. JOSEPH V. NORVELL, chair of the copyright practice group at BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE in Chicago: “This decision involved peer- to-peer file- sharing providers, but it will have much broader implications in the technology industry. Technology companies of all types that transfer digital data, including computer companies, data transfer providers and software companies will need to review their products and policies to ensure they are not exposed to potential liability for copyright infringement. The technology companies may appeal to Capitol Hill for more clarification to ensure they are insulated from liability. This is a tightening of the 1984 Sony Betamax case, where the Supreme Court held that sellers of VCRs were not liable for users' copyright infringement. See Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Proponents of technology will see this as a potential stifling of the innovation permitted by the Sony Betamax decision.”

**11. JEFFREY D. NEUBURGER, chair of the technology, media and communications department at BROWN RAYSMAN MILLSTEIN FELDER & STEINER LLP: “The iPod is safe under today's Supreme Court opinion in MGM v. Grokster. But technology distributors that intentionally seek profit by encouraging infringing acts are not. The court took pains to carefully detail the specific actions by the distributors from which, the court said, 'a patently illegal objective' could be inferred. On the other hand, the court made it very clear that simply manufacturing and distributing technology that can be used for infringement is not enough to result in liability, if the traditional ‘Sony Betamax’ test of a ‘substantial non-infringing use’ is met. This gives content owners an important new avenue for protecting their intellectual property rights."

**12. MICHAEL D. SMITH, assistant professor of information systems at the Tepper School of Business at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, believes that the court’s decision in the Grokster case does little to help the recording industry eliminate or control the next generation of 'legitimate' peer-to- peer systems: “I believe a larger problem for the industry is that copyright- friendly peer-to-peer networks, and other Internet- based systems, are being developed that will make it easier for consumers to locate, evaluate and purchase content from a diverse set of artists who aren't available through traditional radio stations and record stores. If these networks sustain themselves, they will reduce the importance of record companies as an intermediary between artists and consumers.”

**13. GEORGE WHEELER, attorney with the intellectual property law firm MCANDREWS, HELD AND MALLOY in Chicago: ”The Supreme Court has extended copyright law along the same path as preexisting patent law on inducement of patent infringement, to eliminate the distribution of a ‘copyright virus’ -- software that otherwise would largely destroy the value of copyrights on mass media products by enabling anyone with a computer to gain access to, and make high-quality copies of, these works. Patent law has a specific federal statute enacted over 50 years ago, 35 USC 271(b), preventing anyone from intentionally inducing infringement of a known patent by a third party. Copyright law does not have a specific statute to this effect, although there is some pertinent case law. By adopting this principle in a copyright context, the court has recognized that prohibiting inducement of copyright infringement is necessary to prevent software vendors from profiting."

**14. DAN VENGLARIK, attorney at DAVIS MUNCK: "The most interesting question still must be resolved: can contributory copyright infringement be employed to stop the sale/distribution of file-sharing software, 'ripping' or other content-copying products capable of both infringing and non- infringing uses? It’s the genie the entertainment companies must try to put back in the bottle, and this decision offers no clear path other than to continue using litigation costs to drive vendors from the marketplace. The court declined to set a balancing point for liability based simply on the amount of non- infringing versus infringing use, so they will likely have to revisit the issue within a few years."

**15. DR. JEFF STEIN, R.J. McElroy Chair in Communication Arts and an assistant professor of electronic media at WARTBURG COLLEGE in Waverly, Iowa: "It appears from the court's ruling that if a developer could imagine a person using the software for illegal purposes -- in this case, file sharing -- then the developer is responsible for any damages that result from the criminal activity, such as stealing copyrighted material. This ruling is a bit of a change from prior court decisions, which held developers harmless for how people used their products. In other words, if a product could be used legally, the developer was not responsible if someone wound up using it for illegal purposes. If this is taken to its logical extension, one could claim that a gun manufacturer could be held liable if someone uses one of their products in committing an illegal act, such as a robbery." Stein currently serves as the political analyst for KWWL-TV in Waterloo. He is the executive secretary of the Iowa Broadcast News Association, vice president of the Northwest Broadcast News Association and author of "Making Waves: The People and Places of Iowa Broadcasting."

**16. JOHN DELANEY, partner at MORRISON & FOERSTER: "Even before this decision, the P2P industry has been moving away from the Grokster model toward models that involve working to ensure a more satisfactory experience for consumers. Over time, as content providers increasingly partner with P2P companies, I think that you will see the market providing an attractive alternative to consumers for authorized online content. In addition, I think that we're going to see this battle shift away from the courts and to Congress. Look for Congress to get more involved in finding a solution that strikes the right balance between respect for IP rights and online access to music and movies."

**17. DAVID KUSEK, co-author of "The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution": "Music piracy is not going to go away with this decision. If anything, it will become even harder to stop. The court did not outlaw P2P technology, but instead reprimanded the way that it was brought to market. This will make the P2P companies even smarter. The best news about the ruling is that both the music and technology industries can move forward with a clearer understanding of what the rules are. While the music companies may feel that they won a tremendous victory, the reality is that their customers are turning away in droves."

**18. WILLIAM ABRAMS, partner at PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP: "The court puts the spotlight on the conduct of the defendant in using peer-to- peer technology, and not on the technology itself. The justices have balanced technology development against copyright protection by examining what the promoters did in the marketplace with the technology. If someone was using a photocopier to encourage and facilitate infringement, they might have the same consequence. Grokster has another day in the trial court, and the trial court and jury has been given some guidance. We will see how the lower courts apply this as a practical matter, and what law will develop."

**19. SEAN MELVIN, assistant professor of business law and business department chair at ELIZABETHTOWN COLLEGE: "The Supreme Court’s opinion in the file-sharing cases (MGM v. Grokster) has muddied the copyright infringement standards even further. Functionally, the court created a new standard to assess culpability for infringement: 'inducement' to commit copyright infringement. However, the court gave very little guidance on how lower courts should judge whether or not 'inducement' took place. This is a recipe for disaster, and the court will likely have to give further guidance as federal courts struggle to implement this standard."

**20. ANNETTE HURST, shareholder at HELLER EHRMAN LLP: "The court left for another day the hard questions about what Sony means --how much non- infringing use is 'substantial,' and what it takes to demonstrate that such uses are likely to develop in the future when they do not exist today. The result of this opinion is to give mature technology companies an advantage over startups in the distribution of dual use technologies. Mature companies can rely upon more established business models to generate revenue from dual use technologies, and should have the marketing and legal sophistication to avoid the appearance of deliberately capitalizing upon infringement."
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/512866/

**21. EDWARD NAUGHTON, partner at HOLLAND & KNIGHT: "The Supreme Court avoided revisiting the Sony Betamax decision. It focused on the evidence that Grokster and StreamCast deliberately encouraged infringement -- by marketing to and targeting former Napster users, by not attempting to block users' infringement and by building a business based on advertising, which the court viewed as proof that the primary goal of the software was to download free music. Because of this evidence, the court ruled that the record labels should be allowed to present their case to a jury."

**22. ALFRED (FRED) C. FRAWLEY, III, partner at PRETI FLAHERTY: "Whether you download music, share movie files by e-mail, or not, the landmark MGM v. Grokster case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that distributors of file- sharing software can be held responsible for copyright infringements committed by those who use their programs, will have significant repercussions across industry as it relates to key copyright rules." Frawley can help you wade through the tidal wave of issues concerning copyright infringement and other points of law that will be affected. A partner of the firm's intellectual-property practice group, he is one of the nation's most experienced attorneys in intellectual property, antitrust, trade regulation and employment law, and has managed global trademark portfolios and represented clients in a range of Federal Communications Commission issues.

**23. SHUBHA GHOSH, professor of law at the UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO: "The Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster offers both good news and bad news for copyright law and followers of new technologies, like P2P. The good news is that the decision did not suggest that Grokster and Streamcast are clearly liable for copyright infringement. Instead, the court concluded that a trial was necessary to determine the services' liability. The bad news is the Supreme Court basically created another way for the creator of new technology to be liable for copyright infringement. If the creator intended to induce copyright infringement, then the creator can also be found liable."

**24. JAY L. COOPER, L.A., entertainment practice chair at GREENBERG TRAURIG, a signatory to one of the briefs on behalf of the movie studios and former president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences: “File- sharing companies that actively encourage illegal downloading had to be held accountable for their customers' unlawful activities if the film industry was to avoid the same dramatic sales and job losses that have plagued the music industry. Without this decision, the motion picture industry would be in the same perilous place the music industry was in 1999 when Napster hit the scene."

**25. MICHAEL GRAIF, counsel at CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP: "This decision shows that the court is willing to look to substance over form. Although the Grokster service was technically capable of being used in a substantially non-infringing way, the fact is the Grokster service was being used substantially to infringe copyrights, with full encouragement of Grokster. 'Sony' is still good law. As long as a device is capable of non- infringing use, the manufacturer will not be liable unless the manufacturer takes active steps to encourage others to use the device in an infringing manner."

**26. WALTER HANCHUK, partner at CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP: "A unanimous Supreme Court handed down an overwhelming victory for copyright owners. The court was clearly moved by the enormity and pervasiveness of ongoing infringement, thereby dismissing Grokster's attempts to convince the court that there were substantial non-infringing uses of its service. Grokster's attempts to solicit former Napster users, as well as Grokster's full knowledge that its service was being actively used to infringe rights of copyright owners, led to the court's decision in this matter. The court's decision could provide a significant boost to legitimate music downloading services, such as Apple's iTunes."

**27. GREGORY G. KERBER, is CEO of WURLD MEDIA, whose Peer Impact (TM) is the first legal P2P compensating both rights holders and network users: "The Grokster ruling is terrific news for those who want to harness the Web's potential while protecting artistic rights -- and terrific news for consumers. Secure in their rights, artists and copyright holders will feel more comfortable making their content available. And spurred by the decision, business models will begin to develop that offer access to high- quality, easily accessible legitimate content that is free of viruses and other unexpected dangers."

**28. TIM HEADLEY, intellectual property partner at GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL in Houston: "The Supreme Court's ruling in Grokster may have a temporary chilling effect on some technology companies, but the real effect will be positive on retailers and the entertainment industry." Headley’s intellectual property practice includes litigation of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret disputes; patent prosecution; management of worldwide trademark programs; and software licensing. Headley is a speaker and author on intellectual-property issues affecting large and small businesses.

**29. POLK WAGNER, professor of law at the UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: "The recording industry just doesn't have the resources to sue the number of people necessary to make a dent in piracy. Instead, they need to change their general business practices and approach, including embracing various forms of online music." Wagner teaches courses about copyright, patent and trademark law. He has written and lectured about copyright issues involving online song swapping, digital television, DVDs and the Internet.

**30. KATIE DEAN, digital entertainment beat reporter at WIRED NEWS, covers digital music and media services, copyright law, digital rights management, and the clashes between the entertainment industry and consumers over file sharing. Thus, Dean can speak to the ruling and what it may mean for the future of digital content delivery, amid the increasing use of portable devices capable of playing audio and video files.

**31. VANESSA PIERCE, assistant professor of law at AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW, is available to comment on the decision in MGM v. Grokster. Pierce is a copyright law expert and currently teaches courses on copyright law, intellectual property, trademark law and patent law. She is also a member of the California and Utah bars and is licensed to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Pierce gained front-line experience on intellectual property matters at two law firms in Salt Lake City, Workman, Nydegger & Seeley and Parsons Behle & Latimer, and at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in Palo Alto, Calif.

**32. MARK MCKENNA, J.D., professor of law at SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, came to the university in 2003 after several years of experience litigating trademark and copyright infringement cases at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson in Chicago. About half the cases he litigated were related to the Internet and other computer technology. He also drafted and negotiated intellectual property and software licenses and counseled clients on worldwide intellectual-property issues. McKenna also is one of the nation’s leading experts on intellectual-property issues.

**33. SUSAN BRENNER, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology at the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, is a renowned cybercrime scholar, speaks internationally and writes extensively on cybercrime. Her Web site, Cybercrimes.net, was featured on "NBC Nightly News." She is a member of the American Bar Association’s International Cybercrime Project and has served on the National District Attorneys Association’s Committee on Cybercrimes. She is also a member of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Forensic Science Technology Center Digital Evidence Project.

**34. IAN BALLON, partner and co-chair of the intellectual property and Internet practice at MANATT, PHELPS AND PHILLIPS, will be co-chair with the Honorable Marybeth Peters, registrar of copyrights for the U.S. Copyright Office, of the upcoming conference "Copyright After Grokster v. MGM: Understanding the Supreme Court's Decision and its Impact on Law and Business." Ballon is also the author of the three-volume legal treatise, "E- Commerce and Internet Law: Treatise With Forms," and serves as executive director of Stanford University Law School's Center for E- Commerce.

**35. DARREN CAHR, partner at GARDNER CARTON & DOUGLAS, counsels clients on matters ranging from trademark, patent, and copyright disputes to advertising substantiation and promotion law, and has developed a concentration in the rapidly developing area of online anti- competitive practices. He represents clients in domain name disputes, government regulation of promotion practices on the Internet, false advertising and intellectual- property theft over the Internet. Cahr is a frequent speaker on law and technology, especially on Internet file-sharing services and the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision.

**36. DOTTI BOLLINGER, attorney with FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, is available for comment on the MGM v. Grokster case. She can explain how a ruling in this case will have implications on the relationship between technology and copyrights. Bollinger’s practice focuses on Internet, computer and information technology law in both the private and public sectors. In her practice, she represents clients in matters related to Internet access, security, privacy, censorship, electronic evidence, electronic discovery, criminal, electronic business, Web site development, communications liability, technology and intellectual property issues.

**37. MARK RADCLIFFE, co-chair of international law firm DLA PIPER's technology and sourcing practice group, is a highly accomplished attorney who currently serves as general counsel to the Open Source Initiative. He has excellent perspective on the impact of file-swapping litigation on issues ranging from the availability of VC funding, the design of consumer electronics, First Amendment rights and the changing tide of copyright law precedent. Radcliffe is best known as being one of the first to develop legal policy surrounding domain name registry 1994, when a series of legal disputes surrounding cybersquatting issues initially arose.

**38. DOUGLAS TWEEN of COUDERT BROTHERS LLP is a member of the firm’s global antitrust and global litigation practice groups, and resides in the New York office. Tween’s primary practice focuses on the defense of white-collar criminal and regulatory investigations, as well as complex civil litigation and class action defense. He represents corporations and individuals in antitrust, fraud, tax, securities, money laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related matters. He also conducts internal investigations, and assists corporations in establishing and monitoring compliance programs.

**39. BRAD WRIGHT, intellectual property attorney from BANNER & WITCOFF LTD., specializes in copyright matters in the electrical and computer industries, and is available to speak about the future of file sharing. Wright has been closely following the Grokster case, and he can address how it will impact intellectual property rights for other e-commerce and technology businesses, such as eBay or cell-phone manufacturers, for instance. Wright will also tell you what technology companies must look out for to avoid being held liable for copyright infringement, and how this case will change those legal steps for protection.

**40. LISA A. DOLAK, associate professor of law at SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, is available to comment on file-sharing lawsuits and teaches courses on patent and trade secrets, patent prosecution, Internet law, technology transfer, civil procedure and federal courts. She has written on ethics issues for intellectual property practitioners, declaratory judgment jurisdiction in patent cases, the use of electronic records to prove invention dates and the inequitable conduct defense.

**41. JEFF ISAAC, Esq. (AKA “The Lawyer in Blue Jeans”), is a veteran attorney with over 26 years under his proverbial belt. Isaac offers down-to- earth expert perspective on both personal legal issues as well as those current events in law that affect society on a day-to-day basis. Isaac’s distinctive style of “Blue Jeans Law” is highly relatable and comforting to a public that is known to harbor negative misperceptions about attorneys- at- large.

**42. TRIS FALL, attorney with FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP specializing in intellectual property, computer law, cyberlaw and internet-related matters, is available for comment on the MGM v. Grokster case. He can discuss the issues of the case and how a ruling in this case will have implications across the United States on the relationship between technology and copyrights.

**43. ALAN GRIMALDI, co-chair of HOWREY LLP's intellectual- property practice group, is an intellectual-property expert who can discuss interplay between copyright law and historical patent law issues as defined by the Supreme Court.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/512868/

[JackSpratts]

Jesus’ spokespeople check in

Peer to Peer Justice
The Monitor's View

The unanimous Supreme Court decision that computer file-sharing services are illegal if their primary intent is to induce users to steal copyrighted songs is a judicial home run on two counts.

The court spoke with one voice in upholding traditional intellectual property law in the Internet age without putting a damper on the creation of new technologies. It carefully ruled that a business plan built on the premise of illegal copying is wrong but it did not require existing or new digital technology to have built-in filters, per se, to prevent illegal copying.

The artistic heirs to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or John Lennon will now more easily reap the reward of their creative efforts. The inventor of the next iPod, be it in a garage or a research lab, is cleared for takeoff.

More important, society benefits when creative efforts are rewarded and made available under legal protections. But that said, there is a troubling dimension to this ruling that bears closer examination. When a court that routinely issues decisions along narrow 5-4 majorities rules 9-0, the decision invites the question: If it was so obvious, why was there a need to hear the case in the first place? It is as important to look to the spirit, not just the letter of the decision.

The legal message is clear. Digital shoplifting is wrong. The Court felt compelled to address the use of software that abets this activity on a scale of billions of illegal downloads. Copying on this scale aborts the business plan of any digital entertainment company and potentially renders worthless any archive of song or film. The court's moral message should be just as clear. Though the nine justices didn't crowd together in a pulpit delivering a fire and brimstone sermon that stealing is wrong, they indirectly called into question a practice more common on college campuses than skipping class.

Parents, it's time for a trip behind the proverbial computer screen with your child. Respect for the work of another as well as his or her right to the fruits of that work is a value that both parents and children should honor. No parent gives keys to the car to a child knowing the child is going to steal gas at the pump. The same holds true in cyberspace. The content a teenager watches or listens to didn't appear, just as allowances don't appear, from air.

"Peer to peer" is an apt description of file-sharing software. The court made clear that fair play must always be part of any such sharing.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p08s01-comv.htm






Rip. Mix. Burn.

Media companies are jubilant at a Supreme Court judgment, but Congress should take them on

AS USUAL, America's Supreme Court ended its annual term this week by delivering a clutch of controversial decisions. The one that caught the attention of businessmen, and plenty of music lovers, was a ruling concerning the rampant downloading of free music from the internet.

Nine elderly judges might have been forgiven for finding the entire subject somewhat baffling. In fact, their lengthy written decisions on the case betray an intense interest, as well as a great deal of knowledge. Moreover, they struck what looks like the best available balance under current laws between the claims of media firms, which are battling massive infringements of their copyrights, and tech firms, which are keen to keep the doors to innovation wide open (see article).

This case is only the latest episode in a long-running battle between media and technology companies. In 1984, in a case involving Sony's Betamax video recorder, the Supreme Court ruled that technology firms are not liable if their users infringe copyright, provided the device is “capable of substantial non-infringing uses”. For two decades, this served as a green light for innovations. Apple's iTunes, the legal offspring of illegal internet file- sharing, is among the happy results. But lately, things have turned against the techies. In 2000, a California court shut down Napster, a distributor of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software. It had, the court decided, failed to stop copyright violations (though the firm relaunched as a legal online- music retailer).

In its ruling this week, the court unanimously took the view that two other P2P firms, Grokster and StreamCast, could be held liable if they encourage users to infringe copyrights. The vast majority of content that is swapped using their software infringes copyrights, which media firms say eats into their sales. Although the software firms argued they should not be responsible for their customers' actions, the court found that they could be sued if they actually encouraged the infringement, and said that there was evidence that they had done so. On the other hand, the court did not go as far as media firms demanded: they wanted virtually any new technology to be vulnerable to legal action if it allowed any copyright infringement at all.

Turning customers into pirates

Both the entertainment and technology industries have legitimate arguments. Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any
copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms' established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce. The music industry is only now embracing online sales (and even experimenting itself with P2P) because rampant piracy has demonstrated what consumers really want, and forced these firms to respond.

The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. That's not the court's fault. It was struggling to apply a copyright law which has grown worse than anachronistic in the digital age. That's something Congress needs to remedy.

In America, the length of copyright protection has increased enormously over the past century, from around 28 years to as much as 95 years. The same trend can be seen in other countries. In June Britain signalled that it may extend its copyright term from 50 years to around 90 years.

This makes no sense. Copyright was originally intended to encourage publication by granting publishers a temporary monopoly on works so they could earn a return on their investment. But the internet and new digital technologies have made the publication and distribution of works much easier and cheaper. Publishers should therefore need fewer, not more, property rights to protect their investment. Technology has tipped the balance in favour of the public domain.

A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms—14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/Pri...ory_ID=4128994






Good And Bad News In Grokster Decision

Legal expert comments on court ruling on copyright law and new technologies
John Della Contrada

The Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster, announced on Monday, offers both good news and bad news for copyright law and followers of new technologies, like P2P, according to Shubha Ghosh, professor of law and an expert on intellectual property and cyberspace law.

The good news, he says, is that the decision did not suggest that Grokster and Streamcast are clearly liable for copyright infringement. Instead, the court concluded that a trial was necessary to determine the services' liability. This result is different from the Napster case, in which the lower courts ruled that the service clearly was in violation of copyright law.

"The other piece of good news is that the court did affirm the Sony standard," Ghosh says. "Under the Sony standard, a creator of new technology that permits copying is not liable if the technology has substantial non-infringing uses. Liability rests on the design and uses of the technology. The lower court held that Grokster and Streamcast are not liable under the Sony standard because of the design of the P2P service permitting non- infringing uses. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the lower court had misapplied the Sony standard by focusing exclusively on the question of design and not enough on the intent of the creators of Grokster and Streamcast."

Here's where the bad news starts. "The Supreme Court basically created another way for the creator of new technology to be liable for copyright infringement," he says. "If the creator intended to induce copyright infringement, then the creator can also be found liable. To quote the court: 'one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.'"

After Monday's decision, there are two potential pitfalls for creators of new technology, according to Ghosh.

"The first, under Sony, is to create technology that, because of its design and uses, has primarily infringing uses," he says. "The second, under Grokster, is to create technology with the intent to induce infringement by third parties. The Sony standard focuses on the design of the technology; the Grokster standard, on the intent of the creator. Even if the design of technology may have a lot of non-infringing uses—as Grokster and Streamcast allegedly did—the creator of new technology still can be found liable if his purpose in creating the technology was to permit copyright infringement. In Sony, the court borrowed from the law on contributory infringement in patent law; in Grokster, the court borrowed from patent law's rules about inducement.

"In its defense," Ghosh added, "today's opinion, totaling more than 50 pages in length, did show sensitivity to the arguments about technological innovation that were raised in the litigation. However, the decision also complicates copyright law by creating a new— and questionable—legal standard. Only future cases will tell how this standard will affect P2P and other technologies."
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol3.../Grokster.html






Wireless: A Peer-To-Peer Music Asylum
Ben Charny

While the technology has been vilified for making it easier to swap illegally copied music over the Internet, peer-to-peer software is increasingly being embraced by cellular phone manufacturers and service providers to help their nascent music businesses.

Handset maker Nokia has reportedly developed peer-to-peer software that would allow sharing of text documents, photos and, eventually, music between its 6600 model phones.

It's not just Nokia. Electronics maker Mitsubishi says it too has developed a prototype peer-to-peer phone. And three weeks ago, Canadian cell phone operator Rogers Wireless started using peer-to-peer software as a marketing tool for its music download service. Rogers lets users send the first 30 seconds of a song to a friend's cell phone. If the friend likes it, he or she can buy the rest of the song.

So why are cell phones becoming a haven for file sharing? The tight control cellular providers have over their networks, it seems, makes them an ideal host. Cell phones use privately owned networks in which operators can track every piece of data sent. They also have tough software that manages digital rights, and they typically have tracking technology built in to meet federal 911 laws, so operators can locate anyone they believe is illegally swapping files.

Such tight controls are just what the recording industry is looking for. Recently, the recording studio EMI licensed access to its song catalog to Seattle-based cell phone peer-to-peer software maker Melodeo. Melodeo is now in talks with U.S. cell phone operators and is providing the software behind Rogers Wireless' new service, according to Melodeo senior director Stan Sorensen.

"Operators and labels have learned from the free sharing days and are starting from the premise that there's money to be made," said Sorensen.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-6005_22-5767178.html






The Cast Of The Ongoing Peer-To-Peer Drama
John Borland

The Supreme Court's review of file-swapping — and by extension, of the legal protections afforded to a host of mainstream technologies — has drawn interest from all corners, and Monday's decision won't stop the debate.

Copyright companies are pitted against technology manufacturers; conservative Christians are allied with Hollywood; government agencies at all levels are opposing venture capitalists. Here's a quick guide to some of the key players in the debate, what they've said, and why they care.

Copyright's knights
Copyright holders: The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) have been trying to force file- swapping software companies out of business since Napster's rise.

The RIAA blames rampant file-swapping in part for the substantial decline in music sales worldwide over the past four years, and says services such as Grokster are unfair competition for legal stores like iTunes. There's little sign that Hollywood's revenues are going down, but the MPAA says studios lost $3.5bn (£1.9bn) to physical piracy in 2004, which doesn't count the huge numbers of movies being swapped online.

All three groups are pressing for either a court or a legislative solution that would let them sue file-swapping companies, but for the last year, the RIAA, MPAA and their internation counterparts have instead turned their legal guns on individuals.

US government: The Solicitor General's office joined the copyright holders on the floor of the Supreme Court, arguing that intellectual-property protection was critical to the US economy. The office proposed modifying existing law to say that if a product is "overwhelmingly used" for infringement, and if a business depends on those illicit uses, then the company ought to be held liable.

Peer-to-peer partisans
Grokster, StreamCast Networks: The two companies that prompted the lawsuit, along with Kazaa's parent company Sharman Networks (which has been left in lower courts, following jurisdictional disputes).

Both companies produced software that was used to create decentralised file-swapping networks, eschewing the original Napster's ongoing role as a facilitator of searches and swaps. Two lower courts said that was enough to relieve them of responsibility for actions of people using their software.

At the time of the original lawsuit, Streamcast Networks' Morpheus was on its way to becoming the most popular file-swapping software in the world. It was replaced almost overnight by Kazaa, which in turn has now been eclipsed by eDonkey.

Electronic Frontier Foundation: The San Francisco-based EFF has provided key legal and intellectual support for file-swapping software companies throughout the Grokster case. The group agreed to represent Streamcast Networks not long after that company was sued by copyright holders, contending that the lawsuit was different in critical ways than the Napster case.

Lawyers for the EFF have consistently argued that peer to peer is a general-use technology — like computers. By targeting companies that released software and then had no further direct interaction with users, the record labels and movie studios threatened innovation and digital rights well beyond peer to peer, the EFF argued.

From the sidelines
Silicon Valley: Led by Intel and venture capitalists, technology leaders have been deeply worried that any changes to the 1984 Sony Betamax decision could undermine their business. That case, which protected the sale of any device that has "substantial noninfringing uses", has been critical to the production and distribution of products from the CD burner to the iPod to the personal computer itself.

Consumer groups: Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America have spoken out sharply in favour of file-swapping software companies, saying that peer-to-peer software can be used for protected political speech and can have benefits to consumers. The groups stop short of endorsing copyright infringement, but they've said consumer behaviour can be explained by record labels' "anticompetitive" behaviour.

Consumer electronics companies: The Consumer Electronics Association has played one of the most visible roles in challenging the copyright holders, all the way up to arranging for protesters holding "Save Betamax" signs in front of the Supreme Court on the day of the Grokster hearing. The group's companies are deeply indebted to the Betamax decision and argue vociferously that anything merely "capable of substantial noninfringing use" remain legal.

State attorneys general: A group of 39 state attorneys general petitioned the court in favour of the copyright holders, saying that the unrestricted peer-to-peer services were encouraging innovation that ignores, and therefore encourages, lawlessness. They say P2P companies that deliberately construct their networks to prevent themselves from seeing infringement — which they know exists in huge quantities — should be held liable.

Christian Coalition: An odd pairing if ever there was one. The conservative Christian organisation and several allies joined the cause of Hollywood and the record labels, saying that the lower courts' decisions could lead to a proliferation of anonymous, untraceable child pornography.

Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers: The IEEE petitioned the court without supporting either side, saying that courts had strayed from traditional intellectual-property rules in recent years. In an argument that several Supreme Court justices initially appeared deeply sympathetic to, the group argued that products having substantial noninfringing uses should be legal, unless their parent companies actively induced customers to act illegally.
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/...9205926,00.htm






Why File-Sharing Piracy Will Never Die
Sandy Brown

Think online file sharing is dead because the Supreme Court whacked Grokster? You need to talk to James.

James, a 25-year-old music fan and avowed Internet pirate who works as an electrician by day, spoke to TheStreet.com on condition his last name not be used. For him, this week's legal defeat for the peer-to-peer client Grokster has meant few sleepless nights.

"There are so many people working in the shadow Internet," he says. "I don't see the impact."

According to data compiled by BigChampagne, an online media tracking service, roughly 6 million people a month use peer-to-peer software over the Internet in the U.S. The number is conservative because it excludes wireless networks, instant messaging and email, and the increasingly popular protocol known as BitTorrent that splices files from different senders.

"What everyone forgets is that the Internet was designed to facilitate file transfers. It's completely agnostic," said Joe Fleischer, a BigChampagne co-founder. He says Monday's ruling amounts to a big "who cares" and warns that big media will end up looking foolish trumpeting a courtroom victory when illegal activity soars.

To be sure, Monday's Supreme Court's ruling deals a blow to users who want a dedicated application to exchange media content for free. Grokster and other outfits like it stand to be held liable if consumers illegally exchange songs and movies using their technology.

For James and his tech-savvy pals, however, the landscape on which they share music and video files is ever-changing. Increasingly, it encompasses territory such as online chat and instant messaging, in which assigning liability to a specific piece of software could be impossible.

"The analogy that comes to mind is fingers in a dam," one media consultant says. "They win a court victory, but the peer-to-peers will just find a new way to do it. You can't really win the fight against tech progress."

That won't stop content providers from hunting big game on the issue. A research note from market intelligence firm IDC says that by clearing the way for lawsuits, the court gives music and movie studios "an effective way to deal with a problem that has contributed to declining revenue since the first P2P services became available."

It notes, however, that the decision's reach may be limited to companies and others that overtly promote their products as tools to infringe on copyright, and which are subject to U.S. law. Consequently, IDC expects that P2P networks will remain available and that distribution of copyright protected materials will remain an issue for the entertainment industry.

"It was an important battle to win, but there are other battles to be fought," says Susan Kervorkian, an analyst with IDC.

James says he and friends access the latest music, TV and films through BitTorrent and other enabling applications available to anyone who downloads them. BitTorrent, along with Grokster, is decentralized P2P software. Unlike Napster, it doesn't house a directory of the content that is distributed through it.

Kervorkian says it is very likely that services like Grokster will be shut down. Still, whether the same standard that felled Grokster -- intent to distribute copyrighted material -- applies to other protocols like BitTorrent remains to be seen. It might come down to "how they've positioned themselves to consumers," Kervorkian says.

The BitTorrent protocol uses passive "trackers" that allow users to find files among anonymous providers, or seeds. The software locates files at disparate locations online and devises a way to download a full one piecemeal -- a "torrent" -- speeding the transfer and arguably complicating the legal issue of who "sent" it. The technology is the closest thing so far to fully anonymous facilitation of file-sharing, and something like it could eventually make Monday's Supreme Court ruling moot.

In response to the P2P onslaught, big media companies have adopted two main defenses: encryption of files to protect them against transfer, and partnerships with legitimate download conduits where they get a share of revenue.

Just two days after the Supreme Court ruling, Sony BMG and Mashboxx, one of the companies that could have been targeted by the ruling, announced a deal that will see them partnering to offer songs for 99 cents apiece.

For now, the volume of free file-transfer occurring on the Internet dwarfs the paid-for variety, suggesting it isn't just savvy users like James who are breaking the law. Attracting more people to above-board sites will take time.

"You'll always have kids with too much time to misappropriate music," says Jordan Edmiston Group managing director Tolman Geffs, an experienced Internet banker. Jeffs says that the piracy landscape will change for the better once illegal services are taken out and replaced with legal ones. "For the vast bulk of the market, convenience is the driver."
http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/sand.../10230312.html






Bulls, Bears Debate Napster

Music Pioneer Boasts Popular Brand, But Faces Big Competition, Price War
Laurie Kawakami

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that file-sharing companies, like Grokster, can be held liable for copyright infringement if their networks are used to illegally swap songs and movies. The decision has brought renewed attention to legitimate Internet music services, such as Napster. The online music pioneer, which was forced to shutter its popular file-sharing network in 2001 after a legal onslaught by the recording industry, now operates a fee-based music service that has signed up 412,000 paying members. However, Napster faces stiff competition from bigger players like Yahoo Inc., which recently launched a lower-priced subscription service. Napster shares, which started the year at $9.36 on the Nasdaq Stock Market, have slumped more than 50% so far this year amid fears of a price war. The stock has risen 5% since the high court's ruling, closing Wednesday at $4.09, but Wall Street remains divided on its prospects.

The Bull Case

High Court Help: While the recent Supreme Court ruling won't immediately shut down Grokster and other peer-to-peer networks, the decision will result in more lawsuits and could "ultimately prove to be the beginning of a decline in usage of mainstream P2P file sharing," writes PiperJaffray analyst Gene Munster, who rates Napster at "outperform," in a report. Napster, which added 142,000 subscribers in the March quarter, should benefit as many P2P users seek out legitimate alternatives. The company has a strong international brand and its former file-swapping service was used by many current P2P users. Indeed, Napster had the highest awareness among downloaders of any online digital music service at 82%, beating iTunes at 55%, according to a March report from Ipsos-Insight.

Napster to Go: In February, Napster moved beyond its desktop computer roots by launching a portable subscription music service, dubbed Napster To Go. The service allows customers to transfer an unlimited amount of songs to their MP3 players for a monthly "rental" fee of $14.95. The music can't be moved off the devices. (Like iTunes, Napster also sells music downloads for 99 cents apiece.) "We believe the portable subscription model provides a much greater value and is much more exciting than the pay-per-download model," writes Kit Spring, an analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., who rates the company at "market perform." Although the Napster service doesn't work with Apple's popular iPod players, it is compatible with more than 20 portable audio devices from Dell, Creative and others.

Takeover Target: Although it is losing money, Napster maintains a debt-free balance sheet with $132 million in cash, or about $3 per share, so the downside risk is limited. Bulls say Napster is an attractive takeover target for a search or portal company looking to get into the music business, or a device manufacturer looking to leverage Napster's brand. Mr. Spring writes that if Napster experiences pricing pressure, "we believe it could decide to sell the company -- and we believe there are several interested parties." Last year, Yahoo bought MusicMatch, another online music service, for $160 million -- an estimated four times revenue. "We think Napster is worth more, given its stronger brand name and higher subscriber count," adds Mr. Spring, who estimates the company has a takeover value of $7 to $8.

The Bear Case

Price War: Napster faces intense competition from major players in an already crowded digital-music market. Yahoo recently launched a subscription music service with an introductory price of $6.99 a month, well below Napster's current price. Yahoo's entry may force Napster to cut its monthly fee and may slow Napster's subscriber growth as customers defect to the new lower-priced offering, says Joseph Sullivan, an analyst at Craig-Hallum, who rates Napster at "neutral." With Yahoo's aggressive entry into the market, he writes "it will take some time for investors to see a clear path to sustained growth and profitability for Napster."

Burning Cash: Napster is a small company that is spending heavily on marketing and burning cash at a rapid clip -- roughly $20 million a quarter. Much of Napster's business remains in the development stage and it is unlikely to see profits for several years -- in its quarter ended in March, the company reported a net loss of $24.3 million on sales of $17.4 million. "Napster's valuation is completely subjective given meaningful losses, cash burn and the overhang of competitive pricing uncertainty," writes Frederick Moran, analyst at Stanford Group, who started coverage of the company Tuesday with a "hold" rating and $4 price target. He notes Napster may burn through its savings over the next two years if margins don't improve.

No Napster iPod: Napster's service is Windows-based and not compatible with Apple's iPod player or the iTunes music store. "Until a device manufacturer breaks the iPod stranglehold on the market, Napster and other players on the Windows side of the market are chasing a niche opportunity," writes Steven Frankel, an analyst with Adams Harkness, who has a "reduce" rating on Napster. He expects the iPod and iTunes combo to remain leaders in their respective categories in 2005, limiting the appeal of Napster's service. He also notes that Apple could unveil a subscription service tied to its iPod player, further threatening Napster's business.

Analyst Ratings
Brokerage Firm Stock Rating 52-Week Price Target Last Update

Brean Murray Buy $8 June 15
PiperJaffray Outperform $7 June 27
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Buy $6 May 12
Stifel, Nicolaus Market Perform n/a June 1
Craig-Hallum Neutral n/a May 12
Stanford Group Hold n/a June 28
Adams Harkness Reduce n/a May 12


Disclosures

• PiperJaffray has received compensation from Napster for investment banking services in the past 12 months. It also makes a market in Napster shares.

• SunTrust Capital Markets makes a market in Napster stock.

• Adams Harkness makes a market in Napster and intends to seek compensation for investment banking services in the next three months.

• Craig-Hallum makes a market in Napster stock.

• Brean Murray makes a market in Napster and intends to seek compensation for investment banking or noninvestment banking services.

• Stifel, Nicolaus makes a market in Napster stock.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...main_tf f_top






Inside iPod World, No One Can Hear You Scream
Chris Barton

The 13-year-old and I are having a philosophical disagreement: "You mean there is no way I can have an iPod for my birthday?"

"Yes."

"That's so unfair," (shooting withering look of injustice). "Don't you realise I want one more than anything else - I'd even give up having a mobile to have one?"

"Yes, I know. But $350 is an insane amount of money to spend on a birthday present."

"No it's not, and you can get them for $320."

"I'm sorry, but that's still a ridiculous price. Just wait a while, the prices will come down."

"How long? you've been saying that for ever."

"Six months, maybe a year."

"A year! You're such a retard." (Storms off, door slams.)

She has a point. I have been saying prices will come down ever since the iPod was introduced in 2001. Since then, about 15 million have sold worldwide and while prices have dropped a bit, in reality they haven't fallen that much.

That's because iPod maker Apple has followed a masterful marketing strategy. First it created a winning product for a hot and hungry market where price doesn't seem to be a barrier. It was a spectacular success - capturing 30-per-cent market share in 2004 and harnessing the "Kleenex effect" - where consumers now see iPod as synonymous for portable digital music player.

Next Apple employed the versioning tactic - creating several different iterations of the product for different market segments. The result is that today one can buy iPods of various sizes and capabilities starting at about $175 and finishing at about $775.

My daughter sees all this as proof that prices have fallen, and she figures something around the $300 mark is quite acceptable. She's looking longingly at the four-gigabyte (GB) disk drive Mini.

We have discussed the lower-cost memory options. But these have less storage - just 512 kilobytes (KB) at the entry cost level - and less features. We both agree the 1GB Shuffle might be acceptable in storage terms, with about 16 hours of MP3 encoded songs, but at around $270 it's still to my mind horrendously expensive. And compared to about $320 for the Mini, the Shuffle doesn't add up.

Ditto for the competition, such as Creative's 1GB MuVo, which sports an FM tuner and LCD display - both lacking on the Shuffle - but it still costs around $300. I have to concur with Monika also that the Shuffle's aesthetics are way ahead of the rest of the field. The MuVo is butt ugly.

But price isn't my only concern. I'm worried too about hearing loss. A recent study estimates that as many as 5.2 million children in the United States between six and 19 have some hearing damage from amplified music and other sources.

It's only going to get worse as the iPod generation blasts its eardrums. I have tried to talk to Monika about this, explaining that my generation loved very loud music and many have suffered hearing loss. I tell her that she's already damaging her ears by the high volume she plays into headphones when she's on the computer or listening to her Discman.

And that with an iPod - the perfect portable tool for drowning out reality, anywhere, anytime - her hearing loss will get even worse. But what would I know? "Music isn't even worth listening to unless it's really loud," she declares.

There's a similar sneer when I try to talk about the ethics of downloading music for free via file-sharing programs such as Limewire and Grokster, something many iPod users do.

A recent US survey estimates just 25 per cent of iPod owners are buying any content from the iTunes Music Store (not available here yet).

To appease me, Monika says if she had an iPod she would convert files from her existing CD collection. I tell her under existing copyright law here, even that is illegal. This is further confirmation I'm a retard.

I fear there's no easy answer to this dilemma and that sooner or later an iPod will enter our household. I've always held the view that parents have to embrace new technology and educate their kids in sensible use. But I worry with the iPod that I may have met my match. I'm concerned that she'll zone out to loud music at every waking moment. And that we'll forever be pulling plugs from her ears to talk to to her.

Inside the insular world of the iPod no one can hear you scream.
http://acvs.mediaonenetwork.net/clie...ing%3Dd&bhcp=1






Security Bytes: Infected Computer Leaks Nuke Plant Documents

An infected computer at Mitsubishi Electric Plant Engineering has allowed users of a peer-to-peer file-sharing system to read confidential documents related to nuclear power plant inspections.

Lynnfield, Mass.-based antivirus firm Sophos said the leak occurred when a 30-year-old engineer used his personal computer for company business. The data -- 40MB of it -- was apparently distributed to users of the Winny peer-to- peer file-sharing system. The PC was infected with an unnamed computer virus that allowed Winny users across Japan to access the data, which included photographs of the insides of the nuclear power plants and the names and addresses of inspecting engineers.

According to Japanese media reports, authorities have been quick to reassure the public that it doesn't believe the information was directly related to radioactive substances. Sites referred to in the leaked data include Kansai Electric Power's Mihama nuclear plant and a power station in Tsuruga, as well as pressurized water reactors in Tomari and Sendai, Sophos said.

"This incident strongly illustrates the importance of maintaining resolute computer security," Sophos Senior Security Analyst Gregg Mastoras said in a statement. "When an individual's personal data is compromised, it often leads to devastating consequences, but when information about a nuclear power plant is leaked, the stakes increase exponentially."
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com...101207,00.html







Japanese Govt To Tighten Control After Nuclear Power Plant Data Leak

The government here said it would tighten controls on information at nuclear power plants after confidential data on at least two facilities was inadvertently leaked over the Internet.

'As nuclear plants are important facilities in terms of preventing terrorism ... we want to take thorough measures about information management,' Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told reporters.

He did not specify what action the government would take.

Hosoda said the government believed the leak did not involve any crucial information on nuclear materials from the Tomari nuclear power plant in northern Japan and the Sendai plant in southern Japan.

Major electrical machinery maker Mitsubishi Electric Corp earlier said confidential data from two nuclear power plants had been leaked over the Internet from a virus-infected computer used by an employee at a group firm.

'There is no doubt that (data) was leaked,' a Mitsubishi Electric spokesman said. Mitsubishi Electric apologized for the leakage.

The employee was in charge of nuclear inspections. His computer was infected with a virus that reveals data through the Winny file- sharing software.

'We are deeply sorry,' the company said in a statement. 'We are now examining the extent (of the data leak) and we will take sincere measures after seeing the results.'

The Jiji Press news agency said the leaked data included lists of plant workers' names, detailed inspection results and pictures of the interior of the plants.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...fx2107672.html





Labels: One-Third Of CDs Sold Are Pirated
John Borland

More than a third of all CDs purchased worldwide are pirated, according to a record label report released Thursday.

Illegally sold copies of music discs are a $4.6 billion market, with legitimate sales in some countries shrinking by as much as a third in just a few years, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said.

Online digital piracy also remains a concern, particularly in several countries with high levels of broadband Net use, the group said.

"The music industry fights piracy because if it did not the music industry would quite simply not exist," IFPI Chief Executive Officer John Kennedy said in a statement. "Billions of dollars of investment go into releasing and marketing over 100,000 albums in a single year, and this is only possible when there is good, effective enforcement of copyright."

The group's annual report is aimed at spotlighting how well specific countries are doing in fighting bootlegging and tracking changes in copyright laws around the world.

Overall, many countries have cracked down on pirated disc sales, with growth in the black market slowing to its lowest level in five years. A total of 1.2 billion illegally copied discs were sold in 2004, the group said.

However, in more than 34 countries, the total number of illegal copies sold outstripped the number of legally produced discs.

The group spotlights Canada, South Korea and Taiwan as having weak digital copyright rules or enforcement of existing rules. The Canadian government took steps this week to introduce new legislation that would bring that country's legal framework closer to that of the United States, however.
http://news.com.com/Labels+One-third...3-5759552.html






Free Speech Coalition, Department of Justice Reach Agreement Suspending 2257 Enforcement for Plaintiffs and FSC Members
Press Release

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.

The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.

Specifically, the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DoJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity's name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.

A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, Saturday June 25, 2005.

At no time will the DoJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal.

All FSC members should advise the FSC office of all of their DBAs by Monday, June 27, 2005, so that the master list will be as complete as possible.

"On behalf of the entire adult entertainment industry, the FSC acknowledges the bravery and integrity of our co-plaintiffs, New Beginnings and Dave Cummings. We trust that the industry appreciates their willingness to take on the fight for justice on behalf of all of us," Michelle L. Freridge, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition.

"The FSC also expresses appreciation to our extraordinary legal team: H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Art Schwartz, Jennifer Kingsley, Roger Wilcox, Michael Gross, Barry Covert and Michael Deal. Special acknowledgement also to Michael Murray, whose agreement with the DoJ in the Connections Magazine case in Cleveland, Ohio, laid the groundwork for this agreement," said Freridge.

Over the course of the next few months, there will be continuing proceedings, including discovery, that culminate with the August 8, 2005 preliminary injunction hearing.

"While we remain optimistic regarding our ultimate success in the litigation, the FSC encourages everyone to try to comply with the law to the extent that it is possible," said Freridge.

Any questions can be emailed either to execdir@freespeechcoalition.com or mlfreridge@hotmail.com. Please be patient. FSC asks that people not both call and email, as they will respond as soon as possible to all inquiries.

Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry. Its mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359






Canadian Porn Performers Want Protection From U.S. Law

Critics say industry's enemies, after failing to ban it, are trying to regulate it to death
Glen McGregor

Canada's privacy watchdog has been asked to determine whether a U.S. clampdown on Internet pornography violates the rights of Canadian adult industry performers.

A lawyer representing a B.C.-based porn company wants Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart to see if contentious new U.S. federal regulations that take effect today offend Canada's privacy laws.

At issue are revisions to U.S. rules that require porn producers to keep photo ID and release forms from anyone who appears in sexually explicit images. The regulations, intended to combat child pornography, had been in effect since the early 1990s, but today they will be expanded to encompass Internet porn sites.

The new rules would require anyone who posts a sexually explicit image or video on the Net to also publish the address where copies of the release forms and the model's photo identification can be located, so that the records can be checked by U.S. federal agents. The regulations would also force administrators of online dating sites to block explicit images posted by members who don't provide their personal information.

The adult industry contends the changes are part of a larger campaign by the religious right and the Bush administration to wipe out the porn business through regulations after failed attempts using obscenity law.

The industry claims the new rules will do little to stop child pornography, which is already illegal, but the blizzard of paperwork could put as many as half of all online pornography companies out of business.

Lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition, a U.S. industry lobby group, appear in the 10th District federal court in Denver today to ask for an injunction against the updated regulations, arguing that they violate the First Amendment right to free expression and also violate international privacy laws, including Canada's.

The problem for Canadian producers is that much of the adult material made here is sold to U.S. distributors and websites. Under the new rules, producers will have to send copies of the model's personal information to others who buy the material.

When a model gives a copy of her driver's licence or passport to a photographer, copies of that personal information could end up in the hands of the U.S. webmaster who eventually buys the pictures or video.

That would violate Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, says Vancouver lawyer Paul Kent-Snowsell, who wrote to Ms. Stoddard to alert her to the issue.

"The U.S. is trying to assert its jurisdiction outside of its borders," Mr. Kent-Snowsell said.

"It impacts on the privacy, obviously, of any adult performers and the effects of the privacy acts and what a Canadian corporation may be obligated to do to comply with the U.S. regulations."

Mr. Kent-Snowsell says the new rules will also restrict foreigners, including Canadians, from working in the adult industry because they may not have the required U.S. photo identification. This could possibly offend international trade treaties.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...a-f183b6e52d77






Couple Fights To Keep Hard Drive
Phil Garber

A legal expert in first amendment cases said a township couple should not be forced to turn over their computer hard drive as part of an ongoing lawsuit involving insurance coverage for local officials.

The issue involves a lawsuit filed in January by Scott and Charlene Uhrmann that claims former Township Councilman David Scapicchio and current council member, Bernhard Guenther, were not entitled to receive thousands of dollars in free medical benefits as public officials.

Ronald Heymann, a Mount Olive lawyer representing Scapicchio and Guenther, has subpoenaed the hard drive of the Uhrmanns’ personal computer in an effort to prove that the Uhrmanns had posted many anonymous and negative comments about Scapicchio on a township chat room.

Superior Court Judge W. Hunt Dumont ordered on May 19 that the Uhrmanns provide the hard drive to Heymann. The Uhrmanns have asked for a stay pending an appeal of Hunt’s order. An appellate panel is expected to consider the request on Wednesday, June 29.

“We have done nothing wrong,” Scott Uhrmann said on Friday. “There is absolutely no relevance between politicians taking un-entitled benefits, the Internet and chat rooms. Tactics similar to this have been previously used to suppress anyone that voices opposition. They are simply trying to intimidate us to drop the lawsuit.”

Heymann said on Friday there is no law barring elected officials from receiving health benefits. He also said the lawsuit is part of a larger vendetta by the Urhmanns and that he wants the hard drive to prove the couple sent the anonymous e-mails to the Mount Olive Forum chatroom, Heymann said a review of the hard drive also may show if anyone has been covertly helping with the Uhrmann suit. The couple is representing themselves.

“I’m entitled to see anything that has been written pertaining to my case,” said Heymann, who also is a former Republican councilman.

“The (chat room comments) may reflect on their credibility and motive,” said Heymann. “Is it really a political vendetta that these two have going on?”

Heymann said he is not interested in other information that may be on the hard drive, such as medical information or communications from other people. He said the Uhrmanns would be able to ask a judge to keep secret any irrelevant information.

The anonymous postings were filed under names like “USRepublican” and “Cuhrmann.” One referred to Scapicchio as “scapeconvict.” Other postings alleged that Scapicchio had made illegal improvements to his home without getting proper municipal permits.

Scott Uhrmann said on Friday that he and his wife filed the lawsuit only after they brought the matter to the Morris County Prosecutor in November 2003. Uhrmann said the prosecutor declined to investigate and said it was a civil matter because the insurance payments had been publicly approved.

The suit alleges that Scapicchio and Guenther were not entitled to benefits because they were part time employees. It claims Scapicchio improperly received $72,050 worth of medical benefits while a councilman between 1996 and 2003. Guenther has received $23,804 in medical benefits since 2002, the complaint said.

Uhrmann said information on his hard drive is personal and has nothing to do with his allegation that the officials should not have received the health benefits.

Uhrmann said the first amendment guarantees his right to privacy and that the hard drive has sensitive information ranging from medical and financial to other personal issues.

“Anyone who has ever e-mailed us about a personal problem would be on the hard drive,” said Uhrmann. “Computers have become our personal filing cabinets. This is about our rights to privacy.”

Uhrmann also said Heymann has no right to probe the hard drive to find if anyone has helped with the Uhrmann lawsuit. Heymann said one concern is that Mayor Richard DeLaRoche may have been involved in the lawsuit for political reasons or that former business administrator William Ruggierio has helped. Ruggierio was fired this year and agreed as part of a settlement not to be involved in any Mount Olive municipal affairs.

But Uhrmann said there is no law restricting anyone from helping with the lawsuit.

“We’re fighting this on principle,” Uhrmann said. “This is a Pandora’s box.”

Richard L. Ravin, a Randolph Township attorney, has successfully defended several cases involving anonymous postings on chat rooms.

He said he was surprised Judge Dumont had ordered the Urhmanns to surrender their hard drive. According to Ravin, individuals requesting infor mation on anonymous chat room postings must first show that the postings may have been either defamatory or somehow caused injury. In matters involving public officials, it is even more difficult to show injuries that warrant exposing anonymous postings, Ravin said.

Otherwise, the hard drives should remain protected, Ravin said.

“You can’t go fishing because of the first amendment right to speak freely and anonymously,” Ravin said.

Judge Dumont did not issue a written opinion but said he did not dispute Heymann’s request for the computer hard drive. Ravin said Dumont had apparently not determined that the postings may have damaged Scapicchio or Guenther.

“I don’t see how the discovery sought (chat room postings) are relevant to anything in the complaint,” Ravin said.

Ravin said various court decisions have supported a person’s right to make anonymous postings on the Internet. He said the Uhrmanns “have as much right to anonymity as anyone else.”

Ravin said the courts are the “gatekeepers” to protect people from giving up anonymity and becoming potential targets of harassment.

“There is no right to gain personal information that is not relevant to a lawsuit,” said Ravin.

Reavin is currently chair of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association, and past co-chair of the Internet Law Committee of the section.

Ravin said courts have historically supported the right to privacy and to speak anonymously. One historical case involved the publication of the Federalist Papers prior to the American Revolution under the pseudonym “Publius.”

Ravin said two particular lawsuits have been landmarks in protecting anonymous chat room or other Internet postings. One involved a 2002 case where the Dendrite Corp., formerly of Harding Township, had sought the identities of people who had made anonymous e-mail comments critical of the company.

Another 2002 case involved a suit brought against an Emerson, Bergen County, web site operator and numerous anonymous online authors who had posted messages to the site’s electronic bulletin board.

The plaintiffs, who included public figures in Emerson, had subpoenaed the Internet service provider and host of the electronic bulletin board, for the addresses of the anonymous authors.

In the Dendrite case, the court ruled that anonymity was guaranteed unless it was shown that the statements had been illegal or caused significant harm. The judge hearing the Emerson case refused an order to identify the anonymous posters, saying that no harm was shown.

“People who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity,” Ravin wrote in an article in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...506840&rfi =6






Almost All US Libraries Offer Free Web Access
Gretchen Ruethling

Nearly all libraries around the country have free public Internet access and an increasing number are offering wireless connections, according to a study released Thursday by the American Library Association here.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at Florida State University, found that 98.9 percent of libraries offer free public Internet access, up from 21 percent in 1994 and 95 percent in 2002. It also found that 18 percent of libraries have wireless Internet access and 21 percent plan to get it within the next year.

"U.S. public libraries have gained a tremendous amount of headway as it relates to connectivity and access," said John Carlo Bertot, one of the study's authors. "The challenge lies in ensuring that libraries continue to get the support they need to provide necessary improvements to the technology."

The study found that rural areas were more likely to have slower connections and fewer workstations and training opportunities. Arkansas, California, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia and West Virginia had the lowest levels of access.

Urban areas, which also had some of the highest poverty rates, tended to have high levels of connectivity, bandwidth and wireless access.

The study sampled 6,865 libraries out of the total 16,192 in the country and received responses from 5,023 libraries in 34 states.

Hazel Williams, 50, of Chicago said she started going to the library for Internet research two years ago while she was earning her high school equivalency diploma. On Thursday, she was surfing the Web for jobs at the Harold Washington Library Center, which has 78 computers with Internet access, in downtown Chicago.

"Because I don't have a home computer, it's very convenient for me to use it here," Ms. Williams said. "If they didn't have the computer here, it would be kind of hard for me to get one."

People like Ms. Williams who go to the library for Internet access might be one reason that the number of annual library visits has increased from 500 million in the early 1990's to 1.2 billion today, said Carol Brey-Casiano, president of the American Library Association.

The study also reported that almost 40 percent of public libraries filter public Internet access to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually related materials. State library systems in Georgia and West Virginia put filters on all public libraries, the study reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/na...24library.html






Sony Denies Seeking PSP Customer Data
Michael Singer

Sony is dismissing news reports that it's asking online stores for customer information to track shipments of the company's PlayStation Portable game console in the United Kingdom.

Published reports out of Britain suggest that Sony is using the knowledge to confiscate any unauthorized product being shipped to consumers before the official launch date of Sept. 1.

Sony's president of consumer sales, Stan Glasgow, told CNET News.com that rather than targeting customers, the company is going to court on Monday to ask for an injunction against companies that participate in the underground market for the devices, sometimes referred to as the "gray market."

"We are fully aware of the gray market situation and we are trying to address the problem," Glasgow said, "but I seriously doubt that Sony would pursue any criminal action against individuals. It's just something that we wouldn't do."

Sony is getting firm with online retailers that participate in what it calls "parallel importing" of PSP products from the U.S. and Japan. Sony president David Reeves told Gamesindustry.biz that the company sent more than 600 letters asking individuals and companies to stop selling import PSP devices on eBay.

The PSP, a $249.99 portable console for playing video games and movies, is already on sale in Japan and the United States. Shipments into the United Kingdom were delayed by about six months to make sure the company had enough for its U.S. launch.

U.K. customers clamoring for the $249.99 consoles have been turning to online retailers to fulfill their gaming desires, often paying a $100 premium to get their hands on one.

Glasgow responded to the reports during a stop in San Francisco on Friday. Sony executives are scouring the globe touting the company's upcoming product sales strategy, of which the PlayStation Portable is a key element. Incoming Sony CEO Howard Stringer told shareholders in Tokyo on Wednesday that the company is planning its new-product unveiling for late September.
http://news.com.com/Sony+denies+seek...3-5761364.html






Data Everlasting

It took two centuries to cram the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., with more than 29 million books and periodicals, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, and 57 million manuscripts; today it takes 15 minutes to churn out the digital equivalent.

We rely on information stored in some kind of digital format on some sort of media to maintain our scholarly, legal, and cultural record and to continue to make progress with and profit from our digital labor. But the ephemeral nature of both data formats and storage media threatens our very ability to maintain economic, legal, and cultural continuity over time, not on the scale of centuries, but (considering the unrelenting pace of technological change) from one decade to the next.

Awareness of the problem is growing rapidly, especially in large organizations: as official government and corporate records become entirely digital, there are certain obligations to keep them around for future scrutiny. In the United States, for example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that business records, including electronic records and e-mail, must be saved for "not less than five years." And in some industries, such as pharmaceuticals, the regulations for record retention are much longer--30 years or more.

These new requirements, along with an increasing dependence on digital content across the board, have spurred corporations, governments, and universities to devise or acquire ways to preserve just about everything stored as bits. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries are attacking the problem of maintaining and sharing digital content over the long haul with a project called DSpace. Librarians there joined with programmers for Hewlett-Packard to build an open-source software application that not only accepts digital materials and makes them available on the Web, but also puts them into a data management regime that helps preserve them. MIT and 100 other organizations worldwide, including Cornell University, the University of Toronto, the University of Cambridge (UK), the Australian National University, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are actively using DSpace, with more institutions expected to create a DSpace archive this year.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/512739/?sc=swtn






The Court Has Ruled So Enter the Geeks
Jon Pareles

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision Tuesday in the Grokster case means trouble and potentially ruinous judgments against commercial file-sharing services, but it has also established a new standard for software innovation: don't ask, don't sell.

That is, don't ask for or gather information on what users are doing with the software you write, and don't sell ads that profit from access to copyrighted material.

The court found that the file-sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for copyright infringement because they offered marketing and technical advice that clearly induced their customers to share files illegally, so the companies could attract larger numbers of users and thus more advertising.

But the court did not give the movie and recording businesses much ammunition to attack the Robin Hoods of the Internet: those software geeks and culture fans who really just want to share. They are online right now building Web sites that don't make a dime and spending hours writing and editing "mp3 blogs" - Web page collections of downloadable songs. They hook people up, basically because they can and because people want access to art.

File sharing software designers learned "don't ask" from the federal court judgment that shut down Napster in 2001. Napster's legal problem was that it could ask, and every request went through a central server, so Napster presumably knew what users were trading, thus abetting copyright infringement.

The geek response was decentralized programs like the software behind Grokster and Kazaa. But those are ugly programs because they don't just connect people with files to share; they also install spyware and adware to sell advertising and profit off the traffic in (primarily) copyrighted files.

Enter the geeks again, who came up with ways to stop ads from displaying or engineered stripped-down ad-free versions of the software like Kazaa Lite. In a charming move, Kazaa tried to stop distribution of Kazaa Lite, claiming it was a copyright violation.

Then the geeks came up with programs that established independent, ad-free networks or, like Bittorrent, facilitated multiple individual connections. The court's decision may torpedo the parasitical, ad-pumping services like Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus, but no one's going to miss them much. There are plenty of geek alternatives that were devised not as business startups, but for the programmers' satisfaction and the users' sense of connection.

It's a completely alien mentality for profit-focused companies that still dream of being paid every time someone hears a song. Reality has never exactly worked that way, from radio to the Internet. In the United States, songwriters are paid for radio air play, but performers and recording companies are not, on the theory that having a song broadcast sells recordings and concert tickets.

That uncompensated use built a huge recording business. And while most radio is supported by advertising - like Grokster - it feels free to listeners.

So does the Internet, where people share everything from chocolate-chip cookie recipes to the details of last night's date. Motives for sharing music and movies are more complex than a grab for free goods. There's no doubt that getting entertainment free is a huge lure, but so is the access the Internet offers potentially to everything ever recorded or filmed.

Someone has it, and with the right hookup, so can you.

A few thousand CD's and DVD's at the mall no longer seem comprehensive. Even huge catalogs of paid downloadable music like the iTunes Music Store have notable gaps - the Beatles, for instance - and arrive with digital rights management encumbrances that can be confusing or worse.

Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, recently suggested a complete revamp of the overlapping licenses that have made it so complicated to get rights to put music online legitimately. That could take some time. In the meantime, a little digging can find even the most obscure material free and easy to use.

File-sharing software allows people to download without sharing - the logical thing to do if all that matters is getting material free. Yet millions of people open up shared folders anyway (which also opens the sharers up to lawsuits from the Recording Industry Association of America).

Why? To flaunt a collection. To spread the word on music they care about. To give back something for what they get. To feel cool. And while there is no doubt that some people are downloading copies of the latest Mariah Carey album, there are also people who grabbed a track of something they'd never hear on the radio, thus turning them into fans.

Copyright holders seem determined to shut down the buzz that builds stars. They want file-sharing technology to go away, refusing to recognize that the Internet itself could be defined as a file-sharing network. The Recording Industry of America has helped raid stores selling the mix tapes that build reputations in hip-hop, made from material supplied by the acts themselves. It sends cease-and-desist letters to fan blogs posting too many songs or lyrics and proselytizing for the music they love. Yet meanwhile, its member companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote a song into a radio hit or to make a video clip destined for MTV, where people can listen and watch free.

Six years after Napster arrived, it should be clear that geeks and fans are simply going to bypass a legal framework that was built for sales of sheet music and discs. As they did with radio and television, copyright holders should make those volunteers their allies in marketing because, try as they may, they're never going to find the Off switch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/ar...tml?oref=login




















Until next week,

- js.
























Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

June 25th, June 18th, June 11th, June 4th, May 28th, May 21st

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


"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