Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review – September 20th, '03

[JackSpratts]

Quotes of the week:

“It's time for the R.I.A.A.'s winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone." - Adam Eisgrau.

“The R.I.A.A. is breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” - Clay Shirky.



Hurricane Issue



A Judge Asks The Right Question

In a column back in June I pointed out a basic but overlooked fundamental flaw in the RIAA’s arguments surrounding file-sharing, distribution of copyrighted materials and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Since the RIAA claims that the DMCA allows them to send out robo-writs to any ISP with a customer who’s allegedly distributing copyrighted files without authorization; and since a Judge agreed with the RIAA and ruled against Verizon in a case between the two, it seemed to me someone should take a close look at what it means to “distribute” something if we’re going to attach so much importance to the word. I wrote,

“The simple fact is that for Kazaa, Winmx, Blubster, BearShare etc it is technically impossible for a user to actively distribute anything at all,” meaning the P2P user does not send out a file in any way that can be considered “active”. The file sits there waiting to be discovered and if and when that occurs it’s the downloader who initiates and completes the distribution process by actively selecting the file and commencing the transfer. Not only is the uploader not a part of the active process, he doesn’t have to be anywhere near his computer for the transfer to take place. He just needs to leave it on. It’s the downloader who decides what’s going to happen with any particular file. The downloader runs the search, finds the file, makes up his mind about it and then acquires it – or not – with no input at all necessary from the uploader. Compare that to the record business and how they run their distribution system with routes, shipping clerks, trucks, drivers, warehouses etc all the way to the store. The distribution is so totally active it’s unrecognizable from a P2P. The recordings don’t get to the customers by themselves simply because the customers want them, they have to be actively carried every step of the way, via a very expensive and laborious process ending either at a retail outlet or in the case mail order right at the customers house. It’s not the complexity of the process that determines the difference either, because the internet is every bit as complex as its physical counterpart. The fundamental difference between the two is the complete lack of active participation on the P2P uploaders part, versus the frenzied activities of record company distributors, and even Apples' iTunes for that matter. For you to download a file from your friend, your friend doesn’t have to do a thing. You do it all. It’s a “taking’ in that sense, not a “giving”.

I went so far as to say that prosecuting a file sharer for uploading songs is like prosecuting a person for being robbed, “If as the record companies are fond of saying, ‘file sharing is like shoplifting,’ then these latest lawsuits are the equivalent of suing the stores.”

This Week A Judge Agreed

In an appeal of the case which it earlier lost, lawyers for Verizon found themselves back in court facing the RIAA over these and other important constitutional questions and perhaps for the first time found themselves in front of a Judge with more than just a passing grasp of the issues. Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put it squarely to RIAA attorney Donald B. Verrilli Jr when he asked him why uploaders were any different than people who have large libraries sitting in their houses instead of their harddrives. What’s the difference between copying a file off a PC or coming into a house and taking a file off a shelf? In either case, where’s the distribution?

"Isn't it equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?", Judge Roberts asked. "Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn't mean I'm liable for copyright infringement.”

Indeed, and there are many instances where uploaders do “push” requests for files. For years certain notorious website operators have thrusted programs onto the drives of unsuspecting visitors, so it’s not as if the internet is configured only one way, for some new type of passive distribution that changes the paradigm and the descriptions. When the RIAA puts their eggs in the “distributor as violator” basket, it becomes the courts duty to fully examine what it means to be a distributor. And when RIAA asks only that “the law be enforced,” the courts bear the responsibility of examining that request, and scant else. If the courts ultimately define a distributor as one who proceeds in an active manner, and they should, they will have little choice but to deny the RIAA’s request under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Distribution is still an active act, even on the Internet. And so is taking. The two are not the same. The definitions - and the differences - still apply.









Enjoy,

Jack.










EU Delays Vote On Digital Copyright Plan
Matthew Broersma

A vote on the European Union's proposed directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which has been compared to a controversial U.S. law, has been pushed back to November.

A U.K. civil liberties group says it believes the law could even backfire on some of its sponsors, such as Microsoft and eBay, by opening the companies up to more serious legal attacks.

The proposed directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, earlier set for a vote in a Thursday plenary session, is now scheduled for discussion on Nov. 4. Janelly Fourtou, the European Parliament member responsible for guiding the proposal, has not yet produced her report on the draft legislation, according to those familiar with the situation.

When the proposal on enforcement of intellectual property rights was first introduced in January, it drew a "dismayed" reaction from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and other copyright holder lobbyists, which called for the measure to be beefed up.

The IFPI argued in January that the proposed measures are not tough enough to hold back an "epidemic of counterfeiting," complaining that "the tools the proposal introduces to bring actions against infringers do not even reach the levels already available under some existing national laws" and may "fall short" of what it called international standards, in a reference to the United States' controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The IFPI estimated that more than 1 billion pirated music CDs have been sold, which means that one in every three CDs is illegal. The organization estimates that the industry has lost $4.6 billion because of piracy.

Rather than taking on board the strongest antipiracy measures of the member states, the draft legislation aims to represent "best practice" legislation, according to the European Union.

Civil liberties threat?
Critics say large multinationals would be the biggest beneficiaries of the directive because of its ban on reverse engineering.

But the directive could backfire on some of its sponsors, such as Microsoft, according to Ross Anderson of the United Kingdom's Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR). He said while currently, Microsoft is able to "steamroll" most of the civil patent infringement actions against it, these could become more of a threat when such infringement is criminalized.

Online auction giant eBay could also be among the unexpected victims, Anderson said, because sales of intellectual property are subject to lawsuits if sold outside their original legal jurisdiction.

"If you buy a CD in New York, and next year you sell it on eBay to a person in Paris, you can be sued for copyright infringement," Anderson said. "At present, no one bothers. However, once such sales become a crime, they could add up to something nasty."

The European Parliament is also facing criticism over a 2001 directive on copyright. An analysis on the implementation of the copyright directive, published this week by FIPR, said the law was damaging European scientific research as well as eroding consumers' rights on how they may make use of copyrighted materials.

The delay in voting on the new proposal follows the rescheduling of a vote on a proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, which has attracted heated criticism from computer scientists, economists and developers. Critics charge that it would make efficient software development difficult and increase the grip of large multinational companies on the software industry.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5074973.html


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

A Downloader Goes Up The River

PARODY By Michael E. Ross, MSNBC

MSNBC.com has obtained an exclusive interview with one of America's newest class of criminals -- the downloader. Convicted of illegally downloading and trading rock and hip-hop music, "Johnny Payless" (his name changed to protect his identity) is one of the Internet users caught up in the recording industry's ongoing crackdown on Internet piracy. Now serving a 100- year sentence at a Supermax prison in the Midwest, Payless offers a cautionary tale -- in his own words.

HE SHUFFLES INTO an interview room under the weight of ankle irons, adorned in the obligatory bright-orange prison-issue jumpsuit. He speaks in a low-key monotone, wary of those around him listening. He is "Johnny Payless," a young, bright, personable man somewhere between 25 and 30 years old -- a man whose future has come undone by his having run afoul of the Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry's largest trade group, which in September 2003 filed more than 200 copyright-infringement lawsuits across the country -- the opening salvo in a war that still goes on.

MSNBC: What are you in for?

Payless: Me, I'm facing hard time for appropriating hard rock. I'm looking down the barrel of a $200,000 fine for stealing 50 Cent. It was all so simple -- the technology was right there, asking to be used.

MSNBC: Didn't you know the recording industry has been getting more and more aggressive about lawsuits against those who take music without paying for it?

Payless: I'd heard about it for years, even read stories in the news. But I never thought I was gonna be in their sights. Hell, I've got a library of maybe 100 songs -- I'm small fry. Or so I thought.

MSNBC: What upsets you about this the most?

Payless: What makes me angry is that they're not even making a distinction anymore between the volume players -- the ones pulling hundreds and hundreds of songs at a rip -- and the little players like me. I was never planning to sell them, they were for my own private use. It's nuts.

MSNBC: So what's life like in here?

Payless: Not much fun, that's for sure. Incredibly tight security. And the place is getting more and more populated every day. Just last week they added five new prisoners on the tier. One was only 12 years old; they caught him downloading "Happy Birthday" for his younger sister. Wham! 25 years, just like that. Someone else got caught on visitors day, trying to sneak an MP3 file inside a cake. Fifty years at the drop of a gavel.MSNBC: Maybe you've heard -- the lawsuits have led to some new legislation ...


Payless: Oh yeah, the Copyright Attorneys' Full Employment Act. I'm glad somebody's getting ahead with all this.

MSNBC: What are your options now?

Payless: Not many. My lawyer's started a legal defense fund for me. I understand I can get a pardon if I sign a loyalty oath to the recording industry, and agree to do community service at a Tower Records store. We'll see, but it all seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

MSNBC: Any advice to other music fans?

Payless: If you love music and technology, get a lawyer. And if you download music ... trust me: Don't take the rhyme if you can't do the time.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/963554.asp?cp1=1


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

Eighteen Music Labels Sue File-Sharing Network
Reuters

Eighteen music labels sued file-sharing network iMesh.com Inc. for copyright infringement, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Friday.

Tel Aviv-based iMesh is the third-largest file-sharing network behind Morpheus and the much larger the KaZaa service. These networks let millions of users around the world trade software, music and video over the Internet.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, charges the company with serving as a medium for the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

Quoting from the text of the lawsuit, the paper wrote, "Without widespread infringement of the most popular copyrighted sound recordings," iMesh "would disappear."

The legal actions come after iMesh said in late August it planned to sell copyrighted music from independent artists, films and games, alongside its file-swapping operations.

At the time, iMesh chief executive Elan Oren told Reuters the company had no intentions to abandon its file-sharing operations.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=3477563


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

Confessions of a Kazaa Downloader

Lawsuits may stop music thefts but they won't boost sales.
Mark Evans

A Web surfer uses his laptop to download free music files. Lawsuits may stop the practice but will it enable the world's leading distributors of movies and recorded music to boost sales?

I've used Kazaa to download music files. There, I've said it so I guess it is only a matter of time before the Canadian Recording Industry Association or the Recording Industry Association of America sends me a nasty letter or hits me with a lawsuit for stealing copyrighted music.

To be honest, the RIAA's recent decision to fire off 261 lawsuits in the United States sends shivers up my spine. These guys are have become serious -- even if means further alienating their consumers.

I guess the RIAA is frustrated that after five years of legal warfare, there are still almost three billion music files downloaded from the Web each month.

In the name of honesty, I've been one of those evil downloaders -- albeit a very small player.

The last song I swiped was Don't Pull Your Love by Joe Frank Hamilton. It is not like I'm going after Top-40 hits.

To be honest, the whole downloading phenomena has lost its lustre. At first, it was exciting because you could use Napster to access all kinds of different music. It was a risk-free vehicle. If you downloaded a bunch of songs, and didn't like them, you would hit the delete button. It is not like spending $19.99 on a CD with only a couple good tracks.

The problem today is that there is not much I want or need to download. None of the radio stations in Toronto play anything that intrigues or excites me.

You know there is a problem when you flip channels only to hear Montreal pop-rocker Sam Roberts on stations that apparently have different formats.

Sometimes, I fire up Kazaa and pray for inspiration. It is a lot like what happened after my wife and I bought an 80-year-old house in downtown Toronto. Every Saturday morning, I would head off to Home Depot for supplies. One day, I got there and realized there was nothing I needed to buy.

It is easy to understand why the music industry is taking such a hard-line approach to downloaders. CD sales in the United States tumbled 7% in 2002, and 2003 has been even worse.

The music industry puts the blame squarely on downloaders. If people weren't getting free music, they would be buying more CDs, they claim. That may be somewhat accurate but there are other issues at work. One of them is programming homogeneity.

In the United States, deregulation has seen the radio industry consolidate as small operators sell out to corporate giants that centralize much of their programming in the name of efficiency.

A challenge facing the music industry is engaging consumers. How do you get them excited about a new artist? Does it make sense to promote artists who appeal to niches when the economics of the business encourage music labels to appeal to a wide an audience as possible?

It can be argued that the music industry has been relying on huge stars such as Britney Spears or U2 to drive sales and profits.

The problem is that when the labels fail to produce a mega-hit, sales tumble because they have so much tied into so few sales-friendly artists.

What the Internet offers is an attractive way to easily and inexpensively market a wider variety of artists to niches, while still selling the major artists. There is an appetite for non-mainstream music, but how do you make consumers aware of new releases?

The music industry, however, is so engrossed in tracking down and prosecuting downloaders that its efforts to actually sell music online have been, at best, tepid. Say what you will about Apple's iTunes online music service, it is not the ideal solution. It is hard to believe you should pay US99¢ for a new hit and the same price for a one-hit wonder made 15 years ago.

The RIAA's flurry of lawsuits -- which could expand this fall -- may stop many people from downloading music but it will not boost CD sales. Until the music industry figures out how to capitalize on the Internet's potential, sales will continue to slump and music lovers will look for new technology that lets them get free music without the fear of being legally assaulted by the RIAA.

Personally, I've sworn off Kazaa but my CD purchases will still be few and far between. Until the music industry comes up with a win-win business model for consumers and the labels, I'll just listen to all my old CDs that have been collecting dust.
http://www.canada.com/technology/sto...2-0CEF16FF17CE


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

Downloaders Rush To Delete Music Files
Phil Kloer

When University of Georgia junior Lindsay Gritzmaker heard that the record industry had pulled the trigger and was suing individual music downloaders, she got the same feeling as when she's speeding and sees a roadside cop: "Oh no, don't let him catch me," Gritzmaker said.

So on Monday, the day the lawsuits were filed, Gritzmaker deleted the music file- sharing program Kazaa from her computer, and one of her two roommates did the same. On the youth grapevine, from UGA to metro Atlanta high schools, the lawsuits and music downloading are suddenly a hot topic.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the major record labels, may have finally hit on a solution to the downloading of copyrighted music via the Internet, something about 60 million Americans do regularly.

By suing 261 individual downloaders on Monday for federal copyright violations, it has struck at its own consumer base, but may put a serious dent in a phenomenon that has been growing since Napster hit in 1999.

The lawsuits targeted people with more than 1,000 songs on their computer hard drives, but RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said the suits are "only the first wave."

"They know they cannot stop this completely, but it will curtail it slightly," said Perry Binder, a Georgia State University legal studies professor and expert in Internet law.

Even the threat of lawsuits, announced in late June, seems to have put a significant damper on downloading. From June to August, people using Kazaa, the most popular file-sharing program, declined from 6.5 million to 4.8 million per week, a 26 percent drop.

Although the lawsuits have caused anxiety among some downloaders, others aren't concerned.

"I bet most Georgia State students have downloaded music. How are they going to track all of them?" said Julia Wysocki, an 18-year-old GSU freshman.

And even as the RIAA goes after users of the major post-Napster programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, many other file-sharing programs have been appearing, some of which are designed for greater anonymity.

"I use a Korean server to download so they can't track it," said Georgia State student Jungmin Lee, 19.

The RIAA suits target the person who pays for the Internet connection over which the music was downloaded, which means in some cases parents are being sued when it was their teenagers downloading music.

Adam Nevis, 42, a property damage adviser from Canton, said when he heard about the RIAA crackdown, he warned his 14-year-old daughter Samantha about downloading songs off their shared computer and cable modem.

"I understand they're looking for the big boys, but I'm not going to take that chance," he said. "I told her to lay low."

The industry argues that downloading has caused the huge drop in CD sales of 26 percent since 1999 (the year Napster appeared), a loss of $4.3 billion. Critics of the industry say other reasons are also to blame.

Even though the RIAA campaign appears to have cut down on file-sharing, it hasn't helped CD sales -- just the opposite.

In the seven weeks since the RIAA announced it would sue downloaders, CD sales fell 54 percent compared to the same period last year, although whether any of that was spurred by anti-RIAA campaigns on the Internet or grass roots resentment is impossible to determine.
http://www.ajc.com/living/content/li...5992926970035#


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

Everything Is The Same Thing
Jon Carroll

The Recording Industry Association of America, its flop sweat beginning to show, decided last week to hitch its wagon to child pornography. It said that peer- to-peer file-sharing -- the technology used by Internet sites like Kazaa and Morpheus -- was bad not only because citizens could share music without paying for it, but also because it was used to swap pornographic images.

One odd thing here: If you tweak that sentiment just a little bit, it becomes: We join our friends the child pornographers in deploring file-sharing of protected works of art. And indeed, although there are no trade organizations for child pornographers, there is one for adult pornographic videos, and they do indeed claim that their revenues have been hurt by the Internet.

When you hear the phrase "child pornography," it is good to reach for your bowl of salt and sprinkle liberally over all statements pertaining thereto. It is not a large national problem, whatever you have heard. Wherever it occurs, it is of course both illegal and immoral, but it is such a reprehensible act that it has been used to justify all manner of police misconduct and surveillance. No one wants to be seen as defending child porn, so everyone just shuts up when the issue is raised.

This may be the sort of pre-emptive strike the RIAA was after, although there is just a wee bit of hypocrisy in an industry that has made good coin out of barely legal barely clad babes becoming mega- pop-stars complaining about sexual images of dubious morality.

I am sympathetic to the record industry's basic point. Music is created by people who get paid for it, and the people who pay them should likewise be rewarded with sales. That's the system. Ripping off artists is never wonderful -- even though record companies have been known to indulge in the practice themselves.

But the RIAA is running into a sea change in the nature of content. Suddenly, everything is fungible. As soon as it all became 1's and 0's in the great digital universe, it could be transferred from any computer to any computer. Every home became a sound editing studio; why listen to someone else's idea of a good CD when you could have one of your own? And why not share that CD with your friend? And why not put it on the Net where others can get it? It's all keystrokes and clicks.

In a decade, every home will also be a film editing studio. Wanna make a 20- minute version of "The Godfather"? No problem; burn your own CD and send it off into the mediasphere. I wonder whether the lawsuits will ever catch up to the technology. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement and corporations, hackers still rule. Find a way to protect your data, and someone else will find a way to liberate it.

Newspapers sell their content on paper but give it away on the Net. It's not wonderful, but at least it's a protection against hackers. No one wants to bust into a free site.

Human beings are fungible now too. Once they've been reduced to 1's and 0's,

it doesn't much matter who they are. An actor can be a candidate for governor;

a senator can be an actor. Martin Sheen gives his political opinions more gravity because he plays a president on television. HBO is about to air a TV show about lobbyists using many real politicians, and produced so quickly that it is able to deal with current issues.

It's realer than reality television, and yet it's fake!

A newspaper columnist is running for governor; many newspaper columnists now appear on television playing dumbed-down versions of themselves. We're all in the same infomercial; we are all each other's home appliance. Be sure to e- mail this column to a friend, then vote for me in the next election, and then see the movie based on the news story about which I had an opinion: "File- Sharing Slut: Just Stroke Her Keys!"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...11/DD46077.DTL


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

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing And The Law - What's Next?
ILN

The New York Times has run a series of interesting articles over the past few days examining the RIAA suits against file sharers from a number of perspectives. Articles focus on the role that Hollywood insiders play in leaking movies onto file sharing networks, the growing popularity of new peer-to-peer systems that are safer and more anonymous, the emergence of initiatives providing free content online, the likely effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the RIAA legal strategy, and whether the file sharing trend is irreversible.

(Registration required – Jack.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/te...gy/15DARK.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/we...ew/14LOHR.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/we...ew/14LIPT.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/fashion/14COPY.html

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

Music Industry Forcing People To See The Wrong In Sharing Music Online
Charles Bermant

Modern life evolves in cycles, with each generation facing different iterations of the cultural speed bumps. For instance, illegally downloaded music seems to closely resemble a surreptitious pleasure of a generation ago, smoking marijuana. Consider the similarities: No one denies that the unauthorized downloading of music is illegal, but doing so on a small scale is perceived as a victimless crime. Everybody is doing it, so the majority rules. And it's unlikely that current transgressors will face prosecution as long as they cease and desist, as the law is now going after the dealers.

More to the point, the problem is solved if you "Just Say No" in the first place.

Facetiousness aside, there is a stark difference between smoking marijuana in the 1960s and downloading illegal music files today. In the first place, marijuana can be to some people a habit-forming drug that can cause mental and physical damage. Downloading illegal music has no physical impact, and it only takes a wee bit of willpower to quit. And unlike marijuana, there is a legal option to the illegal activity.

This week's news about aggressive pursuit of illegal music downloading by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) set many parents wondering about their own children's safety.

On Monday, the five major record labels sued 261 people around the nation who allegedly offered large libraries of songs for copying on five popular file-sharing networks. Those people aren't necessarily the ones using file-sharing networks, but have the Internet accounts on which the alleged pirating of music occurred.

Since we may not be sure exactly what Junior is doing online, it comes as a bit of a shock to know the youngsters could actually be prosecuted. But the RIAA is definitely taking prisoners.

"We are targeting the individuals that are making substantial amounts of files available on peer-to-peer networks," said RIAA spokeswoman Amanda Collins. "This activity is illegal, and no one gets a free pass for illegal behavior."

Which means that once they finish nailing all the dealers, they may go after people for possession.

The RIAA maintains that the victims of illegal downloading are the artists who are not compensated for their work. Collins repeatedly compares an illegal download to walking out of a music store with a stolen CD in your pocket — something most parents would not condone.

In another bygone ad campaign, a father who catches a son with drugs asks angrily "Where did you learn such behavior?" to hear "From you, Dad, from you." The father then is crestfallen to know that his example caused the aberrance.

Downloading music follows a similar path. Today's kids have watched their parents pass along custom-made classic-rock cassettes, and many men wooed their wives with homemade tapes of romantic music. So how wrong could it be, if it helped Mom and Dad get together?

Passing around such tapes, as Collins reminds us, has always been illegal. But potheads paid little attention. Besides, it was hard to believe that you were doing anything so wrong as long as you knew someone who had actually paid for the music. You would not, back then, make thousands of tapes and place them in a shopping mall for anyone to pick up. Which is what the Internet essentially does.

So why, as downloadable music has been available for some time, are the legal activities happening today? The RIAA says that it provided fair warning, announcing its strategy of targeting transgressors early in the summer. So this week's lawsuits were right on schedule, giving the criminals plenty of time to cease and desist.

"They wanted to wait until there were legal alternatives," said RealNetworks spokesman Matt Graves. "We have seen some positive signs of growth in this area recently. And now that kids are going back to school, parents are concentrating more on being parents. It's a good time for them to talk to their kids."

As Graves points out, legal downloads have reached a point where they offer a unique product — even if you are required to pay. "The way to get people to pay is to offer something that's better than free," he said.

Another reassuring aspect comes with perusal of the fine print on the RIAA Web site. Kids who illegally downloaded a few Beatles songs from a Spanish Web site are clear, for now. But those who loaded some of the popular file-sharing software, which allowed others access to their disks, can be prosecuted.

Several of those sued, in fact, claim no knowledge of the peer-to-peer nature of the software. Innocent or not, this excuse no longer holds water.

So there are two steps we can suggest for our errant children: Get rid of the software. Even without the file-sharing aspect, allowing everyone on the Internet to fish around on your computer is an invitation to trouble.

The RIAA also has an informational site, www.musicunited.org and a slightly different mirror site, www.musicunited.net,offers instructions on how to disable the share feature on peer-to-peer software, along with a wealth of background information designed to keep you legal.

Additionally, any reformed criminals can log on to the RIAA's site for a downloadable affidavit that says they will never do this again (go to www.riaa.com and click on "Clean Slate Program Affidavit" at the bottom of the page). If you follow these steps and keep your word, you are in the clear.

While this makes sense for parents who want their kids to take responsibility for their actions, be advised that the "amnesty" program has already generated controversy.

A lawsuit filed in Marin County, Calif., states that the program is designed to "incriminate themselves and provide the R.I.A.A. and others with actionable admissions of wrongdoing under penalty of perjury" without providing any kind of legal release of claims.

So for many, the best strategy will be to stay clean and hope for the best. You would not, then or now, swear out an affidavit that you would never smoke pot again and take it to the local police station.

The digital-music antipiracy forces aren't waiting for a gradual attitude change, where people come around to the notion that this is a crime on their own. Illegal downloading is akin to stealing, and stealing is wrong. This message couldn't be much clearer.

There are people who still flout the law and smoke marijuana. They know the risks — that they could go to jail. So those who download music illegally will either need to start studying the pothead playbook or clean up their act and just say no.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ptmusic13.html


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

Music Industry Lawsuits Creating Confusion
Leslie Brooks Suzukamo

Chris Yohnke, a 43-year-old Lakeville mom who home-schools her kids, is trying to use the lawsuits filed by the recording industry against hundreds of music
downloaders as a teachable moment for her 9-year-old son, Jack.

"He has friends who download music and burn it to CDs, and Jack wanted to do it, too because CDs are so expensive," Yohnke said. "And I explained that you can't do that."

Yohnke had Jack read how the music industry had filed hundreds of lawsuits against families who had someone — often a computer-savvy kid — downloading music for free off the Internet.

"He's still not convinced," she said. And Yohnke was confused herself. What was legal? What wasn't?

She has plenty of company.

Parents, children and others who make up the 60 million Americans who download music are starting to ask the same questions — and they're wondering if they've unwittingly placed themselves in the crosshairs of the Recording Industry Association of America. The industry group says it will unleash its next volley of lawsuits against free-music lovers in coming weeks. By some estimates, teenagers make up half of that 60 million figure.

The RIAA, which counts the four largest music labels among its members, showed it was serious about protecting music copyright when it charged 261 people last Monday with possessing illegally obtained songs on their computers — songs they got from peer-to-peer file sharing services with names like KaZaA, Grokster, Morpheus and Limewire. Many of the defendants turned out to be parents or grandparents of the alleged file-traders. To date, the music industry hasn't sued anyone in Minnesota for illegally downloading or uploading songs.

The NPD Group, a market research firm, reported this week that 64 percent of households with access to the Internet have at least one digital music file on their computers. More than half have 50 files, while 8 percent have more than 1,000 files.

Two-thirds of those files arrived through so-called "peer-to-peer" file-sharing. That's a method of getting a free copy of a song from someone who puts the song on his computer and allows anyone else with an Internet connection and the same file-sharing software to make a copy of it.

It adds up to a little over 7 billion free songs copied over a growing army of peer-to-peer sharing services, the NPD Group reported. The rest came from CDs already owned by the computer user.

Yohnke said she's had parents tell her they were in the clear because they paid for file-sharing software, but they may not realize the music industry wants them to pay for the songs.

"The parents are like, 'Oh, it's OK. They've got software to do it, so it's OK,' " she said.

"This is something which most people don't think is wrong," said Jason Schwartz, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group concerned with consumer digital rights.

"Here you have kids who have been taught since kindergarten that sharing is good, right? It's a weird message to try to sell this as shoplifting."

The music industry says the people it sued were the most "egregious" song swappers, with an average of 1,000 songs on their computers that they were letting others upload and copy. The industry is after "uploaders, not downloaders," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. And, it expects to settle most of the lawsuits.

Legal experts say the music industry may have a hard time convincing courts that parents are liable for any unauthorized swapping of songs online by their underage children. Minors can be sued for copyright infringement, but because they don't generally have assets or income, a plaintiff would have to press for a settlement with the parents.

Many legal experts believe few defendants, if any, will opt to fight the lawsuits because they can't afford attorneys or won't want to risk judgments totaling millions of dollars. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 per song.

"In most cases, the recording industry has a really strong case," said Boston College Law School professor Joseph Liu. "If I were sued by the recording industry, I'd probably settle pretty quickly."

For adults who don't settle, the music industry has a good chance of prevailing, experts say. But proving a parent's liability for a child's activity is much harder, said Jonathan Zittrain, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

"And in general, if you win an action against a kid, you don't get to collect against the parent," Zittrain said.

Copyright infringement cases levied against parents for something their child did are rare, said Fred von Lohmann, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney. "It is legally very uncertain and untested," von Lohmann said.

The RIAA has a Web site called www.musicunited.org that contains a list of online music stores where it says people can legally buy music from a growing number of Internet services — as opposed to "shoplifting" it from controversial file-sharing services.


The Electronic Frontier Foundation is offering tools on its Web site (www.eff.org) for nervous file-sharers, advising "How Not to Get Sued by the RIAA for File- Sharing," and how to check if the RIAA had filed a court subpoena to target them for possible lawsuits.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/6759172.htm


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

Steal This Column

When is a lawsuit shaped like a boomerang? Rick Munarriz argues that the music industry is going to get more than it bargained for in going after individual MP3 file-traders. The major labels may accept the backlash that comes in prosecuting the very copyright-dissing enemies that it is looking to win back... but it doesn't realize how costly this game of alienation might prove to be.

Rick Munarriz

Faces are being attached to the list of names on the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) legal hit list. And let me tell you, some of them look just like your neighbors. One of them -- I swear -- is the spitting image of you.

Amidst enough mixed signals to freeze up a recording studio mixing board, we're down to a bloody battle that no one wanted. In filing suit against 261 citizens who have downloaded free music files from the Internet, the fortified music industry has essentially started shelling a galleon manned by 60 million pirates that look like you and me. As a result, the attackers have a daunting challenge on their hands. How do you sink the ship while saving the passengers? And, while we're at it, does anyone know how many olive branches it takes to craft a makeshift lifeboat?

You've got chain mail
Earlier this week, the picture of a 12-year-old New York honors student accused of unauthorized downloading sprees was a fixture on the America Online log-in page. It evoked an outcry of overwhelming public support for the young girl. Facing the first of many public relations nightmares in this fight, the RIAA scrambled to save face by quickly settling with the pre-teen's mother for $2,000.

It's easy to see why America Online threw gas on this incendiary topic. Challenged by stagnant subscriber growth, the Internet specialist is trying to juice revenues by upselling members into costlier high-speed connections. Why would folks pay the company roughly twice as much for its AOL for Broadband service? Clearly, downloading MP3s -- illegal ones, in most cases -- is the killer app driving DSL and cable modem growth. Sure, America Online would rather pitch legal alternatives, and it's clearly marketing the upgrade around its exclusive broadband content, but who are they trying to kid? The need for speed is almost exclusively driven by the demand for faster peer-to-peer file-sharing exchanges.

But here's the kicker: America Online, despite serving as a high-speed hub of P2P commiseration, is part of the same AOL Time Warner (NYSE: AOL) media giant that owns Warner Music, one of the five major record labels. It's a conflict of interest that became notoriously transparent when the RIAA's list of 261 violators reportedly didn't include a single AOL subscriber.

So as the names trickle in (including the likes of a repentant Yale professor and a 71-year-old man who claims he was unaware that his visiting grandchildren were loading up on song files), one has to wonder how differently this all would have played out if they had signed up with America Online -- or if Verizon (NYSE: VZ) owned a record label.

Out of harmony's way
It's not just Warner Music. Check out the HiFi Components page on the Sony (NYSE: SNE) website. Right now, the top headline reads "Burn Your Own CDs." Excuse me, isn't Sony also one of the five major labels that earlier this year took Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) to task for its "Rip. Mix. Burn." marketing campaign? How is this any different? Sony makes sure that many of its audio systems and Walkman portable CD players can play compact discs filled with hours of raw MP3s.

So, sure, pre-recorded CD sales have fallen for three years in a row now. Everyone knows the music industry has been mired in a slump. But how much of those losses have been offset by major label endeavors that have picked the pockets of the file traders? When the same folks who are arming us with CD recorders and broadband connections are coming after us for using those tools for their most popular purpose, haven't we crossed the line into entrapment?

Pirates of the Scary Being
In a great thread within our Fool Community (subscription required) some of our members were debating whether or not the term "piracy" is an appropriate tag for MP3 swappers. You're welcome to share your thoughts if you'd like to, but I'm not much in the mood to pass judgment. Unlike the RIAA, I have no interest in cultivating 60 million enemies in an industry in which platinum success is measured a million fans at a time.

My point is that, regardless of what you brand it or where it falls within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, does any of it matter if the collateral damage smells of hara-kiri? Alienation may have merit on an artistic level, but it's certainly not a welcome trait for an industry that is banking on the disposable income of the masses.

Scorched Earth, Wind and Fire
Isn't it obvious where this is all going? Sony and Warner, along with Vivendi's (NYSE: V) Universal Music, EMI and BMG, make up the five major labels. If this desperate legal salvo is a last ditch effort to save the kingdom, they'd better dig those ditches deep. 'Cause they're going in.

Yes, traffic to the P2P file-trading networks fell over the summer as consumers learned to respect RIAA's long arm of the law. However, the decline in music CD sales actually accelerated during the same period. The industry killed the pirate, but in so doing ripped out the soul of the once-ardent music fan inside. While the notion of 60 million people ripping off the industry was painful, at least they valued music as something worth pilfering.

The anti-label sentiment is only going to get stronger. There are many reasons why Apple has been able to sell 10 million digital downloads through its iTunes store over the past four months while the majors have struggled with their own Web-delivery ventures. One of them has to be that Apple isn't seen as the establishment.

The Song Remains the Blame
Like an errant drummer, the major labels have been prone to some real lousy timing lately. When Universal slashed CD list prices by one-third last week, it might just as well have engraved "Exhibit A" on the announcement. That's clear evidence that the labels have been ripping off consumers all along. All those years of whining while CD sales dipped...and the industry never saw fit to question the elasticity of its own beefy markups?

The labels are in the process of offering amnesty, but that's a double-edged olive branch. The RIAA is not qualified to wipe the slate clean on behalf of all potential litigants, so it's coming off like a pompous backstage diva.

Back in July, in my Download No Evil column, I outlined the seemingly radical opinion that the only way the record industry would survive would be to embrace the file-trading platform and learn to monetize it. Make the P2P networks redundant by manning the gates of digital distribution liberally, and work within their artist rosters to tap into mutually beneficial revenue streams -- like concerts and merchandise, which have actually blossomed even as the value of the pre-recorded CD has diminished. I guess the labels didn't take my free advice. That's fine. I'll hold onto it. It looks like I'll be needing it for five eulogies that are coming down the pike.
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/...y030912ram.htm


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

Water Wells and MP3 Files: The Economics of Intellectual Property

This post continues a discussion started by Eugene Volokh.

Eugene Volokh blogged recently on the case for intellectual property. His main focus was on incentives, and he made an eloquent and compelling case for intellectual property based on the notion that without exclusive rights, there might be insufficient incentives for authors to write, composers to compose, bands to record, and inventors to invent. But an IP skeptic might reply as follows:

But the need for incentives does not justify a full-fledged property right. In the case of property in tangible resources, there is another reason we create property rights. Consumption of tangible resources is rivalrous. If I use a plot of land, you cannot. If I eat a hot dog, it is unavailable for your consumption. Without property rights in tangible resources, we would have a tragedy of the commons.

One of the nice things about Volokh's post was that he provided an example of an individual case in which consumption of a physical resource was nonrivalrous but we nonetheless confer traditional property rights. You can get the full example from either Volokh's original post or my reply. Let me summarize it here:

A farmer has well with excess capacity. Even if all the neighbors who would use the well if it were free did so, the well's capacity would not be exceeded. (This means: (1) the water table on which the well draws is sufficiently capacious to meet all the demand, and (2) the well itself has sufficient delivery capacity so that it would not be subject to crowding effects, even if unlimited use of it were free.)

Let's call Volokh's hypo, the capacious water well, or, for short, the well. The well is a marvelous example of what the philosopher, Daniel Dennett, has called an intuition pump--for Dennett's explanation of this idea, go here. Even IP skeptics, Volokh argues, will have the intuition that the farmer should have traditional property rights in the capacious water well. We have the strong intuition that the farmer should have a property right in the well, even though consumption is nonrivalrous. And if we have such a strong intuition in that case, then shouldn't the same forceful intuition carry over to the case of intellectual property?

Something bothered me about Volokh's intuition pump. It's not that I don't see the force of the incentives argument. It's that the capacious water well hypo didn't seem quite kosher. Hence my post in reply to Volokh, where I focused on the idea that the well is a club good--because consumption is nonrivalrous up to some threshold. Eugene and I exchanged a couple of emails, and I couldn't convince Eugene that I was right. This bothered me. On the one hand, I was quite sure I was on to something. On the other hand, Volokh is one of the brightest guys in all of legal academia. Clearly, I had more work to do. It was off to the library. (I live in the hills above UCLA, so normally I go to the Young research library, but with the state budget crisis, Young was closed and so I had to drive all the way to Cal State Northridge.)

So I read up on the economic theory of intellectual property law. I reread James Buchanan's original article about club goods and also investigated the differences between club goods and toll goods. And I thought long and hard about my failure to persuade Eugene. This post is the result!

Con’t.


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

Pass the Crypto

Fixing Compulsory Licensing

In a previous post I dashed the world’s hopes for a viable compulsory licensing system, no matter how attractive one might seem. Luckily for the world, I’m back to explain how to make a compulsory licensing system that doesn’t run into any of those problems using… cryptography!

(To review, the idea for our compulsory licensing system is this: we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount and send the money to the artists. In exchange, they let us download their songs and movies off the Internet. The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money without losing privacy, accuracy, or security.)

Here’s the key to my proposal: when you pay the tax you get a vote.

So when you buy a CD or DVD burner, it comes with a short string (a random-looking series of letters and numbers) to type into your computer. (The strings are given to the manufacturers by the government when they pay the tax.) When you pay the bill for your Internet connection, you’re emailed another such string. (The string from your email can be handled automatically, and the one in the CD burner box could be made relatively easy to type in.)

The string is a digital gift certificate, worth however much the tax you paid was, but only spendable on donations to artists. Once your computer has the string, it looks at all the songs you’ve listened to and decides what songs to spend your gift certificate money on. (It knows what you listen to because it’s built in to your MP3 player.) If you’ve listened to one Britney Spears song day and night for the past month and nothing else, it will give all your money to Britney. If you listen to a variety of independent bands, it will split your money among them. (Advanced users can of course customize how their money will be spent, but it’s simpler to have the computer choose automatically by default.)

The result is sent anonymously to the government using the string. (The strings will be unique enough that it will be nearly impossible to guess a correct one.) The government checks this against the list of strings they gave out and the list of strings that have already been used to make sure that it’s legitimate, and then credits the appropriate accounts.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001036


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

Beyond File-Sharing, a Nation of Copiers
John Leland

The week the music industry brought suit against 261 users of Internet file-sharing services, Donald L. McCabe was in St. Louis to talk about a different form of digital copying. Mr. McCabe, a Rutgers University professor, has made a career of studying the cheating of American high school and college students. His most recent study found that cheating was spreading almost like file-sharing. Of more than 18,000 students surveyed, 38 percent said they had lifted material from the Internet for use in papers in the last year.

More striking to Mr. McCabe, 44 percent said they considered this sampling no big deal. Because the Internet makes it easy to copy information, he said, "it's made it much more tempting."

"I'm not sure it's shifted values yet," he continued. "But for a lot of students, it's heading in that direction."

In fact, for many people, that shift has already come. Like file-sharing — which 60 million Americans have tried — cutting and pasting from the Internet is just one part of a broader shift toward all copying, all the time.

Consider a night out in the wireless city: Throw on a faux-vintage sports jersey, grab a bootleg Prada bag and head to the Cineplex for the sequel to a movie based on a television show. Afterward, log on to KaZaA and download the movie's title song, based on a digital sample. While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends. Curl up with a best seller by Stephen E. Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin, who last year admitted to slipping materials from other texts into their books.

Most of these activities would have been difficult or impossible a generation ago. They differ widely in their legal and ethical implications. (For example, you can't prosecute someone just for producing "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.") But together they suggest a broad relationship between new technology and a value system that seems shaped to it. In a nation that flaunts its capacities to produce and consume, much of the culture's heat now lies with the ability to cut, paste, clip, sample, quote, recycle, customize and recirculate. It is tempting to ascribe the Culture of the Copy to college students, but its values run deeper. The United States economy shed 44,000 manufacturing jobs last month, continuing a long-running trend away from production. Since the 1980's, when liberalized trade laws made it easier to "outsource" manufacturing to subcontractors in the developing world, companies like Nike or Tommy Hilfiger have competed in what Naomi Klein, in her 2000 book "No Logo," described as "a race toward weightlessness," in which production is a hindrance, not an asset. In the brand market, value lies not in making things but in copying one's logo onto as many of them as possible.

D.J.'s, file sharers, handbag cloners, student plagiarists and some bloggers simply do what brand companies do: they reproduce work made elsewhere at lower rates, adding their own signature and mix. The legal ramifications may be different, but the action is the same.

"The quintessential American company was Enron, which made nothing," said Neal Gabler, author of "Life the Movie." In today's culture, he added, "the product is almost immaterial; it's the consciousness about it."

"What the Internet does is, it pries everything out of moral context and lets people feel knowing about it," he said, because the skills used to cut and paste something with a computer are more valued than those used to manufacture it.

"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."

On a recent morning on Canal Street, crowds of shoppers, most past their undergraduate years, brought the metaphor to life, plucking up fake Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Kate Spade handbags. A New Jersey woman named Linda Dorian, plumping for two bootleg Vuittons, compared her purchases to downloading music. "Somehow everybody seems to be making out," she said. "I don't see any poor rock stars. I don't see any poor designers."

Besides, she added, buying the fake is cooler, just as Grokster, a file-sharing program, has a cachet the Wal-Mart CD counter cannot match. "Shopping for copies is getting to be a trend," she said.

As technology has produced a new ecology of copying, it has pushed into uncharted territories of ethics and the law, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity" and director of communication studies at New York University. He said he has had 10 percent of his students turn in whole papers copied from the Internet, not realizing that he could Google them into big trouble. "We're coming up on 10 years of widespread use of the Internet," he said. "We should have better discussions of a code of ethics for dealing with these materials. The rule of law will always incompletely and perhaps negatively affect the Internet."

Nearly 70 years ago, the critic Walter Benjamin addressed the aesthetic limitations of the copy in a famous essay about photography and authenticity, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Benjamin argued that even a perfect copy lacked the contextual meaning of the real thing. Since then, postmodern critics have developed dense theories of simulacra, bricolage and pastiche that could daze a tuna at 20 paces.

Now the bricoleurs are living next door, and they look nothing like the monographs said they would. "Somehow I don't think it comes from avant-garde theory," said Louis Menand, author of "The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America." The KaZaA community can burn "All About the Benjamins," the song or the movie, without the endorsement of Walter.

"They wouldn't say it's all a simulacrum anyway," Mr. Menand said. "If they could say that they wouldn't need to copy their papers online."

In the current universe of the copy, the looseness of context is everything. Most users of music file-sharing services do not copy the products for sale by the music industry. While the industry sells albums, artificially shaped to the capacities of their commercial format, LP or CD, file-sharers tend to rip songs.

As their favorite musicians recombine digital samples to create new music, downloaders recombine digital songs in new contexts.

"I don't think they think of it as copying music," said Joe Levy, deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone. "It's a very individual experience for them. They want the songs they want in the order they want. Then it becomes not the new Mary J. Blige album, but their own mix. It's a much more individual package of music. Kids view it as an interactive and creative act."

Betsy Frank, the executive vice president for research and planning at MTV Networks, who studies young TV and music audiences, said the people in her focus groups tended to describe copying as an assertive act, a way of navigating a media environment that bombards them with information — some good, some bad, most of it a little of both. "They can rationalize downloading music or term papers extremely effectively as using their skills to select what works for them," she said.

The law, of course, will inevitably catch up. When rap acts started sampling James Brown records in the 1980's, complaints raged that they were violating copyrights and the principles of art. In a Bronx home studio in 1987, the producer Jazzy Jay described the law of the copy: "The laws on taking samples are, You take 'em until you get caught."

Two decades later, musicians usually pay for their samples, and the aesthetic argument — that sampling was theft, not music — has quieted. Now sample fees are part of the business model, and no one seems to worry about whether it is art.

At both stages, value judgments about copying followed technology and money, not the other way around.

In the culture of copying, technological considerations have trumped ethical ones: if you upload it, they will download.

LAST week's lawsuits against file-sharers are an attempt to get the public to treat copying not as a question of technological possibility or moral implications, but as a threat to the wallet. A study by Forrester Research found that 68 percent of burners said they would stop if they thought they might get in serious trouble. As in sampling, the moral questions should follow the financial ones, said Josh Bernoff, the principal analyst covering media and entertainment at Forrester.

But the process still had some hurdles to get over, Mr. Bernoff admitted. Recently he was discussing his research with an executive at a media organization that has been very aggressive about trying to discourage file-sharing. When Mr. Bernoff asked the executive how he had gotten the report, which Forrester sells for $895, the man hesitated.

"They got a copy from one of the studios," Mr. Bernoff said. "Here is an organization that's saying that stealing hurts the little people, and they took our intellectual property and they shuttled it around like a text file."

The aesthetic fallout of all this copying will be harder to sort. In a culture that assigns diminishing value to production, can copying really fill the void? The hypothetical night out involves many aesthetic decisions but little that can be called art.

Mr. Menand noted that his students who downloaded papers from the Internet often picked mediocre work, perhaps thinking it would be less noticeable. The availability of obscure, non-Britney music on KaZaA — one of the justifications cited by users — has done nothing to stop Hilary Duff, the overpackaged star of the "Lizzie McGuire" movie and series, from having the No. 1 album in the country this week. If this is the democracy of the copy, it is enough to make one long for the elitism of creative genius.

Ms. Frank, the MTV executive, noted the limitations of unlimited customization, even amid unlimited access. For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."

Ruth La Ferla contributed to this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/fa...rtne r=GOOGLE


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

Can't We All Share?
Emma Poon

For college kids MP3s have been the greatest thing invented since Ramen noodles. Both are cheap, quick, and vital for those late night study sessions. But if Congress has its way, MP3s might no longer be cheap and quick. You could get yourself landed in prison for five years and have a fine of $250,000 imposed for uploading a single file to a peer-to-peer network. The Recording Industry Association of America, the RIAA, intends to file its first wave of lawsuits against file traders this week. In fact, you can check if you're one of the RIAA's Most Wanted by going to this website: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/ riaasubpoenas/

Why is everyone so anti-sharing? We have been taught as small children that we need to share, but I guess as we grow up and get rich beyond our wildest dreams... sharing is one of things that gets bought out. The RIAA is nothing more than a big bully trying to steal file- sharers' lunch money. Even the world's largest music company, Universal Music Group, has conceded somewhat to the age of digital music by dropping the prices of new CDs to around $10. They understand that we college kids are poor. But the good old RIAA just doesn't want to give up. They want to continue to line their pockets by pushing their weight around and threatening the little guys with lawsuits. College campuses across the country have been feeling the RIAA's wrath and have banned peer-to-peer network sharing. Taking away our downloading is like taking away our Ramen, it isn't fair and it isn't right.

If my biology classes have UIC have taught me anything, it's taught me that it's survival of the fittest in today's world. And if you don't evolve to adapt to the times, then you will become extinct. The RIAA is an evolutionary dinosaur in an age of free information brought upon by the existence of the Internet. 60 million Americans sharing MP3s and other files can't possibly be wrong.
http://www.uictoday.net/vnews/displa.../3f62279fb035e


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

Artists Blast Record Companies Over Lawsuits Against Downloaders
Joel Selvin and Neva Chonin

Recording artists across the board think the music industry should find a way to work with the Internet instead of suing people who have downloaded music.

"They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models."

"This is not rocket science," said David Draiman of Disturbed, a hard-rock band with a platinum debut album on the charts. "Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet."

After three consecutive years of double-digit sales losses, and having lost a court battle against file- sharing Web sites such as Kazaa and Morpheus, the Recording Industry Association of America -- the industry's lobbying arm -- trained its sights on ordinary fans who have downloaded music. On Monday, the RIAA filed suits against 261 civilians with more than 1,000 music files each on their computers, accusing them of copyright violations. The industry hopes the suits, which seek as much as $150,000 per violation, will deter computer users from engaging in what the record industry considers illegal file-swapping.

This unprecedented move brings home the industry's battle against Web downloads, which the record business blames for billion-dollar losses since the 1999 emergence of Napster, the South Bay startup the RIAA sued out of existence. The suits are expected to settle for as little as $3,000 each, but the news was greeted with derision by the very people the RIAA said they moved to protect, the musicians themselves.

"Lawsuits on 12-year-old kids for downloading music, duping a mother into paying a $2,000 settlement for her kid?" said rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy. "Those scare tactics are pure Gestapo."

"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre-busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."

Artists are feeling the downturn in sales, too. "My record royalties have dropped 80 percent since 1999," said Steve Miller, whose greatest hits album has been a perennial best-seller since its 1978 release. "To me, it's one of the weirdest things that's ever happened to me because people act like it's OK."

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

Many artists painted the record industry as a bloated, overstuffed giant with too many mouths to feed and too many middlemen to pay, selling an overpriced, often mediocre product.

"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."

The RIAA did not initiate these lawsuits to defend artists' rights, the musicians say, but to protect corporate profits.

"For the artists, my ass," said Draiman. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...8738895450518#


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

Samsung Players To Integrate Napster
Reuters

Samsung on Tuesday said it plans to co-market a new line of digital music players with the soon- to-be-relaunched Napster 2.0 service, in the latest move to stoke up its brand image among youthful consumers globally.

The new product line was just one of nearly a dozen products ranging from mobile phones with tiny built-in television sets to huge TV screens that will be unveiled at the company's annual showcase here of new devices aimed at U.S. consumer markets this fall.

The new Napster-ready device will be available in retail stores this fall, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd 05930.KS said in a statement.

"Samsung is trying to do what Apple Computer has done with its iPod music players and iTunes online music store," said Michael Kelleher, an analyst with market research firm Yankee Group in Boston.

"Certainly, if Napster can build itself up as a legitimate file sharing portal, then that's good for Samsung."

In its first incarnation, Napster provided a rogue music downloading service that captured the imagination of tens of millions of music fans.

The original company was snuffed out of business by a court order and its assets were purchased by Roxio, a maker of software for copying digital music, which plans to launch a legal Napster 2.0 music download service this fall.

The Samsung devices will be co-branded and identified as "Napster compatible" on the packaging. The 500,000 song titles will be available from all five major record labels and hundreds of independent labels, according to Roxio.

The partnership will include joint engineering and co-marketing activities for a line of portable music devices that integrate with Napster 2.0, Samsung and Roxio said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3456282


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

Adults May Not Be Liable For Child's File-Sharing

Music industry suits aim at parents of violators.
AP

The music industry may have a hard time convincing courts that parents are liable for any unauthorized swapping of songs online by their underage children, legal experts say.

Recording companies sued 261 music fans this week, claiming they were illegally distributing hundreds of digital song files apiece over Internet file-sharing networks. Many of the defendants, however, turned out to be parents or grandparents of the alleged file-traders.

Many legal experts believe few defendants, if any, will opt to fight the lawsuits because they can't afford attorneys or won't want to risk judgments totaling millions of dollars. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 per song.

"In most cases the recording industry has a really strong case," said Joseph P. Liu, a Boston College law school professor. "If I were sued by the recording industry, I'd probably settle pretty quickly."

For adults who don't settle, the music industry has a good chance of prevailing, experts say. But proving a parent's liability for a child's activity is much harder, said Jonathan Zittrain, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

"And in general, if you win an action against a kid, you don't get to collect against the parent," Zittrain said.

The music industry has said it was targeting the individuals who had paid for the Internet service at households where digital music was being shared. That often means the parent.

The Recording Industry Association of America could not say how many of the music lawsuits named minors or their parents.

By some estimates, teen-agers make up half of the 60 million people who use file-swapping services. Some adults who spoke publicly about the cases said their children or grandchildren had been using their computer to swap music.

A Richardson, Texas, man said his teen-age grandchildren downloaded songs when they came to visit him. A Redwood City, Calif., man whose wife was sued said neither knew their two teens and their friends were doing anything wrong on the family computer.

But in at least one case, the recording industry sued the child, not the parent. Brianna LaHara, a 12-year-old honors student from New York, was named as the defendant. Her mother settled the case for $2,000 and an apology from Brianna.

Minors can be sued for copyright infringement, but because they don't generally have assets or income, a plaintiff would have to press for a settlement with the parents as in Brianna's case.

Copyright infringement cases levied against parents for something their child did are rare, said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

"It is legally very uncertain and untested," von Lohmann said.

In the case of adults, recording companies need to establish that individuals made unauthorized copies or were distributing them without permission, said Evan R. Cox of Covington & Burling, who has worked with the Business Software Alliance on piracy.

To win against parents, music companies would have to prove that the parent could have controlled or stopped the child's behavior but failed to do so. Or they must show that the parent knew the child was doing something illegal but still gave them access to the means to do so.

The recording industry may also have to prove that the parent received a financial benefit from the child's illicit activity. An argument industry attorneys could make is the parents saved moneys on CDs, for example, von Lohmann said.

"It's by no means a slam dunk," Zittrain said. "The direct financial interest part of it is pretty hard to meet, if it's not clear the parent is gaining anything"
http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-...ness-headlines


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

Copy-Protected CDs Take Step Forward
John Borland

For the first time in the United States, BMG Music will release a music CD that's loaded with anticopying protection, a move that opens a new round of technological experimentation for record labels.

BMG division Arista Records will include "copy management" protections produced by SunnComm Technologies on soul artist Anthony Hamilton's new album, the company said Friday. Although the label has previously released promotional copies of various CDs with copy protection, this will be the first major test of consumers' reaction to the latest generation of the anticopying technology.

"The consumer experience is BMG's top priority," BMG Chief Strategic Officer Thomas Hesse said. "Because of improvements in the…technology, it is now possible to offer consumers the level of flexibility to which they have become accustomed, while beginning to better protect our artists' rights."

Though unlikely to signal an immediate flood of similar releases, BMGs actions do open a new chapter for the United States labels' flirtation with copy-proof CDs.

Most major labels have said they are deeply interested in technologies from companies such as SunnComm and rival Macrovision, but they've been concerned enough about compatibility problems with various computers and consumer electronics, along with consumer backlash issues, to refrain from many releases in the United States.

By contrast, Macrovision says elsewhere in the world--primarily Europe and Japan--more than 150 million discs have been manufactured with its copy-protection technology.

The new generation of anticopying techniques is more sophisticated than early methods. Along with simple locks that prevent CD ripping and copying, the Hamilton disc includes computer-ready files that can be transferred to a PC, a Macintosh computer and many MP3 players.

Unlike the MP3 files traditionally created from unprotected CDs, these "pre-ripped" files will be wrapped in their own digital rights management protections that keep them from being swapped online and restrict some other actions. Buyers will be able to burn three copies of these songs onto their own CDs, however. The disc will also provide a link that can be shared with other people, who can download copies of the album's music and then listen to it for 10 days.

Analysts said the news did signal a more advanced round of experimentation but that it would likely be some time before large numbers of copy-protected albums were released in the United States.

"I would think the industry would not want to do a major rollout now, given what's happening with the (recording industry's) lawsuits," said independent digital media analyst Phil Leigh, citing the Recording Industry Association of America's legal push against file swappers earlier this week. "That would be a second major aggressive action. I would think they would do these things one at a time."

The Anthony Hamilton album, called "Comin' From Where I'm From," will be released Sept. 23.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5075656.html


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

The Music Industry Reveals Its Carrots and Sticks
Adam Liptak

MOST lawsuits have concrete and focused goals. They usually want money, from particular people in particular disputes. But the 261 suits launched by the record industry last Monday, against people who made the music files on their computers available to others, seek something else entirely: to instill fear.

There is little question the industry can win the individual suits. Whether it can achieve its real goal is dicier all around — from the youth of so many of those named as offenders, to the very idea of using a relatively small number of lawsuits to deter tens of millions of people.

"We have more Americans using file-sharing than voted for the president," said Wendy Seltzer, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, "and the record industry's position is to scare them into submission?"

Some 60 million people have used file-sharing programs, and the suits are battling a public that finds it hard to distinguish among several sorts of copying. It is perfectly lawful, for instance, to tape a television program to watch later. It is a technical violation of copyright laws to burn a CD of music you already own to listen to in the car or at the gym, but the record industry winks at that.

There is no serious dispute, however, that the mass distribution of perfect electronic copies on so-called peer-to-peer networks is illegal if copyright owners object. Legal experts advised those sued to settle quickly, but that doesn't mean the suits will be effective at stopping others.

"What are the chances that anyone is going to get sued?" asked Susan P. Crawford, an expert in intellectual property law at Cardozo Law School. "The odds are still pretty long."

Still, for the people who have been sued, the alternative to settlement is not pretty. The defendants face penalties ranging from $750 to $150,000 per infringement. The first defendants made, on average, 1,000 songs available, and some were copied many times. The Recording Industry Association of America has said that it intends "to leave it up to the court to decide what kind of damages we deserve to be awarded."

Juries would be told they could consider the deterrent effect of a large award, said Charles Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York who has represented the film industry in anti-piracy suits. And people who win copyright suits are also entitled to have their legal fees paid by the losing side, which is unusual in American law.

Which is why anxious parents around the country are likely to be a little more interested nowadays in what their children are doing with the home computer. It's not just pornography anymore.

But parental liability for a minor's use of the family computer is more complicated than a straightforward case against an adult. Indeed, copyright law may give parents a perverse incentive to remain ignorant. In order to be considered a so-called "contributory infringer" (the owner of a computer, for instance, that others use to violate the copyright laws), a parent must have had some knowledge of the wrongful activity to be held liable.

"A lot of parents say, `I have no idea what's going on with my children and their computers,' " Ms. Seltzer said. "That may get them off the hook."

But the availability of that defense in a suit against a parent makes no practical difference, said Mr. Sims, because in most states, an award against a child must be paid by the parent. "If your kid has a car accident, the parent is liable," he said. "This is no different."

The settlements the industry is offering are cheap by lawyers' standards but a little hard to cover from the typical teenager's allowance. They have ranged from $2,000 to nearly $20,000. Defendants who settle are required to promise they will say nothing in public at odds with the agreement, which requires them to acknowledge that their conduct was "illegal and wrongful."

The industry has also offered an amnesty program. In exchange for an admission of guilt and a promise not to share files in the future, the industry's trade association will agree not to support future copyright suits against that person. The deal does not apply to organizations, people who made money sharing files and those already singled out by the industry, whether that is public or not. Legal experts say only a fool would sign up.

"You make yourself more vulnerable," said Gigi B. Sohn, the president of Public Knowledge, a group that studies intellectual property law and technology. "And to the extent the law might change, which is not impossible, it would be signing away your rights to future benefits."

She added that the trade association owns no copyrights itself and cannot promise confidentiality to people who sign up for amnesty. That means that other copyright holders — including music publishers and artists — could simply subpoena the association to find people to sue.

By Tuesday, the recording industry association had settled its first suit, against a 12-year-old girl from New York City named Brianna LaHara. Her mother, Sylvia Torres, agreed to pay a $2,000 fine, and both mother and daughter issued statements reminiscent of those prisoners of war make at the behest of their captors.

"I love music," Brianna said, "and I don't want to hurt the artists I love."

That same day, a trade association of file-sharing Web sites offered to pay the fine.

"We don't condone copyright infringement," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of the group, P2P United, "but it's time for the R.I.A.A.'s winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/we...rtne r=GOOGLE


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

Seagate Spins 100GB Platter
Ed Frauenheim

Seagate Technology on Tuesday said it has pushed the data-density envelope in the disk-drive industry, announcing a product that squeezes 100GB onto a single 3.5-inch platter.

Today's highest-density hard disk drives pack 80GB onto a 3.5-inch platter, the part of a drive that rotates and contains data. Although Seagate's news can be seen as a step forward for the disk-drive industry, it also reflects a slowdown in the pace of data density advances. For several years beginning in the late nineties, density doubled annually. Drives with 80GB per platter shipped late last year, so this new advance demonstrates the slower growth in data density.

Seagate's new product is part of its Barracuda 7200.7 family of drives. The drive has two platters, for a total capacity of 200GB. It can use the more-traditional parallel ATA interface or the newer serial ATA interface (SATA).

Seagate said the Barracuda 7200.7 is the industry's first hard-drive family capable of supporting SATA Native Command Queuing. This is a feature that allows a SATA hard drive to reorder outstanding commands before reading or writing data, improving the performance of queued workloads, according to Seagate.

Seagate said it would demonstrate the queuing technology on its new 200GB Barracuda 7200.7 SATA hard drive on Tuesday at the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose, Calif.

The queuing technology isn't generally available on Seagate products yet. Seagate said it would be installed on Barracuda 7200.7 SATA hard drives for shipment when computer designs that support the technology become more broadly available.

Seagate said the new 200GB drives are ideal for products such as network-attached storage devices, entry-level ATA servers, mainstream and high-performance PCs and home-entertainment PCs. The 200GB drive with a parallel ATA interface is slated to ship worldwide next month through distributors, while shipments of the 200GB SATA version are scheduled to begin in November.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_210...3-5077293.html


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

For the Japanese Connoisseur, Cheap Trick Rules
Ken Belson

TOKYO — Neil Young once sang, "It's better to burn out than to fade away." With all due deference to Mr. Young, the Japanese taste for aging foreign rock stars suggests that some things improve with age.

While Americans are certainly no strangers to dinosaur rock, most Western fans follow their favorite aging act with a wink, understanding all too well that the music is often stale and played by musicians old enough to be grandparents. In Japan, the fans are far more earnest — particularly with performers who long ago fell somewhere below top-tier aging acts like the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton.

Small wonder then that Japan has become not just a departure point for foreign bands seeking to build a following — something it has long been — but also a final destination for older acts looking to pad a nest egg for retirement.

Just last month, the world's second-largest music market welcomed Chuck Berry, now 76, who lit up the stage as the band Cheap Trick celebrated the 25th anniversary of "Live at Budokan," the album recorded at Tokyo's most famous concert hall. Olivia Newton-John visited in April, trying to generate the same spark the Bay City Rollers ignited here in 2001. King Crimson, Yes and Lou Reed all made whistle stops this year. Journey and the Eagles may arrive next year.

"It was like Beatlemania when we came over the first time," said Bun E. Carlos, the drummer for Cheap Trick, during the band's recent tour. "The Japanese are really loyal fans. If they take to you, you can come back many times."

The Japanese fixation with older musicians is not as whimsical as it may seem. From an early age, Japanese are taught to specialize and refine their skills to perfection — not just in music, but also in the workplace, in sports and in other pastimes. This helps explain why small groups of fans, many of whom have little facility with English, can recite lyrics to every Kiss song ever written.

In a society where everyday life is so regimented, hobbies also provide an outlet for people to express their identity. A Japanese financier might wear a blue suit and starched shirt by day, but by night be found in a bar devoted entirely to the music of the Grateful Dead or the Beatles. Wearing a company lapel pin does not exclude one from donning a ripped concert T-shirt after hours and swapping album liner notes with fellow fans.

Still, some critics have suggested that has-been bands come to Japan less for the doting fans than for an easy payoff and audiences that can't recognize — or are too forgiving of — a bad performance. The country has also been seen as something of a crash pad where jet-lagged and unrehearsed bands come to polish their licks before taking their tours elsewhere.

But touring here is actually only about as lucrative as it is in the United States, given the high taxes and pricier cost of living, Mr. Carlos and others said. And while the sour economy has forced Japanese promoters to cut back on perks they once paid to attract foreigners, like airfare and food, bands are lured to the country for far less mercenary reasons: high-quality studios, comfortable hotels, safe streets and warm hospitality.

"Bands are treated like gold in Japan," said Akiko Rogers, an agent at the William Morris Agency who brings American bands to the country. "It spoils them. All the older bands have fond memories of Japan. Everyone remembers the hospitality, how they were treated. It's an easy sell to get them to go there."

As for the charge that foreign bands use Japan as a place to practice rather than perform, Japanese fans take a philosophical stance. "Professionals like me don't feel satisfied when we see shows and they feel like rehearsals," said Reiko Yukawa, a well-known Japanese songwriter and music critic. "But I know the bands love Japan and the fans, so that's why we accept their music even if it sounds like they are practicing."

And, it seems, even if they're long past their prime. How else could the Ventures, the archetypal 1960's American surf band now relegated to oldies radio, be considered gods in Japan? Nearly four decades after they hit the scene, there are still more than 100 Ventures copy bands roaming the country, where the actual group often tours.

"It was like when a duckling hatches and sees its mother for the first time," said Minoru Shiraishi, a 51-year-old interior designer, recalling the first time he saw the Ventures in concert back in 1966. "I knew I had to follow them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/we...ew/07BELS.html


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

File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle
Neil Strauss

Since the Recording Industry Association of America began its campaign against file-sharing services and unauthorized song swapping online in 1999, it has offered one chief justification for its actions: downloading songs is stealing money from the pockets of musicians.

But the musicians themselves have conflicted responses to file sharing and the tactics of the association, a trade group that represents record labels, not the musicians themselves, who have no organization that wields equal power.

So, many musicians have found themselves watching helplessly from the sidelines as the recording industry has begun suing people who are their fans, their audience and their consumers — who also share music online without authorization. Last week, 261 lawsuits were filed, the first battle in what the association says will be a long campaign of litigation against the most active music fans sharing songs on services like KaZaA.

"On one hand, the whole thing is pretty sick," said John McCrea, a singer and songwriter in the rock band Cake. "On the other hand, I think it'll probably work."

Many musicians privately wish file sharing would go away, though they are reluctant to admit it, because they do not want to seem unfriendly to their fans. So they have been happy to have the industry group play the role of bad cop. But with the escalation of the battle last week (with lawsuits filed against, among others, a 71-year-old grandfather and a 12-year-old girl), some musicians say they are beginning to wonder if the actions being taken in their name are a little extreme.This is especially true because, regardless of file sharing, they rarely see royalties.

"It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," said Deborah Harry of Blondie, adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, "it's embarrassing."

The artist Moby, on his Web site, offered a similar opinion, suggesting that the music companies treat users of file-sharing services like fans instead of criminals. "How can a 14-year-old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies," he wrote. "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: `Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?' "

A few artists, like Metallica and Loudon Wainwright III, have come out strongly in favor of the record industry's crackdown. It could be seen as a gutsy move, considering the criticism Metallica faced from music fans when it campaigned against the file-sharing service Napster, which was declared illegal.

In a new song, "Something for Nothing," Mr. Wainwright makes fun of the mentality of file sharers, singing: "It's O.K. to steal, cuz it's so nice to share." As for the lawsuits, he said that he was not surprised. "If you're going to break the law, the hammer is going to come down," he said.

At the same time, other influential musicians and groups — like Moby, System of a Down, Public Enemy, and the Dead — contend that the record industry's efforts are misguided and that it must work with the new technology instead of against it.

But most seem ambivalent, or confused.

"I see both sides," said Rodney Crowell, a country music singer and songwriter. "In some ways, I think the record companies have it coming, but at the same time, being a writer and therefore in the business of copyright, they're saying it's impacting our business by 30 percent or more, so we have to do something."

The Recording Industry Association says there has been a 31 percent drop in sales of recorded music since file sharing became popular more than three years ago, but statistics from Forrester Research show that the sales decline since 2000 has been half that, or 15 percent, and that 35 percent of that amount is because of unauthorized downloading.

The situation has become so thorny that many top-selling artists, even those who have been outspoken about embracing new technology, declined to comment on the lawsuits on the record, for fear of upsetting their labels. In interviews, some musicians and their representatives said that their labels had asked them not to talk. And in a dozen cases, record labels did not grant interviews with musicians on the subject.

"I don't think anyone really understands the impact of what's happening, and they don't want to make a mistake," said Allen Kovac, who runs 10th Street Entertainment, an artist management company in Los Angeles. "The impact of lawsuits on fans is a double-edged sword. If you're a record company, do you want record company acts being persona non grata at every college campus in America?"

Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.

"I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway."

Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales. In fact, many musicians offer free downloads of their songs on their Web sites to market themselves.

For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard.

Serj Tankian of the hard-rock band System of a Down, for example, said he thought that the free exchange of songs by his band and others online was healthy for music fans, but objected when that free exchange included unfinished studio recordings.

Ween, which recently left a major record label, Elektra, to release its records independently, has found a way to coexist with file sharing, which the band actually supports by encouraging fans to record and trade shows.

At the same time, Ween fans police eBay for people who are selling live recordings and KaZaA for people who are leaking songs before an album is released. "Before `Quebec,' came out," Mr. Melchiondo said, referring to Ween's latest CD, "our fans would message people on KaZaA who were sharing tracks and ask them to take the music down. And they also mounted a campaign where they put up fake copies of our record to throw people off."

Mr. Melchiondo said that Ween's fans acted out of respect for the band, not because of intimidation from the record industry or sympathy with it. "We never asked them to do this," he said. "They just took it upon themselves."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/te...14MUSI.html?hp


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

Whatever Will Be Will Be Free on the Internet
Steve Lohr

THE recording industry's long-running battle against online music piracy has come to resemble one of those whack-a-mole arcade games, where the player hammers one rubber rodent's head with a mallet only to see another pop up nearby. Conk one, and up pops another, and so on.

Three years ago, the music industry sued Napster, the first popular music file-sharing network on the Internet. That sent Napster reeling, but other networks for trading copyrighted music — KaZaA, Grokster, Morpheus and others — sprang up. Last week, in the latest swing of the hammer, the Recording Industry Association of America filed 261 lawsuits against individual file sharers, which will surely make some of their estimated 60 million compatriots think twice — for now. Earth Station Five, a company based in the West Bank, surfaced recently with claims of being at war with the industry association. It promises the latest in anonymous Internet file sharing. Its motto: "Resistance is futile."

Since Gutenberg's printing press, new technologies for creating, copying and distributing information have eroded the power of the people, or industries, in control of various media. In the last century, the pattern held true, for example, when recorded music became popular in the early 1900's, radio in the 1920's and cable television in recent years.

But the heritage and design of the Internet present a particularly disruptive technology. Today's global network had its origins in the research culture of academia with its ethos of freely sharing information. And by design, the Internet turns every user in every living room into a mass distributor of just about anything that can be digitized, including film, photography, the written word and, of course, music. Already, Hollywood is trying to curb the next frontier, film swapping. The inevitable advance of technology will make reading on digital tablets more convenient than reading on paper, so the publishers of books, magazines and newspapers have their worries as well. "Nobody is immune," observed Michael J. Wolf, managing partner in charge of the media practice at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm.

"The cultural and technical principle embedded in today's Internet is that it is neutral in the sense that the people who use it have the power to determine its use, not corporations or the network operators," said Jonathan Zittrain, a co-director of the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. "The plan for the Internet was to have no plan."

The Net's free-range design, combined with the global proliferation of personal computing and low-cost communications networks, laid the foundation for the surge of innovation and new uses that became so evident by the late 1990's. The World Wide Web is the overarching example, but others include instant messaging, online gaming and peer-to-peer file sharing. And while companies are free to build proprietary products and services in cyberspace, the basic software and communications technology of the Internet lies in the public domain — open for all to use.

It was inevitable, then, that the Internet would eventually force a radical rethinking of intellectual property rights, and the music industry's current travails represent a particularly dramatic example of the mutating rules — though not the only one. Consider, for example, the rise of so-called open-source software. The poster child of open-source projects is GNU Linux, an operating system whose computer code is distributed freely over the Internet and is maintained and debugged by a loose-knit global community of programmers. Linux has become a genuine challenge to Microsoft because programmers around the world can see and modify the underlying source code — instead of jealously guarding it as a trade secret.

That concept of open-source is inseparable from the Internet, because it provides the vehicle for free exchange and widespread distribution — the same idea that is at the heart of file sharing and one that is spreading well beyond the techies. A group, led by Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, has established a "creative commons" project for collecting and putting creative works including music, film, photography and literature in the public domain, inspired by the open-source software model.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is posting the content of 500 of its courses online this fall, a project called OpenCourseWare. In Britain, a small group of artists and editors has set up a Web site for Jenny Everywhere, an increasingly popular open-source cartoon. Its only requirement is that any "Jenny" cartoon include its license, which states "others may use this property as they wish. All rights reversed."

What all this means for the future of intellectual property, and some businesses, is as unpredictable as the open-source revolution itself. In the music business, it seems remarkable that only a few believe the technology cannot be held in check.

One of those few is David Bowie. "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing," Mr. Bowie said in an interview last year. The future of the music industry, he suggests, is that songs are essentially advertisements and artists will have to make a living by performing on tour.

Others fear that, as the futility of technological fixes becomes clearer, the response may be onerous legal restrictions on the Internet and how people use it. "You don't want to break the kneecaps of the Internet to protect one relatively small industry, the recording business," Mr. Lessig, the Stanford professor, said.

William Fisher, a Harvard law professor, offers a solution for the recording industry's Internet challenge, and one that borrows from the past. When radio became popular in the 1920's and 1930's and began broadcasting copyrighted songs, the record companies, singers and bands protested. The answer was to have the radio stations pay the copyright holders and set up a measuring system so the largest payments went for the most popular songs.

In a book to be published next year, Mr. Fisher recommends placing a 15 percent tax on Internet access and a 15 percent tax on devices used for storing and copying music and movies like CD-burners, MP3 players and blank CD's.

The funds raised, he estimates, would be about $2.5 billion in 2004, roughly the projected amount the recording industry and Hollywood would lose to online piracy. The music business and Hollywood would get refunds based on what works were the most popular downloads.

"It's not perfect," Mr. Fisher admitted.

Still, it does represent what is not much in evidence today — some sort of middle ground that would compensate rights holders but also move with the march of technology and consumer behavior instead of merely trying to fight it.

"With music file sharing, you have a cultural norm that is being established by what is technologically possible," said Daniel Weitzner, a director at the World Wide Web Consortium. "That is very hard to resist."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/we...rtne r=GOOGLE


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

NBC-Vivendi Deal: An Empire Reborn
Evan I. Schwartz

Maybe the lesson is this: Media empires that die some day come back.

The news last week that General Electric is all but certain to purchase the movie, television and theme park assets of Vivendi Universal — and merge them with NBC — recalls a remarkably similar episode at the dawn of the modern era of mass media, in the Roaring Twenties.

In fact, G.E. owned the first electronic media empire. To take in its saga over three-quarters of a century is to appreciate that the company has seen it all before. Back then, as now, fierce fights were waged over media consolidation. Free music — over the radio — threatened the bottom line of record companies.

In the 1920's, David Sarnoff was a fast-rising visionary who presided over G.E.'s radio-making subsidiary, RCA. To spur sales of radio sets, Sarnoff and his bosses founded NBC as the first national broadcasting network. In 1928, he widened his scope. In the biggest media merger to date, he acquired the Victor Talking Machines Company and its associated record label.

A genius at manipulating others, Sarnoff was himself led into the movie business. Leading him was a financial whiz and aspiring movie mogul named Joseph P. Kennedy. Kennedy had started a small film distribution company and persuaded Sarnoff to buy it at a huge premium and to combine it with a chain of vaudeville theaters that could be converted into movie houses. The resulting venture was named RKO Pictures.

Synergy seemed at hand. Until one RKO film after another bombed, the stock market crashed and GE/RCA was left with a $32 million restructuring tab.

Perhaps foreshadowing the rich payouts handed to the ousted Vivendi chief executive Jean-Marie Messier, Kennedy cleaned up. By selling his RKO stock before the market tanked, his $8 million windfall became the basis for his fortune.

Meanwhile, Victor was falling off a cliff, with sales of phonographs and records plunging by 90 percent in the three years after the crash. The near collapse makes today's three-year, 28 percent drop in the number of CD's sold seem mild. But the causes and results are similar: back then, radio listeners short of cash were getting their music free, not unlike many of today's Internet music downloaders.

Just as RCA Victor was forced to slash the prices of its records, Vivendi's Universal Music Group just days ago cut prices on compact discs as much as 30 percent, although the music assets are not part of the current deal.

Finally, in the wake of financial scandals and rising unemployment, the public mood turned viciously anticorporate. Congressmen railed against the G.E.'s "radio monopoly," and Herbert Hoover's Justice Department slapped RCA with an antitrust suit. Late in 1932, the lame-duck president accepted Sarnoff's proposed remedy: split off RCA, Victor, NBC and RKO from G.E.

But G.E. re-entered the business a half-century later when Jack Welch repurchased NBC in 1986. Now G.E. has revealed its plan to get back into music and movies all over again.

Will it work this time? Then, as now, many hopes ride on the shoulders of a giant ape. In 1933, RKO's blockbuster "King Kong" paid down a good deal of debt. Guess who is now remaking "King Kong"? Vivendi's — and soon to be G.E.'s — Universal Pictures.

Can a 10,000-pound gorilla help save an empire once again? Stay tuned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/we...ew/07WEEK.html


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

Why Digital Rights Management Won't Save the Entertainment Industry
Christopher Rae

The promise of digital rights management (DRM) technologies have been that they will save the entertainment industry from rampant piracy. Not anytime soon.

DRM, by its nature, is simply a series of checks and balances for content, allowing the content owner to choose how their content is consumed. Should it be allowed to transfer to portable devices? Can it be copied to CD? Does it expire after 30 days? These content rules alone do not protect the content anymore than Blockbuster protects content when they say you need to return a DVD in 48 hours. The robustness of DRM is brought to life through the individual business model implementations.

Take into consideration Apple's successful iTunes service: provide lifetime access to an increasingly large catalog of licensed popular music for a fee of $0.99 per song, or $9.99 per album. The one feature of this service that everyone seems to be rightfully overlooking is the presence of DRM, or more to the point, the transparency of DRM. Each AAC-format file is playable on your Mac, your iPod and for Windows users, QuickTime 6 (until more players support MPEG-4). However, each file is delicately wrapped in a thin DRM that provides a lifetime license, but also limits the file to three machines it can be transferred onto. This protects the content owner's royalties more so than unencrypted MP3s, but doesn't eliminate piracy. (An AAC file can be burned to an audio CD, where it becomes just another unencrypted CDA raw audio track which can be later ripped back to MP3.) It merely makes purchasing the content easier and more convenient than pirating it. The reason iTunes has become successful is because of how transparent the process is to the user. Apple's continued win is its elegantly simplistic user interface. Point. Click. Listen.

Where the music and film industries are failing is that their bread-and-butter is made through the manufacturing, distribution and sales of physical, tangible discs. DVDs and CDs represent the last physical format that media will be sold in, much like how VHS and audio cassettes represented the last analog format. It may not happen this year or next, but the evolution of media distribution will be that all content is distributed digitally through networked subscription and purchase services. Its inevitable, and has already begun with on-demand cable, allowing me to watch any episode of Six Feet Under, whenever I want, for an additional $6.00 per month.

The nebulously-hyped digital media centers are nothing more than expandable hard drives with cable, Ethernet ports and Wi-Fi connectivity, that merge your cable box, DVD/CD player and your gaming consoles into one unit. Your digital media center will be connected to your other computers, televisions, plasma screens, PDAs, portable players and your car's media center through your personal P2P file-sharing network. All of your games will be subscriptions online, for example, Xbox Live. Additionally, your car will become a file-sharing device that will communicate with other cars on the highway, swapping content while you weave between lanes. While sitting in gridlock, the car next to you may have that long lost Twilight Zone episode you've been looking for. And once you get home, you car will instantly sync with your home media center. Since it will have billing information pre- programmed in, when you're ready to unlock that episode, just push "Play", and your micropayment will be deducted from your bank account. Point. Click. Consume. *cue creepy theme song here*

So long as record companies and film studios release content on physical formats, there will be ways to pirate that content. Just because DRM exists today doesn't mean that it will save the billions of files already trading on Kazaa, Morpheus, WinMX and other P2P networks. That content is already the sacrificial lamb of this emerging paradigm shift. Unfortunately, it also has the displeasure of being nearly all the content ever created by Humanity. It's ripped. It's out there. And every Tuesday when a new CD or DVD is released, more content gets ripped and thrown into file-trading networks. It would actually behoove the media companies to stop producing content entirely.

So who can benefit from DRM? Content owners who choose not to distribute via CD or DVD. Such customers include corporations wanting to offer on-demand video of stockholder meetings, or e- learning companies offering entire courses online, or has become the more popular case, adult websites offering Internet-only downloadable and streaming video. These customers have no need to release their content on antique formats such as CD or DVD, and thus, they can benefit the most from offering DRM-protected files on scalable networks. If the content is available in only one place, the biggest risk is the content owner accidentally posting the unencrypted versions. Even if those files are purchased, downloaded and then shared in P2P networks, each individual user must get a unique license to view the content, which requires some form of authentication, be it a pay-per-view model with a valid credit card, or a subscription model with an existing user account with that particular service.

The music and film industries will be invited to return to the sandbox once they sever their dependence on physical media for distribution, which will take years. By only producing one original file and then allowing the true power of P2P networks and peer-based CDNs, such as Jibe, to proliferate with copies, the media companies can deliver content at lower prices with higher profit margin. Without the overhead of warehouses, factories and sweatshop wages, media companies could sell a full-length album or movie less than $5.00. Traditional outlets such as Tower Records or Virgin Megastore could offer digital downloads, sell them via superdistribution models and compete for the lowest prices online. Individual bands and indie labels could offer subscription services to their music for much less than the price of a CD and collect higher royalties per download, because most recording deals take significant cuts for manufacturing and distribution of millions of units of tangible atoms.

Apple has a good start, but they are not perfect. An album still costs $9.99, iTunes is only available on the Mac, and due to MPEG-4 related delays, the AAC-format isn't as widely accepted as MP3 or WMA [yet]. In order for the digital distribution and sales models to succeed, content will need to be protected with an isotope of DRM that is inherently viewable by the widest possible audience, the cost of ownership must decrease to drive interest, and the business model will need to be transparent to the user before it will gain market acceptance.

The future of entertainment sales and distribution isn't doomed because of digital rights management technologies. It will be doomed by poorly designed and executed business models.
http://www.contentworld.com/newsdige...rticle1_1.html


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

Fame vs Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content
Clay Shirky

Micropayments, small digital payments of between a quarter and a fraction of a penny, made (yet another) appearance this summer with Scott McCloud's online comic, The Right Number, accompanied by predictions of a rosy future for micropayments.

To read The Right Number, you have to sign up for the BitPass micropayment system; once you have an account, the comic itself costs 25 cents.

BitPass will fail, as FirstVirtual, Cybercoin, Millicent, Digicash, Internet Dollar, Pay2See, and many others have in the decade since Digital Silk Road, the paper that helped launch interest in micropayments. These systems didn't fail because of poor implementation; they failed because the trend towards freely offered content is an epochal change, to which micropayments are a pointless response.

The failure of BitPass is not terribly interesting in itself. What is interesting is the way the failure of micropayments, both past and future, illustrates the depth and importance of putting publishing tools in the hands of individuals. In the face of a force this large, user-pays schemes can't simply be restored through minor tinkering with payment systems, because they don't address the cause of that change -- a huge increase the power and reach of the individual creator.

Why Micropayment Systems Don't Work

The people pushing micropayments believe that the dollar cost of goods is the thing most responsible for deflecting readers from buying content, and that a reduction in price to micropayment levels will allow creators to begin charging for their work without deflecting readers.

This strategy doesn't work, because the act of buying anything, even if the price is very small, creates what Nick Szabo calls mental transaction costs, the energy required to decide whether something is worth buying or not, regardless of price. The only business model that delivers money from sender to receiver with no mental transaction costs is theft, and in many ways, theft is the unspoken inspiration for micropayment systems.

Like the salami slicing exploit in computer crime, micropayment believers imagine that such tiny amounts of money can be extracted from the user that they will not notice, while the overall volume will cause these payments to add up to something significant for the recipient. But of course the users do notice, because they are being asked to buy something. Mental transaction costs create a minimum level of inconvenience that cannot be removed simply by lowering the dollar cost of goods.

Worse, beneath a certain threshold, mental transaction costs actually rise, a phenomenon is especially significant for information goods. It's easy to think a newspaper is worth a dollar, but is each article worth half a penny? Is each word worth a thousandth of a penny? A newspaper, exposed to the logic of micropayments, becomes impossible to value.

If you want to feel mental transaction costs in action, sign up for the $3 version of BitPass, then survey the content on offer. Would you pay 25 cents to view a VR panorama of the Matterhorn? Are Powerpoint slides on "Ten reasons why now is a great time to start a company?" worth a dime? (and if so, would each individual reason be worth a penny?)

Mental transaction costs help explain the general failure of micropayment systems. (See Odlyzko, Shirky, and Szabo for a fuller accounting of the weaknesses of micropayments.) The failure of micropayments in turn helps explain the ubiquity of free content on the Web.

Fame vs Fortune and Free Content

Analog publishing generates per-unit costs -- each book or magazine requires a certain amount of paper and ink, and creates storage and transportation costs. Digital publishing doesn't. Once you have a computer and internet access, you can post one weblog entry or one hundred, for ten readers or ten thousand, without paying anything per post or per reader. In fact, dividing up front costs by the number of readers means that content gets cheaper as it gets more popular, the opposite of analog regimes.

The fact that digital content can be distributed for no additional cost does not explain the huge number of creative people who make their work available for free. After all, they are still investing their time without being paid back. Why?

The answer is simple: creators are not publishers, and putting the power to publish directly into their hands does not make them publishers. It makes them artists with printing presses. This matters because creative people crave attention in a way publishers do not. Prior to the internet, this didn't make much difference. The expense of publishing and distributing printed material is too great for it to be given away freely and in unlimited quantities -- even vanity press books come with a price tag. Now, however, a single individual can serve an audience in the hundreds of thousands, as a hobby, with nary a publisher in sight.

This disrupts the old equation of "fame and fortune." For an author to be famous, many people had to have read, and therefore paid for, his or her books. Fortune was a side-effect of attaining fame. Now, with the power to publish directly in their hands, many creative people face a dilemma they've never had before: fame vs fortune.

Substitutability and the Deflection of Use

The fame vs fortune choice matters because of substitutability, the willingness to accept one thing as a substitute for another. Substitutability is neutralized in perfect markets. For example, if someone has even a slight preference for Pepsi over Coke, and if both are always equally available in all situations, that person will never drink a Coke, despite being only mildly biased.

The soft-drink market is not perfect, but the Web comes awfully close: If InstaPundit and Samizdata are both equally easy to get to, the relative traffic to the sites will always match audience preference. But were InstaPundit to become less easy to get to, Samizdata would become a more palatable substitute. Any barrier erodes the user's preferences, and raises their willingness to substitute one thing for another.

This is made worse by the asymmetry between the author's motivation and the reader's. While the author has one particular thing they want to write, the reader is usually willing to read anything interesting or relevant to their interests. Though each piece of written material is unique, the universe of possible choices for any given reader is so vast that uniqueness is not a rare quality. Thus any barrier to a particular piece of content (even, as the usability people will tell you, making it one click further away) will deflect at least some potential readers.

Charging, of course, creates just such a barrier. The fame vs fortune problem exists because the web makes it possible to become famous without needing a publisher, and because any attempt to derive fortune directly from your potential audience lowers the size of that audience dramatically, as the added cost encourages them to substitute other, free sources of content.

Free is a Stable Strategy

For a creator more interested in attention than income, free makes sense. In a regime where most of the participants are charging, freeing your content gives you a competitive advantage. And, as the drunks say, you can't fall off the floor. Anyone offering content free gains an advantage that can't be beaten, only matched, because the competitive answer to free -- "I'll pay you to read my weblog!" -- is unsupportable over the long haul.

Free content is thus what biologists call an evolutionarily stable strategy. It is a strategy that works well when no one else is using it -- it's good to be the only person offering free content. It's also a strategy that continues to work if everyone is using it, because in such an environment, anyone who begins charging for their work will be at a disadvantage. In a world of free content, even the moderate hassle of micropayments greatly damages user preference, and increases their willingness to accept free material as a substitute.

Furthermore, the competitive edge of free content is increasing. In the 90s, as the threat the Web posed to traditional publishers became obvious, it was widely believed that people would still pay for filtering. As the sheer volume of free content increased, the thinking went, finding the good stuff, even if it was free, would be worth paying for because it would be so hard to find.

In fact, the good stuff is becoming easier to find as the size of the system grows, not harder, because collaborative filters like Google and Technorati rely on rich link structure to sort through links. So offering free content is not just an evolutionary stable strategy, it is a strategy that improves with time, because the more free content there is the greater the advantage it has over for-fee content.

More http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html

[JackSpratts]

Students Tune Out Industry Lawsuits
Marcella Bombardieri

When the Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 people last week for sharing copyrighted songs over the Internet, it was a direct attack on Katie O'Hara's lifestyle.

O'Hara, a Boston University junior and classic-rock fan, illegally downloads music on her computer nearly every day. A new song on the radio might strike her fancy, or something she hasn't heard in years might pop into her head as she walks to class, and back in her dorm room she'll download the song off the Internet file-sharing service Kazaa.

If the record industry is to win the battle over online music-sharing, it will have to win the hearts and minds -- or at least the fear -- of students like O'Hara. But the day after the music lobby launched its headline-making lawsuit, O'Hara got up and did what she normally does: Download some free music.

"There are millions of students using it on a day-to-day basis. Think of BU's population," said O'Hara, a Paul Simon devotee. "If they're going to start suing people, there's a lot of people to be sued. I feel like it's a war they're really not going to win anytime soon."

About two-thirds of US 18- and 19-year-olds surveyed download music, according to a study by Forrester Research in Cambridge. Although they do not represent a majority of all file-sharers, college students have been at the center of the phenomenon since the beginning, a population with the time, bandwidth, and techno-savvy to influence the music-listening habits of the nation. After all, Napster -- the now-defunct computer network that put music-sharing on the map -- was created by a Northeastern undergraduate.

"The industry sees this for the cultural war that it is," said cyberlaw specialist Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law School. "They think it's important to prevent the up-and-coming generation of lifelong music users from continuing to expect they won't have to pay for it. The purpose of the suits is not to win, but to instill the kind of fear that will change behavior."

Data and interviews with college students suggest that so far, the recording industry hasn't instilled enough fear to have much effect. Traffic on the popular Kazaa network jumped from less than 3 million users a day in August to over 4 million a day last week, after students had returned to school, according to the market research firm BigChampagne.

It's hard for people even a few years out of college to grasp just how central file-sharing has become to university life. O'Hara is not the least bit unusual in that she has not purchased a CD in several years. Stereos have almost become old-fashioned -- you don't need one when you can simply hook up nice speakers to your computer. At parties, the music often comes straight off a computer, or else from mixes burned onto CDs.

There's an infectious feeling of possibility -- most any song is a few clicks away.

"It's download, download, download," said BU senior Lauren Vane. "You can spend all day thinking, `What song do I want?' "

Not to say that students are blind to the risk of a lawsuit. Three-fifths of 18- and 19-year-olds would stop downloading music if there were a serious risk that they would go to jail or have to pay a fine, according to the Forrester study. And the fines in question are potentially serious: Under copyright infringement law, a judge could order a file-sharer to pay $750 to $150,000 for each song he or she makes available to others on the Internet. The record industry association has said it is close to settling with several people for $3,000 each.

Universities, by and large, are not providing any legal protection for their students -- a number of local colleges have already been subpoenaed for the names of file-sharing students. Although BU, Boston College, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology initially resisted the subpoenas on technical grounds, they have since handed over the names.

The problem for the industry is that so far, students have looked at the risk of being sued and decided -- correctly -- that it is tiny. The hundreds sued represent a minuscule percentage of the 60 million people who are estimated to download music. Also, the industry is targeting only the most prolific file-sharers, those who leave their hard drives open for free downloading.

For users like O'Hara, the odds are in her favor: They're more likely to get hit by a bus than by a lawsuit.

That's why Marian Moore, vice president for information technology at Boston College, is unimpressed by the record industry's strategy. "It's like using a flyswatter on a gorilla," she said. "Unless they are willing to go out and subpoena a couple of million people, this isn't going to stop music sharing."

Some students take steps to stay under the industry radar. They download music illegally and then click a box to shut off their hard drives from other users. "Peer-to-peer" programs like the popular Kazaa, as well as Morpheus, Grokster, and Gnutella, generally give users a choice about whether to grant others access to their songs.

However, a lot of students may be sharing without even realizing it, since they usually have to go out of their way to disable the sharing function, Zittrain said. O'Hara, for example, isn't sure whether her music is available to others. Lorraine Sullivan, a student at Hunter College in New York who says she is being sued by the record industry association, has created a website (suedbytheriaa.com) that asks for donations and says she had no idea her files were "open to the world."

The industry hopes that students will all start to click that box, meaning that their song collections will no longer be available on the Internet for free.

But BigChampagne chief executive Eric Garland called it a doomed strategy, because American users are a minority of people using the global Net, so plenty of people in Australia -- or France, or Canada -- will still be sharing the latest 50 Cent tunes. "There's great redundancy built into the system," Garland said. "Even if most [Americans] got scared and turned off their software, you and I would never know the difference."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...stry_lawsuits/


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

Some Advise 'Everywhere Internet Audio'
Don Tapscott

THE music industry, hurt by a decline in CD sales and the continued free swapping of files on the Internet, took the drastic action last week of filing more than 250 lawsuits against consumers. But whatever catharsis record executives and their lawyers may feel, the courts cannot solve the music industry's fundamental problem. Nor does the answer lie in getting people to pay for each music file they download from the Internet.

Instead of clinging to late-20th-century distribution technologies, like the digital disk and the downloaded file, the music business should move into the 21st century with a revamped business model using innovative technology, several industry experts say. They want the music industry to do unto the file-swapping services what the services did unto the music companies - eclipse them with better technology and superior customer convenience.

Their vision might be called "everywhere Internet audio.'' Music fans, instead of downloading files on KaZaA - whether they were using computers, home stereos, radios or handheld devices - would have access to all music the record companies hold in their vaults. Listeners could request that any song be immediately streamed to them via the Internet.

If consumers could do this, the argument goes, they would have no interest in amassing thousands of songs on their hard drives. There would be no "theft" of music, because no one would bother to take possession of the song. To clinch music fans' loyalty to the new system, and make them willing to pay for it, the music companies and the supporting industry would need to provide attractively priced, easy-to-use services to give consumers full access to the hundreds of thousands of songs available to them.

Consumers could still ask for song titles or artists, as they do now on KaZaA. But they could also, for example, request rock 'n' roll tunes that appeared for more than three weeks in Billboard's Top 10 during the 1960's. Or ask for early 1990's guitarists that sound like Eric Clapton, or new artists similar in style to Alanis Morissette.

Requests could be intricate, like asking for music subsequently recorded by the original members of the Lovin' Spoonful. Or they could be simple, like requesting light jazz for dinner-party background music. The system would be interactive and could learn each user's tastes. As listeners voted thumbs up or down to tunes (should they choose to), the service would amend their personal libraries accordingly.

If it worked, it would be as if we each had our own private satellite radio channels - customizable collections of tunes for hundreds of millions of audiences of one. It is a compelling business model, and the current music companies, as the owners of the content, could be at the fore of designing the system.

A tiny taste of such an approach is available on Internet radio networks like live365.com. On such services, listeners can essentially customize a radio station to their individual tastes. But crucial to the future of everywhere Internet audio, many believe, lies in widespread wireless Internet access, because wireless means portability.

"Wireless gives the record companies a chance to do it all over again, and this time get it right," said Jim Griffin, the former head of technology at Geffen Records and now the chief executive of the music publisher Cherry Lane Digital. Mr. Griffin is also a founder of pholist.org, home of an active online discussion of music's future on the Internet.

Many of the brightest industry insiders, academics, lawyers, musicians, industry critics, broadcasters and venture capitalists assemble at pholist.org daily to debate the music business beyond downloading. Many say wireless holds the key.

Myriad portable devices already offer Internet access. Some, like the BlackBerry, maintain an always-on wireless Internet connection. Some business-oriented devices, like the Palm Tungsten, now play high-fidelity music in the MP3 format. Newer cellphones also offer MP3 functions, and include extra features like digital cameras and FM radios.

The seers once thought portable devices would connect to the Internet via cellphone technology. But it now appears that Wi-Fi hotspots - wireless Internet access hubs - may eventually provide blanket coverage in urban areas and become the dominant means of connection.

But there are big obstacles to overcome. To make "everywhere Internet audio'' profitable, the music industry must develop a system to collect money from users and divide it fairly among performers, songwriters and others involved in creating music.

How this would work is already causing hot debate. Mr. Griffin and many others in the pholist.org discussion advocate an Internet fee that would create a revenue pool to be distributed according to song popularity. Current recording industry sales in the United States work out to about $2.50 a month per person.

As CD's sales declined, a digital musical surcharge, or something similar, could be assessed by Internet providers.

At regular intervals, the industry could sample what music is being streamed to users, to determine the distribution of money to the responsible parties. By using sampling, as opposed to detailed census techniques, listeners would not have to worry about invasions of their privacy.

This idea would turn the recording industry's business model upside down. Institutions are genetically averse to massive change. But the payoff could be huge. Right now, for example, the industry incurs large costs from its CD distribution model.

The industry also has many intermediaries, including distributors and promoters. To take a band from obscurity to popularity is expensive, but that is what music labels must do if they want shelf space at the record store. Recording companies are in constant quest of superstars, because fewer than 10 percent of CD's released make a profit. Revenues generated by the best sellers must try to cover the losses incurred by less popular releases.

In this context, the Internet could be a godsend to musicians as well. It can distribute a digital copy of a song to a few or to millions of listeners with virtually no cost difference. Music companies would have more incentive to nurture minor artists. As a society and culture, many argue, we would be much better served by such an approach.

Market forces alone would not produce such a system. It would take enormous industry cooperation, which could only occur with government approval, lest it be deemed a violation of antitrust laws.

The need for cooperation and leadership is clear. Children should not wind up in court because they are fanatical about their favorite pop stars. If the music industry devised an affordable, equitable, and convenient alternative to file sharing, the fans would come, money in hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/te...rtner=USERLAND

The Wrong Alternative For Digital Music

Don Tapscott: "As CD's sales declined, a digital musical surcharge, or something similar, could be assessed by Internet providers."

So let me get this straight. To deal with the conflicts between record companies and their customers over P2P file-sharing, we should turn ISPs into government-regulated collectors of a mandatory music tax. This is an innovative new business model?

Some sort of compulsory license makes sense for Internet radio, for the same reason it works for conventional radio. But radio is not the same is my personal collection, even in a world where every piece of music is instantly available from a hard drive in the sky. One is broadcasting, an inherently collective activity. One is personal. It is reasonable to use statistical approximations to allocate broadcast revenue flows, because that's the only way to tie them back to individuals. But my relationship with my content providers is something different. The endpoints of the transaction are easy to identify; the problem is just the mechanism in the middle.

iTunes and other second-generation licensed online music services are getting closer to a workable alternative for the majority of users who are willing to pay for digital downloads if given a reasonable price and experience. A music tax would take all the pressure off the industry to deliver the product their customers want. It puts government in the position of guaranteeing the record companies current revenue stream, and ISPs in the position of tax collectors.

Anyone who thinks a "digital music surcharge" makes sense should consider the effect of universal service charges in telecommunications. Decades ago, these mechanisms did help people get phone service in rural areas. For the past thirty years, though, universal service charges have been an albatross making true phone competition nearly impossible. They created vested interests who will do anything to keep the subsidy gravy train going.

Tapscott's article is positively scary. I know he and those he quotes, such as Jim Griffin, mean well. They are looking for a win- win solution to the current impasse. But this isn't it.
http://werbach.com/blog/2003/09/15.html#a1165


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

UNR Among First To Monitor Students’ Computer Use
Lenita Powers

When the music industry filed lawsuits last week against 261 people for trading songs online, University of Nevada, Reno students living on campus were unlikely targets because their computers have been monitored for the past five years.

Reno’s university is among the first in the nation to measure all the Internet traffic on campus in an effort to halt the illegal distribution of copyrighted material, including music and movies.

Although some students are apprehensive about the monitoring, university officials and a civil libertarian said the measure was carefully crafted to ensure privacy is protected.

Steven Zink, UNR’s vice president of information technology, said the purpose of the policy is to help keep the students and the university out of court for using music- sharing networks like the former Napster.

“When Napster was in its heyday, I talked to the Student Senate and to students in the residence halls about how this actually does cost people their rightful income,” Zink said.

“And there’s always been this sense that they’re not going to go after students or kids. Wrong!” he said of the recording and film industries. “They want to make a point. They’ve paid for these intellectual properties and they want to get reimbursed for them.”

UNR has disciplined two student employees within the last three years for using their work computers to download music without paying for it, officials said.

Some UNR students are uneasy about having the Internet equivalent of Big Brother peering over their shoulders.

“I feel a little disturbed by it, but not too much,” said Howard Knudsen as he used one of the computers in UNR’s library. “Considering I’m using the university’s broadband, they would have the legal right to monitor my use.”

Knudsen, a 19-year-old accounting major from Sparks, said he understands the recording industry’s need to protect its intellectual property rights like any other property right. But he thinks it has been heavy-handed levying tens of thousands of dollars in student fines.

“It seems pretty subjective, the way they’re going about it. And the ones they’re prosecuting are not just the major violators, but random users.”
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html...sp7=local_news


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

Sharing Music Over Internet Part Of Life On Campus

Copyright suits don't faze local students
Coleman Warner Staff writer

"We don't steal music. It's illegal now," a Tulane University student with a sober expression said last week as he left a Broadway apartment house. "Nobody steals music in this house."

Maybe he had gotten the message: Two days earlier, a music trade group had filed 261 copyright lawsuits in distant federal courts.

Or maybe not.

The student's deadpan delivery was quickly betrayed by a round of snickers from his companions. Collectively, they scoffed at a much- publicized attempt by the Recording Industry Association of America to curb free downloading and distribution of music via the Internet, a phenomenon that has exploded in recent years among tech-savvy college students hooked into high- speed campus networks.

"It's like the war on drugs; it's a fruitless kind of endeavor," said Adam Breit, an economics major from Atlanta. "The Internet is too difficult to regulate. It's a bunch of faceless culprits."

Across the street, peering out the door of his fraternity house, business major Ben Katz had no sympathy for music executives who say file- sharing networks cut into their profits.

"If they really want to discourage it, they should stop charging like $22 for a CD," said Katz, who is from Boston. "There's tens of millions of people doing it. I guess I'll roll the dice."

Irreverent, come-and-get-me reactions among students contrast sharply with those of local college officials, who take the recording-industry threats quite seriously. They don't relish even a remote chance that their students could be hauled into court, forcing the students' families to spend large amounts of money on a legal defense, regardless of a suit's outcome.

No local students have been hit with such lawsuits, federal court records show.

Universities also want to be seen as vigilant in policing use of their own computer networks to minimize chances that they will be targeted for litigation. The recording industry association isn't threatening to sue schools, but at least 10 universities, mostly in the Northeast, have been served with subpoenas demanding help in identifying offenders. Some Louisiana universities regularly get notices from the trade organization that specific addresses on their computer network have been used to download music.

Bandwidth hogs

Aside from the legal concerns, colleges don't like how downloading music and video files gobbles up their Internet bandwidth, limiting their capacity to send and receive data. Such recreational computer use obstructs professors' research and other business vital to daily campus operations. That's the primary reason Dillard University has blocked communications between campus computers and known music file-sharing Web sites, university officials say.

"Our goal was not to take care of American recording artists' mandate," said Terry Simon, director of telecommunication services at Dillard. "If a byproduct is that we adhere to their guidelines, then so be it."

Despite a 2000 order by a federal court forcing Napster Inc. to shut down a free service that allowed swapping of copyright music, no court has yet ruled that song-trading among individuals is illegal, said Glynn Lunney, a professor of intellectual law at Tulane. He said the recording industry is probably less interested in a resolution of that complex legal question than it is in forcing a significant number of people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves, before settling out of court."Then they will tout the settlement as victory," he said.

"The very fact that they're trading music and video doesn't seem to sink in as a crime. These kids grew up doing it; their friends do it. And I think the music industry has its hands full," said Ron Hay, LSU's computer services director. "Are they reformed? My suspicion is that they are not."

Hay finds irony in the high-tech struggle: Universities that helped launch the Internet are now being forced to restrict its use.

"We're going to have to start closing rather than opening" Internet access, he said. "That's going to be a hard pill to swallow."
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.s...0872168860.xml


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

Pirates Vs. Dinosaurs

The recording industry decided to get tough.

So it sent out its lawyers to find a diabolically clever criminal -- a 12-year-old. Then it filed a lawsuit against her for stealing music over the Internet.

Properly chastised, the pre-teen and her mother (who live in subsidized housing) bought "amnesty" from the multibillion-dollar industry for $2,000 and a promise not to copy anymore songs.

One down, 64,999,999 more lawsuits to go.

This is no way to do business.

Using the Internet to download digital music files has fundamentally changed the way an entire generation listens to and acquires songs. Instead of going to a record store and paying an inflated price for a plastic disc, those connected to the Internet visit online peer-to-peer (or P2P) networks and search out the music they crave. They download a song, burn it onto a disc or load it onto an MP3 player, then crank it up. Beyond minimal P2P and Internet fees, there is no other cost.

Sources put the number of people capable of downloading music in this way at between 40 million and 65 million. That's in the United States, not counting Australia, England, Canada and all the other nations where songs with English lyrics are appreciated.

The increasingly anachronistic music industry, through its lobbying group, the Recording Industry Association of America, has decided to go after these freeloading downloaders -- hence the 261 lawsuits filed last week.

Downloaders are outraged. Web sites such as www.boycott-RIAA.com are dedicated to beating this attack on "sharing." They have hundreds of postings from filesharers, testimonials from artists who embrace the emerging business paradigm and editorials excoriating the RIAA.

"This country revolves around greedy Congressmen and lobbyists," wrote one. "I'm never buying a CD, DVD or anything else."

"Should the laws stick around even though culture has evolved?" asks another writer. "Fine. Bring back slavery."

Finally, "Where was all the fuss during the time that the RIAA was price-gouging the public for the last 20 years? Odd, politicians didn't seem to care too much about that."

The recording industry, basically, calls downloaders thieves. After all, says the industry, they are stealing copyrighted property.

Under current law, the recording industry is right. Downloaders -- or filesharers, if you prefer -- are stealing. No one who uses Kazaa or Morpheus or another P2P can say they haven't been warned about the possibility of being sued.

But the RIAA shouldn't lose sight of two critical points:

Most of those "thieves" are also their best customers, often buying CDs after having heard a song or two via a filesharing site.

The world has changed and the music industry hasn't. To survive they will have to stop assaulting customers in court and find a way to harness the new technology to create profit. Napster, Kazaa and Morpheus figured it out and have at least 65 million fiercely loyal customers.

Regardless of the RIAA members' rights, it is impossible to have sympathy for the four companies (Sony, AOL-Time Warner, Universal and BMG) who dominate the recording industry.

Frank Sinatra didn't have any sympathy for them when he tried to organize artists to get a better deal in the 1960s. The Dixie Chicks -- who sold 20 million copies of their first two CDs (generating $175 million) -- have none. Dixie Chick Natalie Maines told "60 Minutes II" that they didn't make a penny off those sales. The Chicks sued Sony two years ago to force a better deal for their third CD. Don Henley (Eagles), Roger McGuinn (Byrds), Luther Vandross and Meatloaf have all either sued the record industry or testified about its abusive practices.

So when downloaders say they aren't hurting the artists by sharing the songs, they're essentially right.

In an effort to retrieve its customers, these companies lowered the prices of most CDs. That added insult to injury; they could have done that years ago when CD technology made producing discs far cheaper than making LPs. Instead, the price of discs went up and stayed there.

It's impossible for this newspaper to embrace anyone who disdains copyright laws. After all, this is a copyrighted editorial and not available for reprint without permission.

But the record companies are dinosaurs, mired in a dying technology. Instead of embracing the modern and finding a way to profit from it, they flail at their own customers. Don't expect that 12-year-old or anyone else to mourn if they fail.
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/...-8362855c.html


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

321 Studios Sued In United Kingdom

321 Studios is facing another lawsuit, this time in the United Kingdom.

The Motion Picture Association filed suit Aug. 29 against the company, on similar grounds as a suit in the United States in which seven major movie studios said 321 Studios' products are illegal under federal law. 321 Studios and the movie studios have been in a legal battle for nearly a year. 321 Studios filed a complaint in April 2002 against nine movie studios to try to keep its software on the market. The movie studios filed a counter claim on Dec. 19, 2002, alleging that the firm was trafficking the tools of digital piracy and violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The company is still waiting for a judge's decision.

The company makes software that allows legal owners of DVD movies to make legitimate backups in case of scratches, heat damage, loss and other problems.

"Following similar lawsuits in the U.S., we have anticipated this legal action and are fully prepared to meet it head on," the company said in a statement. Rob Semann, chief executive, will be in London next week to meet with the company's U.K. law firm and British media.

St. Louis-based 321 Studios also has offices in Berkeley, Calif., and London. It sells its DVD copying software via its Web site, www.321studios.com.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...1/daily42.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3090768.stm

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

Company Working on Iran Web Censor System
Anick Jesdanun

A San Diego company that runs a system for evading Internet censors is working with the U.S. government to create a special service for people
in Iran.

Anonymizer Inc.'s six-month contract with Voice of America's parent agency, International Broadcasting Bureau, calls for daily e-mail newsletters to Iranians with instructions in Farsi for accessing the free service.

According to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media freedom group, Iran requires Internet service providers to block hundreds of news and other sites deemed illegal. Several providers have been closed for failing to install filters.

Anonymizer and similar proxies bypass filters by masking the sites users are trying to reach.

Theoretically, anyone in the world can access Anonymizer to reach blocked sites. But many governments and companies have learned to include Anonymizer.com on their filter lists.

So Anonymizer will frequently change its Web addresses and publicize them through its daily newsletter.

Lance Cottrell, Anonymizer's president, would not disclose the amount the government is paying for the Iran project.

Last year, Anonymizer provided a similar service in China, although it has been suspended pending additional funding.


Spyware Boycott

An Internet site devoted to tuning up personal computers has launched a boycott of companies that advertise through software that's often installed on computers without users' knowledge.
Matthew Fordahl

Among the dozens of companies on the PC Pitstop's boycott list are corporate giants like Disneyland Resorts, Orbitz and Gateway. Those companies' ads are often forced to pop up by software made by Gator Corp.

"We decided it was time to raise awareness of the problem both with users who have this software on their PCs and with advertisers," said David Methvin, PC Pitstop's chief technology officer. "What we found is quite often the people who are advertising are not aware they're supporting spyware-based systems."

In the past, Gator has said its software is not "spyware" because users are informed when it's installed, usually with free programs such as a weather utility or game. Gator prefers the term "adware."

Critics say the installation notice is buried in legalistic licensing agreements that most users don't read. Once installed, the software generates pop-up ads based on the users' surfing habits.

A Gator spokeswoman would not comment on the boycott. A number of companies on the boycott list either did not return phone calls seeking comment or said they were unaware of the action.

So far, the campaign has produced mixed results, according to messages posted at the boycott Web site. The online travel service Orbitz, for instance, declined to stop using Gator. Coca-Cola, however, asked Gator to remove its ads from Gator's network.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ws/6739364.htm


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

Will China's Net Nannies Be Working Overtime?

According to Reporters Without Borders, China employs 30,000 people to watch what people are doing online and they estimate more people are in prison in China for expressing their views on the Internet than in any other country in the world.
Ben Macklin

The Chinese "Net nannies" are working overtime at the moment trying to regulate the estimated 60 million Internet users in China, but the government watchdogs are facing a new and growing challenge -- 240 million mobile phone subscribers.

China's mobile market is massive. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) reported that there were 206.6 million mobile phone subscribers in China at the end of 2002. The United States, the next largest market, had 140.8 million. The Chinese government recently reported half-year figures for 2003 at 239.5 million and China's leading mobile phone operator, China Mobile, recently dislodged Vodafone from its position as the largest mobile operator in the world.

Subscription required -

http://www.emarketer.com/news/article.php?1002440


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

Government Can't Block Porn Sites - Researchers

Web filters seen as ineffective.
Sasiwimon Boonruang

It will be almost impossible for the government to effectively block access to pornographic web sites, according to researchers from Chulalongkorn University, but it can introduce other measures such as a rating system, self- regulation and even consider legalising the porn business.

The researchers tracked 1,000 pornographic sites in both Thai and English and found that 643 sites are active and accessible from Thailand. Of these, 45% offered porn galleries, 11% web-boards, 7% free movie clips, and 6% VDO sales. The revenue from Internet pornography worldwide was US$2.5 billion a year, with teenagers between 12-17 years old the largest group of visitors.

The research project, titled Underground Business on the Internet, was published by Chulalongkorn University's Political Economy Centre.

``It's impossible to block the sites and web filtering or blocking does not work anymore because these web sites can easily change their domain names,'' said Sama Komolsing, one of the researchers, who added that even popular sites could have links to pornography.

The research pointed out that there are some 72 million Internet users each year who access porn sites. American youths access such web sites as early as 11-years old, while Thais start at 13 on average. Many surf these sites while doing their homework.

Intellectual property rights enforcement and the crackdown on illegal CDs has also boosted the number of sex-related CDs sold via the Internet, and this trend is growing, according to the research team.

Such businesses can earn some 8,000 baht from banner ads, 5,850 baht for VCDs, 350-12,000 baht from the sale of sexual tools and 3,600-48,000 baht in membership fees.

The researchers noted that in many countries, governments had introduced industry self-regulation and that Thailand could ``learn from their practices,'' the team said.

Apart from educating young people and their parents and seeking greater responsibility from the business sector, the researchers proposed that web sites should be rated in one of three categories: forbidden, restricted to adults and unlimited access.

Sethaporn Cussipituck, a member of the committee drafting cyber laws, suggested that some businesses could be made legal. ``Why don't we let them run openly and legally by doing trading registration?'' he asked.

The web site owners, meanwhile, would practise self-regulation. However certain areas, such as child pornography or images from hidden cameras, should be forbidden, Sethaporn noted.

He suggested that the terms ``pornography'' and ``erotic art'' should be defined, a task that could be undertaken by the committee drafting the Computer Crime Bill.

The research team claimed that worldwide revenue from the porn industry was around US$57 billion, which includes adult videos, magazines, escorts and sex clubs. The Internet share is around $2.5 billion, or 4% overall.

There are an estimated 4.2 million porn web sites in the market, accounting for 12% of all web sites in the world.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/100903_Da...03_data61.html


Top 10 D/Ls - Singles

BigChampagne


RIAA Showdown Set, FCC Rules Blasted
Jay Lyman

The RIAA has indicated its intention to file more lawsuits, saying in a statement that there ultimately could be "thousands of civil lawsuits against major offenders who have been illegally distributing substantial amounts of copyrighted music on peer-to- peer networks."

Verizon's U.S. District Court appeal over the subpoena powers granted to the Recording Industry Association of America , to be considered Tuesday, calls into question the music industry group's tactics and highlights privacy concerns.

The RIAA has pushed forward with its strategy of pursuing individual Internet subscribers who allegedly trade copyrighted music over peer-to-peer (P2P) networks such as Kazaa and Grokster, filing more than 261 lawsuits against computer users last week.

Verizon, one of two Internet service providers (ISPs) to resist the RIAA subpoenas legally, failed to convince District Court Judge John Bates to rule the subpoenas unconstitutional. Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Wendy Seltzer told TechNewsWorld that Verizon faces an uphill battle, given that the court already denied the company's motion to stop the subpoenas.

"But the recent spate of lawsuits and the increased volume of the lawsuits helps to illuminate the set of problems with this sweeping subpoena campaign," Seltzer said.

The EFF has filed a supporting brief on behalf of about 45 consumer privacy, civil liberty and ISP associations, according to Seltzer, who said the court could rule instantly or wait weeks on Verizon's appeal.

Seltzer said that, through its more than 1,600 subpoenas and 261 lawsuits, many of which involve children, parents and the elderly, the RIAA has shown it cannot effectively pick good cases.

She said the RIAA's claim that last week's lawsuits were only a "first wave" indicates that more legal action will follow, and added that individual privacy is compromised by the RIAA subpoenas. "If the recording industry is picking and choosing, even someone not sued has had important privacy interests violated," Seltzer said.

Indeed, the RIAA has indicated its intention to file more lawsuits, saying in a statement that there ultimately could be "thousands of civil lawsuits against major offenders who have been illegally distributing substantial amounts of copyrighted music on peer-to-peer networks."

The group stressed its actions have come after a multiyear effort to educate the public about the illegality of unauthorized downloading. It also noted that major music companies have made catalogs of music available to several high- quality, low-cost and legitimate online music services.

An RIAA spokesperson told TechNewsWorld that the group expects the court to uphold its earlier decision against Verizon, which has been used by the RIAA in resisting other subpoenas.

Seltzer, who referred to other resistance to the RIAA subpoenas, including a suit by Pacific Bell Internet parent SBC and an individual woman in New York, said the RIAA's recent lawsuits might factor in to the courtroom decision on Tuesday.

"It doesn't change what's in the briefs, but it may change the tone of oral arguments and the type of questions the judges raise," she said.

"It may raise their concern that the recording industry is not behaving in a careful and limited fashion, but is really using this as a sweeping scare campaign against the American public."

SBC Takes Case to Court

In a separate appeal, SBC has asked a federal court to halt new Federal Communications Commission unbundling rules that the company claims would do "irreparable harm" to its business.

The new rules, from the FCC's Triennial Review order, give competitors blanket access to SBC's network at below-cost rates, the company contends, pointing to two prior defeats of similar rules by the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal appeals court.

The motion for a stay in the appeals case came from SBC, which was joined by Verizon, BellSouth, Qwest and the U.S. Telecom Association.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to uphold loosened- ownership restrictions from the FCC, which last spring voted to allow more media ownership by major companies.
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31585.html


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

Labels' actions overshadow their message, observers say

Trade Group Viewed As Bully For Going After Consumers
Sam Diaz

The music industry could have been seen as a victim -- a generations-old industry being robbed blind by thieves depriving hard-working artists of their
livelihoods.

But the Recording Industry Association of America, representing the largest record labels in the world, sued Brianna LaHara, a 12-year-old girl who lives with her single mother and younger brother in public housing in New York City.

And suddenly, the trade association -- in its effort to squelch illegal music sharing over peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa and Grokster -- looked more like a schoolyard bully.

Brianna and her mother, Sylvia Torres, were targeted in one of 261 lawsuits music labels filed a week ago. Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive, said the lawsuit against Brianna illustrates the importance of parents being aware of what their children are doing on their computers.

``We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences,'' he said in a statement.

There's no question the suits were a last resort. They came after the RIAA lost a court battle to shut down file-sharing networks. The industry had tried sending instant messages to users of the networks, letting them know they knew who they were. Later, an ad campaign, using popular celebrities fell upon deaf ears in the MTV generation.

Meanwhile, CD sales continued to fall.

But some observers question if the industry put enough thought into the repercussions of its actions.

The suits were probably a necessary evil but the situation could have been handled better, said Robin Lutchansky, senior vice president of Neale-May & Partners Public Relations firm in Palo Alto.

``I don't think they really thought about this from a PR perspective,'' she said. ``They're trying to protect the rights of the musicians but the way they're going about it may not be best. I think it would have been helpful to take a softer tack.''

Through the Kazaa network, Brianna downloaded at least 1,000 songs -- including television show theme songs and the nursery rhyme ``If You're Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands'' -- to her family's computer.

As the Brianna case attracted publicity, public sympathy shifted to a family that would struggle to come up with $2,000 to settle the case, Lutchansky said.

P2P United, a newly formed peer-to-peer industry trade association consisting of six of the largest file-sharing sites, leaped at the chance to pay Brianna's fine as a symbol of its outrage over the lawsuits.

``We don't condone copyright infringement, but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone,'' said Adam Eisgrau, the group's executive director.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...ss/6775671.htm


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

RIAA's Pyrrhic Victory
Barry Willis

It's just about impossible to imagine a worse public relations campaign than the one being waged by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the nation's courtrooms.

One of the first victories scored against 261 alleged music pirates was a quick settlement by 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, an honor student who lives with her 9-year-old brother and single mother in a New York housing project. Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, testified that she had assumed that her daughter's paid subscription to the KaZaA service made her downloading perfectly legal.

On September 9, that assumption cost the nursing supervisor $2000 in fines, and cost Brianna a public apology for having downloaded songs like "If You're Happy and You Know It" and the theme to the television show Family Matters. A statement issued by the RIAA quoted Brianna as saying, "I am sorry for what I have done . . . I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love." Prior to the settlement, she told reporters from the New York Daily News that her stomach was "all in knots."

A Washington, DC–based Internet music service trade association known as "P2P United" reportedly volunteered to pay the fines, relieving Ms. Torres of what would have been an immense financial burden and somewhat mitigating a sour public reaction to the RIAA's draconian legal tactics. An RIAA spokesman told the Los Angeles Times that the payment by P2P United was appropriate considering that "it was their members who induced her infringement in the first place." Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, stated, "Brianna and her mother shouldn't have to pay the price of the recording industry's consistent unwillingness to embrace new technology."

Despite the potential for damaging its already tarnished image, the RIAA went forth with the Brianna case to make its point for zero tolerance of downloading. Damage control will be nearly impossible. Litigation against children isn't popular even among the most ardent copyright supporters. "If you go after too many 12-year-old girls, you can alienate a lot of people," analyst Mike McGuire told the LA Times. Market researcher Phil Leigh commented that the RIAA settled quickly "to get her out of the headlines . . . . They don't want to be seen picking on children. She's not even a teenager."

The music industry is also going after folks at the other end of the age spectrum. On September 10, BBC News reported that Durwood Pickle, a 71-year-old Texas grandfather, was also caught in the RIAA's crosshairs—the result, he claims, of visits by his teenage grandchildren, who used his computer while they were at his home. Mr. Pickle told reporters he didn't understand why he was being targeted for something he hadn't done.

Defendants like Brianna LaHara and Durwood Pickle are exactly the sort of people that Senator Norman Coleman (R-MN) had hoped to protect with his inquiries into the RIAA's antipiracy campaign. "Someone has to take responsibility," responded RIAA president and general counsel Cary Sherman to accusations of heavy-handedness in the effort to contain the downloading epidemic. The RIAA's new CEO, Mitch Bainwol, reiterated that sentiment, saying his organization's goal was "to send a strong message that illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences."

Two unlikely consequences of the lawsuit blitz are resurgence in retail music sales and a decline in the popularity of downloading. A September 11 news analysis by the BBC claims that the RIAA's efforts to scare people away from peer-to-peer file sharing simply aren't working. Eric Garland, a spokesman for BigChampagne, a research firm that monitors peer-to-peer network activity, told the BBC that use of the Fast Track network, used by both Grokster and KaZaA, had increased following the avalanche of subpoenas launched by the RIAA in August. "There's no mass exodus, that's safe to say. Ironically, usage this week and this month is up," Garland stated.

Music fans aren't daunted by the RIAA, and some are beginning to fight back. Shortly after the Brianna LaHara case was settled, a Northern California man initiated his own countersuit against the music industry. On September 10, Eric Parke filed suit in Marin County Superior Court in San Rafael. In his suit, Parke seeks an injunction against the RIAA's "Clean Slate" amnesty program, and accuses the trade group of deceptive business practices in persuading consumers that recanting their file-sharing ways will protect them from future lawsuits. Clean Slate is a "misleading attempt to obtain admissions of copyright violations by individuals without giving individuals any meaningful benefit in return or any binding amnesty from suit," Parke told the San Francisco Chronicle. The 37-year-old mortgage broker told reporter Benny Evangelista that he had never downloaded, but initiated his suit out of conviction that "somebody had to stand up to the RIAA."
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1733


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

“Recently he was discussing his research with an executive at a media organization that has been very aggressive about trying to discourage file-sharing. When Mr. Bernoff asked the executive how he had gotten the report, which Forrester sells for $895, the man hesitated.

‘They got a copy from one of the studios,’ Mr. Bernoff said.

‘Here is an organization that's saying that stealing hurts the little people, and they took our intellectual property and they shuttled it around like a text file.’ “
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/fashion/14COPY.html

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

Crackdown May Send Music Traders Into Software Underground
Saul Hansell

Some people may well be intimidated by the 261 lawsuits that the music industry has filed against Internet users it says are illegally sharing songs.

But hundreds of software developers are racing to create new systems, or modify existing ones, to let people continue to swap music — hidden from the prying eyes of the Recording Industry Association of America, or from any other investigators.

"With the R.I.A.A. trying to scare users around the world, the developer community is pumping up to create networks which are safer and more anonymous," said Pablo Soto, a developer in Madrid who designed the software for two file-sharing systems, Blubster and Piolet.

Some experts wonder if the industry's efforts will create more trouble for it than ever. "The R.I.A.A. is breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria," said Clay Shirky, a software developer who teaches new media at New York University.

Blubster, which has an estimated quarter-million users, already uses technology to make eavesdropping more difficult, Mr. Soto said. Its next version will encrypt files so they can be decoded only by their intended user.

Other systems are sending files on more circuitous Internet routes instead of, or in addition to, using encryption. And some developers hope to replace the current systems, which connect millions of users, with private file-sharing networks — speakeasies that may be too small for the industry to find.

The developers of the new systems say there is nothing illegal about writing software that helps people keep secrets. United States courts have held that file-sharing software may not be banned if it has both legitimate and illegal uses.

The Recording Industry Association of America has said that it is unconcerned about the increasing anonymity of file sharing. The stated purpose of its lawsuits is not to catch every hard core music pirate, but to show millions of casual file sharers that what they are doing is illegal.

In addition, none of the new methods offer perfect anonymity, experts say. Yet many of the new systems are likely to make the recording industry work harder to find file traders.

Private file sharing stems from academic work on encryption and data security over the last decade. One system is Freenet, introduced in 1999 by Ian Clarke. It allows people to publish files to be used by others, with technology meant to keep the source anonymous.

"Everyone said the Internet was an anarchistic thing through which anyone could say anything," Mr. Clarke said. "But in reality it is incredibly easy to monitor what is going on on the Internet. I was interested in creating a system that would preserve anonymity."

Freenet is similar to other file-sharing services in that users make part of their hard drives available to hold content to be downloaded by other users. But all the files are encrypted so no one knows what files are on a given machine. Requests to download a file are also encrypted.

Freenet has been a way to disseminate banned political tracts and has been used by people who want to share illegal content like child pornography. Mr. Clarke says he is willing to help people send files illegally if he can also prevent political censorship. "I am an absolutist on free speech," he said.

Freenet, however, is slow and hard to use, and it requires knowing a specific file name. As a result, it has not been a viable alternative to music-sharing services like KaZaA. Developers in Germany are creating a program called Frost meant to make Freenet easier to use.

Another file-sharing model is for business users who want to collaborate while protecting secrets from competitors. "The needs of businesses and the needs of file traders are the same," Mr. Shirky said. "I want a secure way to send you a three megabyte PowerPoint file with no way for anyone else to see it. That is not different from an MP3 file."

Software by companies like Groove Networks creates private file networks for specified users. Groove, which can cost $69 or more per user, is not widely employed by music sharers. But a program called Waste is attracting the interest of music traders who want to create "darknets," as private file-sharing communities are known.

Waste was written by Justin Frankel, who works for the Nullsoft unit of America Online. It was posted on Nullsoft's site one day last May and removed the next , although not fast enough to keep copies from circulating on the Web. (AOL's corporate cousin, Warner Music, is a backer of the R.I.A.A.'s campaign against file sharing.) Frankel and AOL did not return calls seeking comment.

Investigators for the music industry acknowledge that some of these technologies may make their jobs more difficult, but they suggest that users may not want to take advantage of them.

"The thing about darknets is that the users show more culpability than people who simply use peer-to-peer," said Randy Saaf, referring to peer-to-peer sharing systems like KaZaA. Mr. Saaf is chief executive of MediaDefender Inc., a music technology company that does work for the record industry. "When people are found to be using them, they will face stiffer penalties."

Meanwhile, older file-sharing services do not want to lose users to darknets or other newcomers. Many of them are trying to add features they say will protect privacy. Streamcast networks, the creator of Morpheus, introduced a feature this summer that lets users relay files by way of intermediary computers known as proxy servers — a technique that can help obscure the path between the source of the file and the person who downloads it.

Proxy servers and similar methods can be an effective way to hide, said Stuart Schechter, a Harvard security researcher. But, he said, there is nothing to stop the recording industry from creating proxy servers as so-called honey pots to serve as decoys and gather information on users. "The problem with any of these systems is how do you decide who to trust," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/te...gy/15DARK.html


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

CEO of iMesh, Leading Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Firm, to Meet Lawmakers in D.C.
Press Release

Arrives From Israel Today

Elan Oren, CEO of iMesh, a top-three peer-to-peer file-sharing firm, arrives in the U.S. today from corporate headquarters in Israel to demonstrate iMesh for lawmakers and to meet U.S. media. Mr. Oren will meet with lawmakers and their staffs Wednesday, September 17 on Capitol Hill. He is available for interviews in both New York and Washington, DC until his departure on September 19.

Mr. Oren has in the past called for talks among record labels, lawmakers, industry associations, artists and the digital community to reach consensus on a mutually acceptable commercial distribution of entertainment on the web. iMesh recently expanded its offerings to include original entertainment content available for purchase, including games, software, independent films and music, ringtones and other content for mobile devices, according to Mr. Oren. Thousands of downloads are available, and sales are already strong and growing, he notes.

iMesh makes original content available under legal arrangements reached with its content partners, Mr. Oren says. In a boon for customers, most content on iMesh is available on a try-it-and-buy-it basis. For example, a game can be downloaded for free and played for a set period of time or to a predetermined level. The user then has the option to purchase the game for a reasonable fee, as low as $20.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...lease_id=57510
For more information about iMesh or to speak with Mr. Oren, please contact (212) 999-5585.

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

SBC Won't Name Names in File-Sharing Cases
Seth Schiesel

As the recording industry pursues its lawsuits against those it says are digital music pirates, SBC Communications has emerged as the only major Internet service provider that has so far refused to identify computer users whom the industry suspects of copyright infringement.

Since early July, major high-speed Internet providers — including BellSouth, Comcast, EarthLink, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — have complied with more than 1,000 subpoenas from the record industry's lobbying arm, the Recording Industry Association of America, to turn over the names of their customers who are otherwise known only by the murky screen names and numeric Internet Protocol addresses used in cyberspace.

SBC, the No. 2 regional phone company and a major local telecommunications service provider in the Midwest and West, has received about 300 such subpoenas and has refused to answer any of them. It has stuck to that position even though Verizon, the biggest local phone company — which has most of its customers along the East Coast — lost a major lawsuit this year against the recording industry.

The contrast between SBC's stance and that of its peers illustrates how Internet providers have been caught in the middle of the music industry's pursuit of individual music swappers. Their range of responses underscores the complexities of the legal landscape in this new area of law, the mounting tensions between copyright enforcement and privacy, and the limits of technology in finding cyberspace pirates.

In the Verizon case, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 required the company to reveal the identities of its customers even though the industry's subpoenas had not been individually reviewed by a judge. Oral arguments in Verizon's appeal are to be heard today by a federal court in Washington.

Most big Internet providers say that the original decision in the Verizon case essentially validated the subpoenas that the recording industry sent to other companies. SBC, however, has sued the recording industry group in California.

"We are going to challenge every single one of these that they file until we are told that our position is wrong as a matter of law," James D. Ellis, general counsel for SBC, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

Ever since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 remade the communications industry, SBC has been considered by far the most legally aggressive of the nation's major communications companies. Mr. Ellis is scheduled to testify tomorrow about the copyright subpoenas before the Senate Commerce Committee. With about three million high-speed data customers, SBC is the nation's No. 1 provider of broadband Internet access using digital subscriber line technology.

"Clearly, there are serious legal issues here, but there are also these public policy privacy issues," Mr. Ellis said. "We have unlisted numbers in this industry, and we've got a long heritage in which we have always taken a harsh and hard rule on protecting the privacy of our customers' information."

Recording industry officials see SBC's stance not as a matter of principle over privacy but as a matter of dollars from downloading. They assert that SBC is not concerned about copyright protection because the company uses the lure of music piracy to attract high-speed Internet customers.

A record industry official pointed to a past print advertisement from SBC's Pacific Bell unit that read, in part: "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

"Sure beats going to the record store," the advertisement concluded.

A spokesman for the record industry group said the ad had appeared in The Los Angeles Times as recently as January 2002.

Matthew J. Oppenheim, the trade group's senior vice president for business and legal affairs, said the ad was important because it suggested a strong motive for SBC's position. "SBC believes that free music drives its business," he said. "That's the only explanation for why they would relitigate issues that have been resolved."

An SBC spokesman, Selim Bingol, said the advertisement was irrelevant. "It's ludicrous to suggest that an ad that has not appeared for many months has anything to do with today's debate," he said. "We are opposing these subpoenas because under the R.I.A.A.'s interpretation, they are a threat to consumer privacy and safety."

The wave of subpoenas that led to last week's lawsuits began about 10 weeks after the judge in the Verizon case issued his final ruling in April. On July 7, the Monday after the Independence Day weekend, lawyers at Internet providers returned to their offices to find a blizzard of legal requests from the recording association. Comcast, the nation's leading provider of high-speed Internet access to homes, which it supplies through its cable system, received more than 100 subpoenas in the first two days after the holiday.

"It really was a fire drill," said Gerard J. Lewis, Comcast's chief privacy officer. At Comcast and other companies, the first subpoenas were dated July 3, the last day before the holiday weekend, and they required the companies to provide the information within seven days. That meant that Internet providers that thought the subpoenas were legal had only two or three days to comply.

Now, according to lawyers at several major Internet companies, the recording industry has agreed to a looser schedule: 10 business days from when the Internet provider receives the subpoena.

The digital copyright law does not require anyone to notify consumers that their personal information has been subpoenaed. It appears, however, that most major Internet providers — including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — made an effort to send letters to many customers who were the subjects of subpoenas, notifying them that unless the customer signaled legal action, the information would be provided to the recording industry.

According to executives at several major Internet providers, only the barest minimum of customers took any steps to block the disclosure of their information. Of the 261 individuals sued by the industry so far, however, a number have said they never received any notice from their Internet provider.

Tracking down the numeric Internet protocol, or I.P., address employed by any given user of a file-sharing network is relatively easy. In essence, the industry focused on users who appeared to be making large numbers of music files available to others on file-swapping networks like KaZaA and Morpheus. Industry investigators noted the I.P. address of the user and the exact time at which the user was making files available.

The recording investigators could then determine which Internet provider assigned the specific I.P. address. The subpoenas included both the I.P. address and the time so that the Internet provider could see which of its customers was using that address at that particular moment. With many consumer Internet services, the I.P. address for a user can change every time the computer is turned off and turned back on, so the exact time is a critical tool for matching I.P. addresses and users.

The length of time that Internet providers maintain logs of users, addresses and times varies. Comcast and Time Warner Cable, for instance, generally keep those logs for only 30 days. That means that if those companies receive a copyright subpoena with an I.P. address and time more than a month old, they may be unable to answer the request.

Verizon, by contrast, generally keeps its I.P. logs indefinitely.

"Verizon keeps that sort of information for traffic management and to help law enforcement," said Sarah Deutsch, a Verizon vice president and associate general counsel.

Mr. Oppenheim from the recording industry association said he was generally pleased with the level of cooperation his organization has received. Nonetheless, executives at several Internet providers that are cooperating with the association expressed privately some discomfort with the process.

"We fully understand that copyright protection is a legitimate goal," said one executive at a major Internet provider. "That being said, it doesn't seem like the consumers' privacy interest is really being balanced out here in this process."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/bu...rtne r=GOOGLE


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

Yale Should Consider New File-Sharing Options

Since last spring, when the Recording Industry Association of America announced its intention to scare illegal file-sharers out of the habit by filing waves of lawsuits over the course of this school year, we have wondered when -- not if -- someone from Yale would be caught, and what the University would do about it. We were happy to see that Yale students survived the latest batch of 261 subpoenas served last week. But as recording industry executives would have us believe, it is only a matter of time.

Our concern ultimately is not with the RIAA's tactics, ill-conceived and alienating of college students though they may be, but with Yale's response to a problem that it can no longer avoid. It used to be the University and its general counsel did just enough to keep Metallica at bay and itself out of the courtroom, which meant, in essence, booting students off of Napster five years ago. Otherwise, the University has been laissez-faire in the extreme, and rightly so.

But now, what seemed too good to be true finally is.

Contrary to recording industry and perhaps University officials' sentiment, we are not a generation that genuinely believes music is free. But we do have college-sized wallets, and we do know how to work our computers. So until someone provides a viable alternative -- not a threat or a lawsuit or a letter to our parents -- students will continue to download music, legally or otherwise.

Rather than seeing how long they can do virtually nothing, University administrators now have the opportunity to consider ways of legally providing students with access to music online. We hope Yale will continue its policy of protecting Internet users' privacy while beginning to evaluate alternatives for the not-too-distant post-litigation era, when peer-to-peer file-sharing is no longer limitless and digital music is no longer free.

This summer, an RIAA committee on higher education suggested a variety of steps universities could take to prevent students from pirating movies and music. As many other schools did in August, Yale added a presentation on illegal downloading to the computer portion of freshman orientation. We strongly doubt that any moralizing, intellectualizing or otherwise instructing students on the technical and legal ramifications of illegal file-sharing will do much to dissuade the practice. At this point, music downloading is so rampant we believe it is beyond the University's control.

Fortunately, file-sharing does not have to be illegal. Among the RIAA committee's other suggestions were subscription services that would allow students with university IP addresses to have access to any music they want without having the ability to download it onto their computers.

In the same way student tuition and board fees go to pay for cable television and access to Lexis Nexis, the cost of Yale might someday include subscription to such a site. Far better than the looming penalties, mandatory tutorials or seminars about illegal file-sharing many universities are implementing this year, this option seems at least to have the possibility of curbing illicit file-sharing on campus.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article....asp?AID=23092


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

Recording Industry's Missteps
Michael Booth

The best-selling "Chicago" movie soundtrack is available on CD starting at $13.86.

The actual movie, with the soundtrack songs included, of course, plus additional goodies ranging from deleted musical numbers to the director's interview and a "making-of" feature, can be had for precisely $2.12 more.

Therein lies the problem for a critically wounded music recording industry: The "Chicago" CD looks like a rip- off, and the DVD looks like a steal.

Nearly everything the record companies have done wrong in the age of downloading has been done right by the movie studios.

America's love for movies is stronger than ever, while the nation listens to music with smoldering resentment.

While movie companies escort happy customers to newly-installed recliner stadium seats, the music companies escort their biggest fans straight to the courthouse. There is only so much time for entertainment in a busy day, and people will spend their leisure where they meet the path of least resistance.

For every slight by the music world, there's a smarter parallel move by the cinema promoters:

Not until 20 years after the introduction of the CD in the United States did a record label announce across-the- board price cuts that acknowledged consumer anger at paying $19 for one decent Justin Timberlake song. Universal will now drop prices on many CDs to below $10, a breaking point many buyers seem to accept.

In contrast, the movie studios saw the threat from pay-per-view cable and satellite in 1997, when DVDs first arrived here, and slashed prices immediately. DVDs started between $19 and $24; today hundreds of great titles are available in the $10 range. With "Pirates of the Caribbean" still taking in great business in theaters, a two-disc DVD version will arrive before Christmas for $18.

People listen to the average CD many more times than they watch a DVD. Yet CDs are languishing in stores and DVDs are flying off the shelves. How to see this other than sheer music industry incompetence?

Music companies stood by while one of their primary conduits to the public, radio stations, consolidated and grew numbingly homogenized. The variety of music stations offered to the public shrank drastically. Many listeners in their 30s and 40s gave up on trying new material.

In the 1990s, the movie industry increased its product outlets across a wide range of styles. Multiplexes overbuilt to the point of bankruptcy, but the result for the consumer was convenient playing times and a near disappearance of daunting ticket lines.

Art houses expanded screens in many cities, providing venues for truly obscure intellectual adventures as well as extended runs for word-of-mouth hits not big enough for the 'plexes. Thus you can still see megahit "Bruce Almighty" for a buck or the acquired taste of "Winged Migration" three months after it opened.

Movies operate largely from the same why-fix-if-it-ain't-broke box office.

The concert business has Ticketmaster. Enough said.

Threatened over the past decade by various forms of piracy, the movie industry chose to go after profiteering international crime rings while letting the local cable companies take on illicit home descramblers with low- key enforcement action.

The record labels, not satisfied with infuriating a younger generation with high prices and legal threats, is now enraging clueless middle-aged parents forced to pay $3,000 to $15,000 settlements over individual downloading lawsuits. Record companies pursued an act of Congress for the right to invade the privacy of Internet companies and customers in search of burners' personal information. For good measure, the labels forced a New York 12-year-old to pay a $2,000 fine, taking customer relations to a new level.

Through a combination of intelligent design, lucky accident and the good sense to follow the consumer's lead, movie companies settled on the VHS video format for 25 years before gently introducing a DVD alternative. It then let the DVD win out by making it more attractive rather than cynically undercutting VHS. The minor distractions of laser disc and Beta video, which could have irritated consumers if allowed to fester, were dumped.

But the music industry instead allowed format changes to drive its business model.

The CD format saved the business for 20 years because consumers had little choice but to replace vinyl or tape copies with CDs to keep their libraries relevant. CD makers knew they were borrowing from the future the day the last Bob Seger 8-track gave way to a new CD, but did nothing to expand their market on radio or among new buyers.

Even the blank CD formats are mired in confusing infighting over CD-R and CD-RW. Many store-bought CDs can't play in computers or other older components. Mini-disc, anyone?

Record label missteps are legion. But solutions are at hand: Let go of whole-disc sales and create a dollar-per- song online service as good as Apple iTunes. Make it universally available, with all the independents signed up.

Bring Ticketmaster to heel and make live music accessible and fun again. Allow file sharing for a $50 to $100 annual license. Woo 40-year-old buyers as if they were 16.

Most of all, spend less on lawyers and more on creative thinkers. You can't subpoena success.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...26541,00.html#


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

Blame Canada
Jay Currie

A desperate American recording industry is waging a fierce fight against digital copyright infringement seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for practical purposes, it lost the digital music sharing fight over five years ago. In Canada.

"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."
-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3 players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.

While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent. Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada.

A year before Shawn Fanning invented Napster, these amendments to Canada's Copyright Act were passed with earnest lobbying from the music business. The amendments were really about home taping. The rather cumbersome process of ripping a CD and then burning a copy was included as afterthought to deal with this acme of the digital revolution. The drafters and the music industry lobbyists never imagined full-on P2P access.

As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada.

This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.

In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.

Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.

The premise of the RIAA's litigation is to go after the "supernodes," the people who have thousands, even tens of thousands of songs on their drives and whose big bandwidth allows massive sharing. The music biz has had some success bringing infringement claims under the DMCA. Critically, that success and the success of the current campaign hinges on it being a violation of the law to "share" music. At this point, in the United States, that is a legally contested question and that contest may take several years to fully play out in the Courts.

RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US."

Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand.

The Canada Hole in the RIAA's strategic thinking is not likely to close. While Canadians are not very keen about seeing the copyright levy extended to other media or increased, there is not much political traction in the issue. There is no political interest at all in revisiting the Copyright Act. Any lobbying attempt by the RIAA to change the copyright rules in Canada would be met with a howl of anger from nationalist Canadians who are not willing to further reduce Canada's sovereignty. (These folks are still trying to get over NAFTA.)

Nor are there any plausible technical fixes short of banning any connections from American internet users to servers located in Canada.

As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old.

If American consumers objected -- well, the music biz could always follow Southpark's lead and burst into a chorus of "Blame Canada". Hey, we can take it….We'll even lend you Anne Murray.
http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html


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

Hollywood Faces Online Piracy, but It Looks Like an Inside Job
John Schwartz

When "Hulk" hit the small screen early, Hollywood hit the roof. Two weeks before this summer's film adaptation of the angry green giant opened in theaters in June, copies started showing up on file-sharing networks around the world. The film cost Universal $150 million to make and distribute, but anyone with a fast Internet connection, a big hard drive and plenty of time could see it free.

Hollywood is desperately worried that it will soon face the widespread illegal copying that has bedeviled the music industry — and that prompted record companies to file lawsuits last week against 261 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music online. Piracy of works in digital format, like DVD's or high-definition television is, in theory, so simple that whole movies could be zapped around the globe with a click of a mouse — a prospect that Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has told lawmakers "gives movie producers multiple Maalox moments."

But the early debut of "Hulk" was not the work of the armies of KaZaA-loving college students or cinephile hackers. The copy that made its way to the Internet was an almost-complete working version of the film that had been circulated to an advertising agency as part of the run-up to theatrical release. And "Hulk" is not alone.

According to a new study published by AT&T Labs, the prime source of unauthorized copies of new movies on file-sharing networks appears to be movie industry insiders, not consumers. The study is "the first publicly available assessment of the source of leaks of popular movies," according to its authors.

Nearly 80 percent of some 300 copies of popular movies found by the researchers on online file sharing networks "appeared to have been leaked by industry insiders," and nearly all showed up online before their official consumer DVD release date, suggesting that consumer DVD copying represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks.

"Our conclusion is that the distributors really need to take a hard look at their own internal processes and look at how they can stop the insider leaks of their movies" before taking measures that might hamstring consumers' technologies and rights, said Lorrie Cranor, a researcher at AT&T Labs and lead author of the study.

The production and distribution process provide a better choke point, Ms. Cranor said, than antipiracy measures that could hamstring consumer electronics devices and computer networks. "If you're not going to worry about the insiders, it's kind of pointless to worry about the outsiders," she said.

The insiders might be workers in production or promotion, or even Academy Awards screeners, to whom the studios send thousands of advance copies of DVD's each year. "The movie industry ought to treat everybody within its influence equally, from studio executives and investors, down through movie editors, truck drivers and out to the critics," concluded Ms. Cranor and her coauthors, AT&T Labs researchers Patrick McDaniel, Simon Byers and Dave Kormann, and Eric Cronin of the University of Pennsylvania.

Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of worldwide piracy issues for the motion picture association, said he had not yet seen the report, but added that its conclusions seemed off.

"The industry experience is the awards screeners are a source for piracy," he said, but primarily during the Oscar-judging season. "The industry experience also is, on a rare occasion, a copy gets out of a postproduction house and enters the pirate marketplace. And the industry experience is that a majority of movies enter the pirate marketplace as a result of illegal camcording" in theaters. Digital piracy, he said, is "a serious problem for us now."

Still, large-scale swapping of high quality, full-length films and HDTV programs is out of the reach of all but the most wired consumer because the files are gargantuan, said Raffi Krikorian, a graduate student in the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has researched the difficulty of digital copying.

However, Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, cautions that when the technology does grow robust enough for movie trading, consumers will almost certainly do it. In a recent survey of 12- to 20-year-olds published by the company, 20 percent said that they had downloaded a feature film. "I'd have to say when one out of five young people has downloaded a full length movie from a file sharing site, you do have a problem here," Mr. Bernoff said.

But the downloads were probably of low quality, he said, and the economic effect is "basically nil — there's no evidence whatsoever that people are not going to the theater or not buying DVD's or not renting videotapes because of this activity." Solid figures are hard to come by, but estimates in recent studies put the daily movie downloads between 350,000 and 400,000.

Like many experts in the field, Mr. Krikorian said that consumers were still several years away from being able to zip large digital video files to each other. Hollywood, he said, "shouldn't worry about Internet piracy now, because that's not feasible," he said. Instead, he suggested that the industry learn from the mistakes of the music industry and focus on building business models that will allow the companies to give customers what they want, "so they don't have to look like the bad guys, suing 12-year-old kids."

Much of that planning is already going on, Mr. Bernoff of Forrester said. Studio leaders "are absolutely determined that they will not allow to happen to them what has happened to the music industry," he said. They see video-on-demand through online distribution — if made easy to use and priced right — as being far more attractive than the hassle-filled process of video file swapping, he said. Studios might have to be willing to release movies to the Internet earlier than they would like to compete with pirates, he said, but a good industry strategy will "shut down the illegal distribution" by making it irrelevant.

While Hollywood is supporting new laws to toughen penalties to fight online piracy, it is also imposing better control over internal security. The case of the premature "Hulk" turned out to be a success story because federal investigators traced the online copy back through identifying numbers. The person who put the movie online, Kerry Gonzalez, had received an early copy from a friend at an advertising agency. He pleaded guilty to copyright infringement in June.

Ms. Cranor and her colleagues acknowledge that the industry has taken some steps, but concluded that substantially more could be done.

To Mr. Bernoff, those moves are crucial to any industry strategy for fighting digital piracy. "They have to mind their own store," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/te...b891c8c65eeec6


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

An Appealing Case: RIAA, Verizon Head Back to Court
Roy Mark

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Verizon return to court Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hears Verizon's appeal of a January ruling requiring the telecom giant to comply with a subpoena request by the RIAA to reveal the identities of customers who allegedly infringed copyrights using peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks.

The subpoena was issued through a provision of the 1998 DMCA that allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas that have not been reviewed by a judge and requires no notice to, or opportunity to be heard by, the alleged infringer.

Unlike a usual subpoena, which requires some underlying claim of a crime, under the DMCA a subpoena can be issued by a court clerk who only checks to make sure the subpoena form is properly filled out.

Verizon originally argued that the DMCA subpoena only applied in cases where an Internet service provider (ISP) stored the copyrighted material on its servers. Because people using P2P networks store the material on their own hard drives, Verizon said it was exempt from the DMCA subpoena.

Since then, Verizon has expanded its case to the actual constitutionality of the DMCA subpoena, privacy rights violations, the potential dangers of the subpoena being misused by non-copyright holders and even the future growth on the Internet.

The RIAA contends the DMCA subpoena is perfectly legal and was agreed to by Internet service proviers (ISPs) during the 1998 negotiations over the DMCA. One of the central issues then was the liability of ISPs for the possible copyright infringements of their customers.

The DMCA gives ISPs liability protections in exchange for assisting copyright owners in identifying and dealing with infringers who misuse the service providers' systems, including complying with an expedited subpoena process for copyright owners who want to pursue legal action against infringers. Neither side ever anticipated the development and explosive growth of peer-to-peer networks.

In January, a U.S. District Court ruled in the RIAA's favor and ordered Verizon to turn over the names. Verizon then sought a stay in order to protect the names while the company appeals the decision. In April, U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected Verizon's stay request but granted a temporary stay until the Court of Appeals could decide the matter, which ruled in June that Verizon had to turn over the names.

Since then, the RIAA issued more 1,500 subpoenas. Those subpoenas led to 261 civil lawsuits being filed by the RIAA last week against alleged copyright infringers.

Both sides agree the case is probably heading to the Supreme Court.
siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3077801

[JackSpratts]

Court Weighs Subpoenas for Music Downloads
Ted Bridis

A U.S. appeals court wrestled with questions Tuesday over whether the music industry can use special copyright subpoenas in its campaign to track and sue computer users who download songs over the Internet.

Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) lawyer Donald B. Verrilli Jr. on whether computer users downloading music were any different from people who maintain libraries in their homes.

Roberts questioned whether the fact that copyrighted files were publicly accessible on someone's computer necessarily means the Internet user is illegally distributing those files. File-sharing software typically stores downloaded music in a computer folder that is freely available for other Internet users to browse.

"Isn't is equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?" Roberts asked. "Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn't mean I'm liable for copyright infringement."

Roberts and the other two judges hearing the case also posed tough questions for Verizon Communications Inc., which is challenging the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites). U.S. District Judge John D. Bates earlier had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers.

"You make a lot of money off piracy," Roberts told Verizon lawyer Andrew McBride. People who download large collections of music traditionally favor high-speed Internet connections like those offered by Verizon's Internet subsidiary.

"That is a canard," McBride shot back. He said Verizon makes money when computer users purchase songs from online services affiliated with Verizon.

The 1998 law, passed years before downloading music over "peer to peer" Internet services became popular, permits music companies and others to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required.

Critics of the procedure contend judges ought to be more directly involved, given the potential privacy issues involved when a corporation is asked to reveal personal information about customers who may be accused of wrongdoing.

In an unprecedented crackdown on music piracy, the Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America issued at least 1,500 such subpoenas this summer. It has filed civil lawsuits against 261 people so far it accused of illegally distributing music online and promised thousands more lawsuits.

The three-judge panel must decide whether Bates correctly ruled against Verizon earlier this year.

Verizon had argued unsuccessfully that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

Many of the day's courtroom arguments focused on esoteric provisions of the complex 1998 law, such as whether a computer connected to a file-sharing service functions as an "online site" — a crucial legal distinction for the music industry to successfully issue subpoenas.

Senior Judge Stephen F. Williams told Verrilli that permitting subpoenas in these cases "makes a lot of sense from a policy standpoint," but questioned whether they were permitted under some interpretations of the law.

In his ruling, Bates had criticized Verizon's "strained reading" of the law. He wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

Sen. Sam Brownback , R-Kan., said he planned to introduce a bill Tuesday to protect Internet providers from such subpoenas. His proposal would block subpoenas except in pending civil lawsuits or in cases where pirated data files were stored on computers such as Web sites.

Still, a courtroom challenge may be Verizon's best hope.

Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said last week that it was too early to consider changing the 1998 law. He asked lawyers on all sides and consumers to report to his office about their experiences with these subpoenas over the next six months.

___

On the Net:

Contested ruling: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions.../02-ms-323.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...usic&printer=1


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

Study: Students Unfazed By Piracy
Stefanie Olsen

If attitudes on colleges nationwide are any indicator, then software piracy in Kazaa and other file-swapping communities could get out of control, according to a new study.

Nearly two-thirds of college students surveyed said they would download pirated software, according to a study released Tuesday by the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Only a third of those students who have already downloaded commercial software have paid for it.

Much of the blame rests on university educators who aren't discouraging illegal behavior, according to the study, called "Internet Piracy on Campus." More than 40 percent of educators say it's OK to share or swap software to cut costs.

"Students aren't being told, 'Downloading unlicensed or illegal files is a mistake,'" Robert Holleyman, CEO of BSA, said in a statement.

"With P2P use on the rise, student and educator attitudes toward illegal downloading and file swapping, if ignored, have the potential to become a gateway for increased software piracy on thousands of college campuses," he added.

The study was released at a time when Net music piracy is taking center stage in the media and U.S. courts. The Recording Industry Association of America recently filed 261 lawsuits against individuals who allegedly traded songs in peer-to-peer communities such as Kazaa, charging them with copyright infringement potentially worth millions of dollars.

Members of BSA--Adobe Systems, Apple Computer, Macromedia, Microsoft, Symantec and others--are calling attention to their own fight so that it doesn't get overlooked. Cash-strapped students could be more apt to download programs, such as Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office and Outlook, without paying for them in order to do their work. The BSA's fear is that if students' attitudes are left unchecked, they will turn into habits in the workplace.

Holleyman said that while peer-to-peer technology has improved, its misuse still raises concerns. "Education is ever more important to changing these behaviors," he said.

The study found that of the 69 percent of students who have downloaded music, only 8 percent have paid for it. Of the nearly one-quarter of respondents who say they have downloaded movies, only 4 percent paid for it. Despite the statistics, 93 percent of students endorse intellectual property rights and the concept of contributing to software development.

The study also found that educators aren't setting a good example or making university policies known. Only about a third of students said that professors actively discourage them from swapping software or installing software on multiple machines.

The survey is part of a wider initiative at BSA to study attitudes toward downloading, file sharing and copyright law within universities. The BSA is developing educational resources to help universities address the piracy problem on campus.

The research, conducted by Ipsos, was compiled through online interviews with 1,000 university and college students and through telephone interviews with 300 college and university faculty and administrators.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5077451.html


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

From the mouths of musicians…

Thoughts on File Sharing & Digital Delivery
Mark Bjornsgaard, lead singer, songwriter, London’s Ohm

A 14-year-old girl, pretending to do her homework, downloads the latest Avril Lavigne album on to the family PC and burns it onto a CD to play to her friends. A middle-aged management consultant hunts down his favourite Hootie & the Blowfish track on his laptop. A bored City receptionist listens dreamily to Justin Timberlake on her Mac between calls. Nearly four million people are sharing 800 million files on the internet.

Kazaa, the most popular peer-to-peer file-sharing software, is the new Napster. Installed from the web by 229,513,316 computer users worldwide since it was launched, making it the most downloaded resource ever, Kazaa provides access to every album ever published, from ABBA "Arrival" through Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" to "Afterburner" by ZZ Top. And it doesn't cost a penny.

The music revolution has begun. And if Napster stormed the major labels' Bastille three years ago, Kazaa now reigns terror over BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner. George Bernhard Shaw said "All great truths start as blasphemies." Well, here's one. Music copyrights no longer have any economic value.

"Peer-to-peer" file-sharing, or connecting two or more computers directly, without the need for a Napster- like central server in which to store the files, means it is almost impossible to hold anyone accountable for copyright infringement. The introduction of ADSL (last month, the number of broadband users exceeded two million, and it is expected to pass three million by the end of the year) has massively increased the scale, rate and quality of files shared. As CD sales continue to plummet worldwide, the Napster era is now considered something of a golden age for record sales. Who could actually be bothered to wait 45 minutes while a track downloaded on a dial-up connection? And yet, yesterday, having enjoyed a review of Dave Gahan's solo album, I downloaded it in 13 minutes, while writing this article.

This two-pronged assault has had a catastrophic effect on the share price of record labels. Sony's last annual report signed off: "The dollar value of its US music operation fell 4% for the year ending March 31, 2002", while ABN-Amro's most recent media research paper stated bluntly, "The outlook for the music industry remains bleak, with the next five years expected to see a compound average decline of almost 1%". Investors, it seems, can smell disaster, even if many in the industry cannot.

For the last three years, at every music industry convention, the number of record label CEO's pronouncing the imminent resumption of normal service was only exceeded by the number of possible solutions they were offering. Many, defying the shareholder stampede south, seem to be living in some sort of alternative reality - according to EMI's latest sales report, "Shareholders can expect a substantial improvement in operating performance in the year ahead... we intend to deliver sustained sales and profit growth." Profit derived from legal actions against the 10 million people who share music online, perhaps? The drastic cost-cutting in the last year, on which much of EMI's good news is based, hasn't even kept up with market shrinkage in real terms.

Vast sums have been spent developing expensive competing digital platforms, which continue to spring up like mushrooms in a murky forest. The latest, a joint venture between the majors and Apple, seems to be the equivalent of Cherokee Jeeps, when faced with "instantaneous car replication," consoling themselves by charging 10p for a fully kitted out SUV, and omitting to tell their shareholders that they still have to shell out £10,000 to throw the machine together.

If a clearer indication of the chaos the industry is in were needed, 2 months ago (June 26), the Recording Industry Association of America announced they intend to sue online file-sharers. But how exactly will they go about prosecuting 10 million people? And do they think that threatening to sue virtually their entire customer base is going to make it more or less likely that it will buy products from them legitimately in the future?

The explanation for this chaos favoured by major labels and articulated using the language of criminality - "theft," "piracy" - is that the business model they adopted 40 years ago - develop talent and sell the music on physical media (LPs, cassettes and CDs) has been trumped so successfully and so quickly by file-sharing, that the music industry simply hasn't been able to react fast enough.

However, this explanation excuses them from taking a much harder look at the nature of the business they now preside over. The real reason why labels are so exposed to the file-sharing storm is the culture of manufacturing music, as opposed to artist development. Although creating bands and music synthetically is appealing, as the production process is streamlined and costs can be managed, it is impossible to give such contrived products intrinsic values. It's hard to make the band a brand. And that, as Nike, Gap and the rest of the corporate world discovered 10 years ago, is the key to success.

Ironically, from time to time, the music industry has dabbled in the concept with, for example, Bob Dylan, The Sex Pistols, U2, The Manic Street Preachers and The Spice Girls. Did people love the Pistols just because they made great music, or because they confronted the establishment in troubled times, too? Were the Spice Girls played on every stereo because their songs were better than those of Bewitched, or because they cleverly hijacked post-feminism?

The problem for labels isn't content - it's context. Fans who are provided with a context in which to enjoy the content have proved time and again that they can be loyal, patient and generous. Radiohead's Kid A was hardly Pet Sounds, but the album went straight to number one in the States and the band's US tour sold out in four minutes.

Tinkering with the business structure is futile. The horse and cart owners of the 1920's bemoaned the advance of technology. The clever ones bought motorised vehicles. A new industry, artist lead, based on different core values and competencies must emerge.

Artist development and the live arena are crucial. Fans made live, will disseminate your message to a wider audience. Pay per view, as has happened in the football industry in the last 10 years, will assume a dominant position on the balance sheet. Fledgling bands will become adept at exploiting their merchandising capacity on the road - as the Rolling Stones and Kiss have done, with dramatic effect - Kiss fans are already driving Kiss-branded cars and planning to be buried in Kiss coffins.

Distribution costs disappear, marketing spends plummet, recording costs - helped by new technology - are slashed. A global promotional services market will evolve, which bands will use on a country by country basis, depending on budget and genre - with the world viewed as one market, exploited simultaneously. Instead of taking ten pounds from 100,000 people, the industry must aim to be taking one pound from a million.

To ensure that the music industry has any sort of future, label bigwigs must realise that albums are no longer their main breadwinner and file-sharing is not a threat, but the best chance they have to survive.
http://musicdish.com/mag/?id=8708


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

Despite Risk Of Lawsuit, Students Download Music
Lina Shustarovich

There are some activities that the majority of college students engage in regardless of the risk -- it seems that downloading music is and will continue to be one of them.

Although the Recording Industry Association of America announced last week that it has filed over 250 lawsuits -- and plans to file thousands more -- against individuals who have allegedly been sharing and distributing music online, there does not seem to be much of a decline in downloading on Penn's campus.

"Me stopping downloading isn't going to stop everybody else from downloading... so what's the point?" Wharton freshman Vimarth Shukla said.

Shukla, who said he understands the problem that file sharing poses for the music industry, downloads music using "Kazaa Lite" -- a version of the original peer-to- peer network -- that blocks the majority of pop-up advertisements.

However, he added, he does not do so "excessively."

"It's just easier to download music if you don't like the whole CD," Shukla said. He added, though, that he never keeps over 100 songs on his computer. Instead, he downloads the songs that he wants to hear, burns them on a CD and then deletes them.

Because of this system, Shukla is not worried about the RIAA lawsuits and said that he "will continue to download music."

College junior Sheena Prakash -- who said she has more than 1,200 songs downloaded on her computer -- also said she will continue to participate in peer-to- peer file sharing, despite the warnings.

Although the amount of files she currently has may put her at risk legally, she is not worried -- mainly because she is getting a new computer.

"Once I get a new computer, I won't have any songs on it so I will probably continue" to download music, she said. She added that it is "easier than buying a CD because you get just the song you want."

Another reason for Prakash's lack of concern is because, according to her, "there are a lot more people out there who have more songs and will be targets before me."

If Prakash were to be faced with the threat of litigation, she would consider accepting the RIAA's amnesty policy -- requiring her to delete all her illegally obtained music files and agree to stop downloading.

However, Prakash said she would not pursue the amnesty policy or give up her downloading unless there was some "pressure" on her.

Information technology advisers, such as College sophomore Nikola Kojucharov, are offering advice to students about how to avoid a lawsuit.

Kojucharov uses "Kazaa Lite" to download his music and suggested that others do the same. He explained that because Kazaa is constantly downloading advertisements off the Internet, it is less safe and makes it easier to trace the user.

In addition, Kojucharov recommended students turn off the file-sharing function, so that while a user can download files, his or her own files cannot be uploaded by others.

Kojucharov thinks that the recent lawsuits are in the back of everyone's minds, but that nobody is too concerned about it.

"My thinking is that if you try to catch everyone that downloads songs, it's going to be the whole campus," Kojucharov said, explaining why he isn't too worried about getting into trouble himself.

"We're all playing with fire," he said. "Hopefully it doesn't backfire on me."

While Penn students say they are not overly concerned, some students at institutions where lawsuits have already been filed are taking alternative approaches to downloading songs.

Jennifer Beckley, a senior at Michigan Technological University -- where student Joseph Nievelt in May settled a suit for thousands of dollars with the RIAA -- said that she doesn't download MP3s onto her computer.

Instead, Beckley uses the "Yahoo Music!" Web site, which allows users to listen to music files, but not to download and store them in their hard drives.

"It's free, and also it isn't illegal, because you're not actually downloading the music onto your computer," Beckley said of her approach.
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vn.../3f66ccce84c9e


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

Senate Approves Repeal of New Media Regulations
Stephen Labatonc

The Senate approved a resolution today to repeal all of the new regulations that would make it easier for the nation's largest media companies to grow bigger.

By a vote of 55 to 40, the Republican-controlled Senate defied the White House and issued a stinging political rebuke of Michael K. Powell, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and architect of the rules.

Administration officials had spoken to several lawmakers before the vote in an unsuccessful effort to turn it around, Congressional officials said today. Administration officials expressed relief that the vote indicated the measure would not be able to withstand a presidential veto, which the White House has threatened.

The sponsors of the Senate resolution acknowledged that it still faced long political odds before becoming law in its current form, although they said they had better chances of repealing significant pieces of the new rules rather than the entire package. House leaders who oppose the resolution have refused to allow it to reach the floor of that chamber.

Still, the Senate vote demonstrated broad bipartisan hostility to the new rules and, as one lawmaker said today, a symbolically important vote of no confidence in Mr. Powell. Twelve Republicans and one independent joined 42 Democrats in voting for the resolution. It was opposed by 38 Republicans and 2 Democrats, Zell Miller of Georgia and John Breaux of Louisiania.

Speaking of Mr. Powell, Senator Byron L. Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat and chief sponsor of the resolution, said: "I think he has made a horrible mistake. His leadership at the commission has led the commission to cave in to the special interests as quickly and as thoroughly as I've ever seen."

The vote was only the second time in history that the Senate has used a parlimentary procedure known as a resolution of disapproval to, in effect, veto an action by a regulator. It also had broader support than the final tally — four of the five senators absent from the chamber, including three presidential candidates, have said they would have voted for it.

Mr. Dorgan and a large group of other senators, ranging from Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, to Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Republican leader, vowed to continue to take steps to repeal the media rules by attaching amendments to other measures headed for floor action.

One such amendment, which would repeal the new rule that gives the largest television networks the ability to buy more local stations, has already been approved by a wide margin on a spending bill in the House and is expected to reach the floor of the Senate before it leaves for its recess this fall.

That amendment, unlike today's resolution, had strong support from the National Association of Broadcasters, a powerful lobbying group made up of local television and radio stations that is often at odds with the television networks.

Both the amendment and the resolution have been strongly supported by an unusual alliance of liberal and conservative organizations, civil rights groups, labor unions and religious organizations.

In an unusual political twist, the Senate action was made possible by the Congressional Review Act, a little-known law adopted seven years ago at the urging of Republicans who thought the administration issued too many burdensome regulations and wanted to make it easier for Congress to repeal them. It has only been used once before, in 2001, to repeal the ergonomics regulations adopted under the Clinton administration. Today the measure was being used by both liberals and conservatives to try to undo one of the most deregulatory packages completed under the Bush administration.

Mr. Powell had testified throughout the earlier part of his tenure that the Senate and House were always free to set policy that he would follow. But recently he has become more combative with the Senate.

In recent days, he has declined repeated requests to be interviewed, including one today. In an article today in Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol Hill, he called the pending Congressional action "bordering on the absurd."

Soon after the vote, he issued a statement saying the resolution would "create peverse results" and was not in the public interest.

"This resolution, if passed by the House and signed by the president, would only muddy the media regulatory waters," Mr. Powell said in the statement. "It would bring no clarity to media regulation, only chaos."

"What is most important is to have the best policies for the American people," he added. "I hope the House will take a more considered view of the public interest."

The vote was the second setback for Mr. Powell in two days, and the latest in a string of defeats since the rules were issued in June.

On Monday, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia rejected a request by lawyers from the F.C.C. to move a case challenging the rules to a court in Washington. Earlier this month, the court in Philadelphia blocked the commission from imposing the rules and is viewed by lawyers involved in the case as being less sympathetic to the commission than the court in Washington.

The appeals court in Philadelphia will hear the case, brought against the commission by a group of small radio stations, in November.

The rules that the Senate voted to overturn would permit one company to own both a broadcast station and a newspaper in most cities. They would also permit a company to own up to eight radio and three TV stations, as well as a cable company, in the biggest markets. And they would enable the broadcast networks to acquire television stations that reach as much as 45 percent of the nation's viewers, up from 35 percent now.

The networks have lobbied vigorously for relaxing the station ownership rule and have come up against aggressive lobbying from the affiliates. Many large newspaper companies, including The New York Times Company, have sought to repeal the restrictions prohibiting one company from owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/bu...17FCC.html?8bl


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

New Worm Targets File-Sharing Nets

Antivirus vendors post updates to stop W32.Swen, which masquerades as a Microsoft update.
Paul Roberts

Antivirus companies are warning Internet users about W32.Swen, a new worm that spreads using e-mail messages, vulnerable network connections, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), and peer-to-peer networks.

F-Secure, Network Associates, and Symantec all have issued warnings about Swen, indicating that the worm is spreading on the Internet. Customers are being advised to update their antivirus definitions to detect and nullify Swen.

Finding a Flaw

First detected on Thursday, Swen exploits a security hole in Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser. It affects all supported versions of the Windows operating system, according to security products vendor F-Secure of Helsinki.

The worm poses as a software security update from Microsoft. Its message prompts users with "Yes" or "No" buttons to agree to install the update, and even provides an installation "progress" bar if they do agree.

However, the worm code is installed regardless of what users select. Once it has infected a system, Swen alters the configuration of Windows so the worm is launched whenever Windows is started. The worm also detects and disables antivirus software or other Windows features that could be used to disable it, according to F-Secure.

Like other mass mailing worms, Swen scans an infected machine's hard drive for e-mail addresses and uses those to send out more copies of itself, skimming SMTP server addresses and user names from Windows.

Infected e-mail messages are formatted to look like official correspondence from Microsoft. The messages appear to come from one of a variety of randomly generated senders like "MS Technical Assistance" and advertise a "cumulative patch" for Internet Explorer to patch "three newly discovered vulnerabilities," F-Secure says.

Other Routes

The worm also can detect the presence of IRC clients or the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing client application, and then distribute itself on those networks. Swen places a specialized script file that sends a virus file to every computer on the same IRC channel as the infected computer.

For machines running Kazaa file-sharing software, Swen enables the file-sharing feature, if it is not already enabled. It places multiple copies of itself in the Kazaa shared files folder, disguised as Kazaa client software, pirated software, or other popular applications, F-Secure says.

More than one antivirus company notes the similarity between Swen and an earlier worm, W32.Gibe, which appeared in March. Like Swen, Gibe also attempted to spread by e-mail as well as Kazaa and IRC networks, while posing as a piece of legitimate Microsoft software when installed.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112552,00.asp


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

IBM Prepares Lockbox For Home Networks
Martin LaMonica

IBM is readying a digital rights management strategy for securing content everywhere from Hollywood to Wall Street.

The initiative, called extensible Content Protection (xCP), involves software that allows media companies to put controls on content distributed to consumers' home networks.

The initiative is aimed at preventing illegal use of commercial media. Dick Anderson, the general manger for IBM's Media and Entertainment group, will discuss the project Thursday at a conference to be held at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society in Cambridge, Mass. IBM is expected to announce its first entertainment industry xCP customer in about a month.

xCP includes encryption software that allows media providers to give consumers the right to, for example, watch a movie on a DVD player and any other xCP-compliant device on that consumer's home network. The software will let media companies protect their intellectual property and be simple enough for consumers to use, according to IBM.

Such safeguards will allow the media and entertainment industry to develop viable business models for content distribution, which at this point are lacking, said Steve Canepa, vice president of strategy for IBM's media and entertainment industry.

"The ground we're trying to get to is to maybe take the focus off rights specifications for control and limitation in what can be done with content and to change the focus to self-enablement and a new user experience," Canepa said.

Although high-profile battles waged by music and movie studios against illicit Internet media downloads generate the most headlines, IBM sees a parallel need for content protection in other industries.

An aerospace manufacturer, for example, would want to distribute engineering plans to its partners electronically with strictly controlled access rights. Also, regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) dictate certain data-protection procedures for medical patients' personal information.

However, because of inadequate digital rights management (DRM) software, companies lose billions of dollars each year in intellectual property in the form of stolen research or customer lists, said Stuart Sager, program director for copy protection and DRM at IBM's software group.

"The need to protect content in the enterprise space is very real," Sager said. "We think that DRM is really going to become very ubiquitous."

IBM will embed DRM capabilities across its software line. The company is now testing a system to add DRM controls to its DB2 Content Manager product and is targeting a final release of the add-on product at some point in 2004.

The DRM features will allow a company to assign access rights to content and track its usage. Customers can tap into the DRM feature, which is written in Java, via Web services programming protocols, but they do not have to change the code of existing applications, Sager said.

IBM will eventually embed its DRM software, called Copy Protection and Enabling, across its entire middleware line, including WebSphere and Tivoli products.

DRM is an important push for software giant Microsoft as well. DRM is a key feature of its Office 2003 desktop application suite and an important part of the company's ongoing security initiative. This week, Microsoft revealed pricing details on its plan for assigning authoring and viewing rights to documents for people using Microsoft Office and Windows Server 2003.

IBM's approach to DRM is broader than Microsoft's, Sager said. IBM is tracking standards for various content types, such as audio files, images or video clips, and the DRM software in Content Manager will support the various formats.

The DRM architecture also allows companies to reuse content in different scenarios. For example, a company could sell an audio file for download both to a mobile phone and to a home network using the xCP software.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_210...3-5077368.html


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

Broadband Adoption Skyrockets Worldwide
Jim Hu

The number of broadband subscribers worldwide surged 72 percent in 2002, to 62 million, as more households upgraded their dial-up modems for speedier access, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by Geneva-based International Telecommunication Union (ITU), noted that South Korea leads all nations, with 21 percent of its population subscribing to a broadband service. Out of all Internet users in South Korea, 94 percent subscribe to broadband.

Hong Kong was the second-highest region for broadband adoption, with 15 percent of its population on a high-speed connection. Canada came in third with 11 percent.

The study said that the impetus for growth is greater speed to handle online games and to download digital media. Indeed, the accessibility of broadband has created a widely reported online gaming culture in South Korea.

As for the United States, broadband penetration continues to rise, and could reach 25 percent of the population faster than PCs and mobile phones did, the study said. U.S. broadband providers, namely phone companies providing digital subscriber line (DSL) service and cable companies, have reported steady growth in broadband customers. Some studies have shown healthy demand for broadband despite difficulties in implementing high-speed lines.

A study released by the market research firm Strategy Analytics in June said consumers want broadband not only for faster access, but also for economic reasons. Households are turning to broadband because it's cheaper than paying for two phone lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_210...3-5077230.html


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

Compulsory Licensing - The Death of Gnutella and the Triumph of Google
Ernest Miller

Never have so many companies fought so hard to change the law so that they can so quickly be put out of business.

Back in July, a number of filesharing companies (Blubster, Grokster, BearShare, eDonkey 2000 and LimeWire - Kazaa being conspiculously absent) formed a trade association (P2PUnited - website coming soon, apparently), to push for, among other things, compulsory licensing, as noted in this New York Post article (File-Share Firms Hire a Lobbyist). I wonder how much they have really thought this through. After all, a compulsory license that legimitized filesharing would quickly put most of these companies out of business.

The Death of Gnutella

Why do most of these companies even exist? One very simple reason: the courts put Napster out of business. Napster was an extremely elegant solution for filesharing. It acted as a massive centralized database that allowed downloaders to easily find the uploaders with the files they wanted. By comparison, decentralized P2P networks, such as those based on the Gnutella protocol, are clunky and have serious issues with scalability, search efficiency and bandwidth use. Although services based upon the Gnutella protocol have gotten better, adopting strategies such as "supernodes", they remain hampered in their efficiency by their very reason for being: avoiding contributory and vicarious copyright liability (at which they have been successful, so far - though the farther they push for efficiency and control, the more shaky the legal ground they stand on, see, Decentralization, Gnutella and Bad Actors).

However, if filesharing becomes legal through a compulsory license, what is the purpose of the Gnutella-based software anymore? Napster's liability was based on theories of contributory and vicarious liability, which requires an underlying copyright violation. To the extent that filesharing is no longer copyright infringement, Napster could no longer be held liable. Since the Napster solution is far more efficient, particularly for searches, why would anyone use a Gnutella (or any decentralized P2P) network anymore? Virtually anything a Gnutella network can do can be implemented in a Napster-like network as well. Sure, current interfaces are better than Napster's, but they could easily be ported from a Gnutella client to a Napster-like one.

All that effort, all that clever programming optimizing the Gnutella protocol, gone in a flash of compulsory licensing. Sure Gnutella will still be around, but what will it be used for? Why will so much effort be devoted to develop and optimize it? Gnutella will be, as far as I can see, a dead end technology, at least for filesharing.

So what, you say? Of course all these companies will swiftly shift to a Napster-like network when the law is passed. Absolutely! However, it is very likely that all but one of these companies will soon go out of business. The reason is that, like the auction market eBay, there is reason to believe that very strong network effects occur in the filesharing market. After all, in the auction market, sellers go to where the buyers are and buyers go where the sellers are. If you attract more buyers, you will attract more sellers, which then attracts more buyers, and so on in a positive feedback loop. Such network effects should operate similarly in the filesharing market, though most people will be buyers and only inadvertantly sellers. For example, if I am looking for an obscure track, I will go to the filesharing service with the most participants, since I will have the greatest chance of finding what I am looking for. Therefore, once one filesharing service clearly distinguishes itself in popularity from the others, it will take off and its competitors quickly wither away.

True, there is nothing that would prevent people from participating in several filesharing services at once, but there is little that keeps people from posting listings on multiple auction sites either. People will most likely experiment with a few services at first, and there might be some shifting initially as rapid innovation occurs. There will likely be attempts to mimic Trillian for making the various networks work together. The competition will also likely be vicious and expensive. As few of these filesharing services have compelling and profitable business plans, particularly given the changes wrought by a compulsory licensing scheme, it will be interesting to see how many will be able to raise the money necessary to fight this battle. Ultimately, I think things will likely settle down in a year or two with one service triumphant.

The Triumph of Google Of course, I think the likely winner is none of the current participants. I think the winner will be Google. The most important aspect of a centralized filesharing service is fast, accurate and efficient searches. Downloaders want to find the right tracks from a reliable source. I think that Google will win this fight because nobody does searches better, and I don't see any reason why Google wouldn't want this market given that filesharing is legalized. The way I figure it, the brilliant minds at Google Labs will rather easily be able to create a P2P Google Tool that will be just as efficient as anything the competitors will be able to devise.

Even if Google technologists aren't up to the task (yeah, right), Google certainly has the deep pockets that will allow it to remain competitive and, if necessary, buy one of the leading competitors, just as they bought a certain blogging software company. Finally, because of strong network effects in the filesharing market, the winner must be able to handle catastrophic success. There must be scalability; the company that wins will have to be able to handle very rapid growth in the number of search queries their system can respond to. Interestingly, the decentralized nature of the current networks doesn't necessarily bode well for the existing P2P companies' ability to scale as quickly. I'm not sure if Google would even notice the increase in queries from filesharers.

If I'm right about what would happen to P2P filesharing services following the creation of compulsory licenses, is this good or bad? Well, I'm not sure. Google, despite its power, has been a pretty benign dictator so far. Also, I'm not entirely clear on how strong the lock-in effects of the main filesharing service will be. Somewhat stronger than the lock-in for search engines, I would imagine, but not as strong as in the auction market. The lock-in effect will determine to a large degree how much the winner of the filesharing war can abuse the system. In any case, it is certainly something to think about as we consider the merits and likely consequences of compulsory licenses.
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...ticle&sid=1206


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

Word of the Day

...shamnesty. Courtesy of Ren Bucholz and yours, free for the taking.


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

Music Industry Hits Wrong Note Against Piracy
Peter K. Yu

This past week, the Record Industry Association of America filed 261 lawsuits against individuals who downloaded music illegally via peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, such as KaZaA, Grokster, iMesh and Gnutella. Unlike what the industry did a few months ago, it offered carrots in addition to sticks this time. Along with the lawsuits came a new amnesty program that allows individuals to avoid lawsuits from the RIAA if they remove all illegal music files from their computers and promise not to do so again. On its surface, the new program is quite attractive and creative. In reality, it represents another ineffective, costly and disturbing attempt to fight the copyright wars. The most egregious offenders would unlikely participate in the program. Many of them don't think what they are doing is illegal. Nor do they feel guilty about what they have done. The RIAA will end up with a list of only mild, and perhaps occasional, offenders. The list is far from what the industry wants. There are other problems as well. First, the music industry is not the only copyright holder out there that can go after illegal file swappers. There are other equally powerful industries, like the movie and software industries. The amnesty program also would not protect individuals from federal prosecutors, music publishers and independent labels not represented by the RIAA. A "clean slate" with the recording industry group is not very clean if many others can sue you the next day. Even worse from the perspectives of the file traders, by signing the affidavits, the traders will have admitted that they have traded copyrighted music illegally. If they commit any future infringement -- regardless of how serious and intentional that infringement is -- the affidavits will provide evidence for willful infringement. The affidavits also will create a blacklist of habitual offenders that the recording industry likely will monitor. It is not news that the industry has been tracking potential offenders using automated web-crawlers. In fact, the industry recently has created a widely publicized embarrassment when it sent a mistaken cease-and-desist letter to the astronomy and astrophysics department of Pennsylvania State University, because one of its retired professors has an acappella song about a gamma-ray satellite under his name in the departmental server. Finally, the promises made by amnesty participants are broad, arguably broader than what is prohibited under copyright law. The participants might have to give up rights that are available under current copyright law. To be fair, when the RIAA two years ago pursued MP3.com and Napster, critics asked the industry to leave technology alone and go after the offenders. The RIAA now has done so, but it is still being criticized. So far, the group has only targeted egregious offenders. Those named in the recent lawsuits have distributed on average more than 1,000 copyrighted songs via peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Given the amount of music swapped and downloaded, these individuals won't be the industry's customers anyway. So what's wrong with going after shoplifters? First, copyright law is not as clear as laws against theft and shoplifting. There are a lot of "muddy" rules, like the fair use privilege, the first sale doctrine and various statutory exemptions that allow people to have limited sharing of copyrighted works. In addition, there are better alternatives. In Europe, many countries impose taxes on blank recording media and equipment to compensate composers and authors whose works have been copied without authorization. And proposals are on the table that call for a compulsory licensing scheme and campus-wide licenses in universities. Lawsuits are not necessarily the best and most effective way to deal with online piracy. In the meantime, file swappers might want to consult their lawyers and "plead the fifth."
http://www.detnews.com/2003/editoria...a13-269781.htm


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

Is the MPAA Better Than the RIAA?
Ernest Miller

Slashdot notes (Music Industry Compared to Movie Industry) a commentary in the Denver Post that unfavorably compares the response of the recording industry to modern technology with the response of the movie industry (Recording industry's missteps). The opinion piece approvingly notes how much more value one gets for a DVD as compared to a CD. Importantly, the author also points out how many more distribution outlets there are for a wide variety of cinema (1st run, 2nd run, art house, cable, rental, etc.) as compared to the nearly monopolistic control of radio and venue ownership. All good points. But the author blows it here:

Threatened over the past decade by various forms of piracy, the movie industry chose to go after profiteering international crime rings while letting the local cable companies take on illicit home descramblers with low-key enforcement action.

DeCSS anyone?

Even without DeCSS, however, this is a good test case for whether better business models reduce filesharing. I do think that the members of the MPAA do provide more value than the members of the RIAA have. However, even given the better value, I'm not sure how the members of the MPAA can compete with free. The only thing holding things back now is bandwidth (what happens when everyone has last mile fiber?) and, importantly, it isn't as easy to transfer a movie from harddrive to your television as it is to burn a CD (though DVD recorders will become ubiquitous enough in the near future). The argument of many filesharing advocates (though certainly not all) is that people would be happy to pay for music if it were a better value. To a certain extent that is true, but the value would have to be awful high to compete with free.

I'd also like to ask the author why the difference, since the companies that make up the RIAA are pretty much the same companies that make up the MPAA.
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/mod...ticle&sid=1203


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

White Wolf Sues Sony Pictures over "Underworld" Movie
damonwhite

Damon White Reports: White Wolf, Inc. and author Nancy A. Collins Sue Sony Pictures, Screen Gems And Lakeshore Entertainment for "Underworld" copyright infringement

White Wolf, Inc. and Nancy A. Collins yesterday filed suit in US District court in Atlanta, Georgia against defendants Sony Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment, alleging 17 counts of copyright infringement for the film Underworld, set for release on September 19. White Wolf alleges that Underworld characters, theme and setting are based on White Wolf’s award winning games Vampire: The Masquerade® and Werewolf: The Apocalypse™, both set in White Wolf’s fictional World of Darkness®. Further, Collins alleges that Underworld’s script is based on her 1994 story Love of Monsters, published by White Wolf and also set in the World of Darkness.

Plaintiffs claim over 60 points of unique similarity between Underworld and their work. "Ours is a huge fictional world, supported by over 200 volumes of fictional material," asserts Mike Tinney, White Wolf’s President. "It’s infuriating to see Underworld’s script riddled with our property." Plaintiffs also claim that Underworld’s entire plot is based on Collins’ short story Love of Monsters. "Apparently they are marketing this as a remake of Romeo and Juliet," comments Collins. "What I think they really mean is that it’s an on-screen adaptation of my story."

White Wolf and Collins are seeking immediate injunctive relief and damages. "The volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing," observes Tinney, "our fans think they’re going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be."
http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=10015


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

Film Review – “Willful Infringement”
Susan DeMasi

It may be considered an act of subversion to purchase or even watch this documentary, but do it while it’s still on the market and not tied up in a court case. Willful Infringement asks provocative questions: Is copyright an instrument of censorship? Do newer copyright controls, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, suppress the free speech of scientists, artists and others? Does aggressive enforcement of copyright law inhibit artists today in ways that they weren’t in the past? Whose art is it, anyway?

This ambitious documentary argues that copyright law and growing restrictions on the Fair Use doctrine are being used by corporations to control information, suppress free speech and stifle the creativity of artists.

Major players in the movement promoting an “information commons” (i.e., more information entering the public domain, fewer restrictions on fair use) are interviewed, as well as people who have found themselves, perhaps inadvertently, on the wrong side of copyright law. Among others, the interesting mix of those interviewed include copyright attorneys; law professors; cultural historians; the manager of the rap group, Public Enemy; members of a Rolling Stones tribute band; a day care operator and two clowns.

One of the major arguments presented is that artists are inhibited because copyright law doesn’t allow them to build on ideas created by previous artists. Historically, folk, jazz and blues evolved because musicians were inspired by and borrowed from earlier artists. As one interviewee says, in music and other media, artists were able to take the cumulative circulation of stories, ideas and pictures, and then resynthesize them in their own, unique way. They would then pass on their new work to society and the process would continue. (The film does a nice job in covering all media industries - film, music, etc.)

The filmmakers believe that copyright law doesn’t protect artists so much as it protects corporations (or “content industries”). In a discussion of music “sampling,” an interview with the manager of the rap group, Public Enemy, provides an excellent illustration of this point. The group is being sued by a music publishing firm for using a piece from a George Clinton song. But because George Clinton doesn’t own the rights, “he won’t see a dime” from this lawsuit, according to the film.
http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/e...sp?Number=1316


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

MP3s Are Not the Devil
Orson Scott Card

Since every penny I earn depends on copyright protection, I'm all in favor of reasonable laws to do the job.

But there's something kind of sad about the recording industry's indecent passion to punish the "criminals" who are violating their rights.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government -- it creates the legal fiction that a piece of writing or composing (or, as technologies were created, a recorded performance) is property and can only be sold by those who have been licensed to do so by the copyright holder.

Without copyright, once a work was performed or printed, other people who saw or heard or read it could simply do their own performance or print their own editions, and keep all the money without paying a dime to the creator of the work.

At the same time, a book or song isn't land or even corporate stock. In exchange for the private monopoly of copyright, when it expires the work is then free for anyone to perform or print or record.

Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.

And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.

Since 1978, the law was changed so that copyright lasted until a certain number of years after the author's death. So not only did the author never outlive the copyright, but the author's dependents could continue to derive income from it for some time.

Also, copyright began, not when the work was listed with the Library of Congress, but rather from the moment of creation.

But there were loopholes. If you wrote something as an employee of a company that paid you a salary for creating it, then your writing was a "work made for hire" and the copyright belonged to the company. You had no rights.

Here's where the ugly stuff begins. A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. It was basically highway robbery -- the companies demanded that either the writers sign their names to a lie and give up all their rights, or the company wouldn't publish it.

Only a few of us were stubborn enough to refuse to sign work for hire contracts. It was an expensive moral quibble, but I have real objections to perjuring myself and pretending that I was hired by a company when in fact I never was. If I took all the risks and wrote something on spec, then the copyright should belong to me. I'd license them to do whatever was needed, but I wouldn't, in effect, declare them to be the author of my work.

So it's pretty hilarious to hear record company executives and movie studio executives get all righteous about copyright. They've been manipulating copyright laws for years, and all the manipulations were designed to steal everything they could from the actual creators of the work.

Do you think these companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs and DVDs?

Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits." A few have dared to sue, but most figure that it isn't worth the ill will. (The sentence "You'll never work in this town again" runs through their minds. They remember what happened to Cliff Robertson after he blew the whistle on an executive who was flat-out embezzling!)

And record companies manage to skim enormous amounts of money from ever CD sold. As you can easily calculate by going to the computer store and figuring out the price of an individual recordable blank CD. Figure that the record companies have been paying a fraction of that price for years. Then subtract that from the price of a CD. Figure the songwriters and performers are getting some ludicrously small percentage -- less than twenty percent, I'd bet -- and all the rest flows to the record company.

In other words, the people complaining about all the internet "thieves" are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people's work.

And I say this with the best will in the world. In fact, these companies have expenses. There are salaries to pay. Some of the salaries are earned.

But remember that huge fortunes like, say, David Geffen's were made by getting ownership of record publishing companies. Count on it -- Geffen got a lot richer than any but a handful of the actual performers. And when their careers are over, the record company owner keeps right on earning.

Not only that, but the digital technologies that allow perfect-quality copying came as a huge windfall to the studios and record companies.

I basically replaced all my vinyl records and cassette tapes with CDs, and then replaced all our VHS tapes and laserdiscs with DVDs. The record companies and studios would have laughed if somebody said, "This is just an upgrade. I should be able to turn in my vinyl and cassettes for CDs and my videotapes for DVDs, for no more than the actual cost of production." Ha ha ha ha ha.

In all the ridiculously overblown "estimates" of how much the studios and record companies are "losing" from "piracy," nobody bothers to calculate just how much extra money they made from consumers paying full price for music and movies they had already paid full price for only a few years before.

That's all right, you see, because that helps the companies' bottom line, whereas piracy hurts it.

But how much?
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html


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

Study: Students Unfazed By Piracy
Stefanie Olsen

If attitudes on college campuses nationwide are any indicator, then software piracy in Kazaa and other file-swapping communities could get out of control, according to a new study.

Nearly two-thirds of college students surveyed said they would download pirated software, according to a study released Tuesday by the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Only a third of those students who have already downloaded commercial software have paid for it.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5077451.html


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

Grokster, Morpheus File Briefs in Song-Swap Appeal
Sue Zeidler

Two file-sharing services on Wednesday filed responses to a closely-watched appeal by film and music studios of a court ruling that found the services were not liable for massive copyright infringement.

"The appeal is just one of several assaults that we face from the Recording Industry Association of America" (RIAA), said Michael Weiss, chief executive of Streamcast Networks Inc, the developer of the popular Morpheus peer-to-peer software, which filed its brief in response to the appeal.

Both Morpheus and Grokster, another peer-to-peer service, responded on Wednesday to the appeal filed in August with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by the Motion Picture Association of America, the RIAA, and the National Music Publishers' Association.

Back then, the copyrights holders said U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles in April had dramatically departed from well-established copyright law when he ruled the file- sharing services should not be closed because they cannot control what songs are traded over their systems.

"The plaintiff's seem to think that Judge Wilson's decision was a typo," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster.

"They also seem to want to outlaw any legal technology that is content neutral," he said.

Wilson's ruling was the industries' first major setback in their ongoing anti-piracy efforts. Last week, the recording industry took the unprecedented step of suing 261 individuals for allegedly copying songs without permission, sparking waves of criticism from peer-to-peer and privacy advocates.

The RIAA, which represents record labels like AOL Time Warner's AOL.N Warner Music and Vivendi Universal's V.N EAUG.PA Universal Music Group, plans to file more suits and is also in settlement talks with several of the individuals.

It reached its first settlement last week with the mother of a 12-year-old girl targeted for song-swapping.

"Instead of asking the court to deputize every technology vendor to enforce their copyrights for them, they should license the technology at a fair price," Rosso said.

"Five bucks a month from each of 60 million filesharers beats the hell out of filing a federal case to get $2,000 from a 12-year-old girl," he said.

The RIAA has said these businesses were built for the exclusive reason of illegally exchanging copyrighted works and that the court of appeals should hold them accountable.

The RIAA succeeded in legally shutting down song-swap pioneer Napster and other networks, but millions still copy billions of songs, movies and other files from each others' computers each month, according to industry estimates.

The industry blames much of its steep slide in revenues since 1999 on online piracy.

Weiss of Streamcast said his company expects to prevail. If not, they will take it to the Supreme Court, he said.
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3461979


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

Stand on Guard, Canucks

File sharing may not be so legal in Canada after all.
Shawn Abel and Ryan Black

There have been some articles circulating lately on the web which proclaim that file-sharing is legal in Canada. In addition, in the last few days I've seen several references to the latter article in slashdot commentary. I and a fellow law student have become concerned with the effect these articles might have, because in our opinion file-sharing is certainly not legal in Canada, and constitutes infringement that could get you successfully sued. As much as we would love to be able to share music freely, we don't want other Canadians who use p2p apps to increase their exposure to lawsuits because they think they're immune to legal repercussions. When you use p2p apps, please do so knowing that you're still at some risk. We have been in detailed discussion with Jay Currie, author of the techstation article, and this is what we have concluded. And before I get into it, let me say that this is our opinion, but is not legal advice. We are not your lawyers.

To begin with, it is, of course, infringement to make a copy of a copyrighted sound recording in any reproducible format. Data files like mp3s are considered sound recordings the same way that a track on a CD is.

Canada has a relatively unique provision in the Copyright Act, at s. 80, which provides:

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or(br> (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

The key words here are "for the private use of the person who makes the copy". This means that you may make a copy of any sound recording and use it yourself. You may copy a friend's cd, or you may download music, and listen to it yourself. All of these activities are exempted from infringement.

In contrast, the following activites are not exempted by s. 80. You may not copy a cd or rip an mp3 and give it to anyone else. You may not send an mp3 to a friend over the net, because a copy is made in that process. You may not file share (or upload) over the internet without infringing. This last infringement is due to the nature of p2p file-sharing.

When a person requests a file over a p2p network, like Kazaa, the network sends out requests to the effect of, "Hey, Mr. X is looking for song Y, do you have a copy?" Your computer has results, and sends the information back through the network to Mr. X. Mr. X, seeing the result, decides to download it. He sends a request to your computer for the file. Here's what's key: he does not log onto your computer, make a copy of Song Y, and send it back. Your computer receives the request for Song Y, and then your computer makes the copy by reading the information off of your hard drive and transmits it to him. He now has a copy (which he downloaded, but most importantly, _you_ uploaded simultaneously), as do you.

Thus, whenever someone downloads from your computer, your computer makes a copy for their use. This is infringement with no exemption, because you are entirely responsible for what your computer does. Some have argued that, at least while you are away from your computer, you are not responsible for someone downloading from it. This would only be valid if (a) that person had complete control over your computer and (b) it was private control, rather than public (because only private copying avoids infringement). Complete control would mean physical control, usually, but also might mean full remote access. However, access to some of your files through an application that you, yourself, chose to execute would fall far short of relinquishing control of your computer, even if you turned on the p2p app and left the room. In addition, even if someone had full remote access of your computer, if that access was from outside your "domestic setting" (as the Copyright Board defines it) it would fall under "public" rather than "private" copying. Strangers over a p2p network fall outside your domestic setting. Therefore, when it comes to p2p applications, you are considered responsible for your computer's actions.

One important point of all this is that so long as you use a p2p application with sharing turned off, you cannot infringe copyright with that application. That's an imperfect solution, of course, because some of us need to share so that the system works. It's also worth noting that the RIAA has chosen only to sue "supernode" users in the US. If you are not a supernode, and if you share small amounts of material, you probably won't attract attention. It's the big sharers who are on the hook.

There are other reasons as well that file sharing is infringement, which I will canvas briefly: Offering your files on a p2p network is "public" rather than "private" copying, for two reasons. First, because sharing on a p2p network is allowing the public, in the common sense meaning of the word, to access your files. Second, because the Copyright Board has defined "to the public" as something intended to reach more than one person outside your domestic setting. Any public copying is of course not protected under the private copying provision in s. 80.

In short, when we share our files, we infringe copyright each time someone downloads from us on a p2p app, and we can't avail ourselves of the private copying provision in the Act. We are only safe in downloading. I hope that the Act is updated once again to give us some relief for sharing music through the medium of the internet (although full-on p2p file-sharing will probably always be considered infringment, it would be nice if at least ftp'ing music on a private scale would be legal).

We hope this article serves as a helpful and useful warning to fellow Canadians. Stand on Guard, Canucks.


Pawlo's comment: Please be advised that this is an anonymous (more or less) reader submission and the legal analysis has not been reviewed by the Greplaw staff. If you need help understanding your rights, I advise that you consult an attorney who is versed in the field.
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article....33&mode=thread


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

PeerCache Next Foe In Copyright War

Kazaa's founder markets speedier file-sharing software to ISPs, raising prospect of legal action by recording industry

Kevin J. Delaney

Swede behind the world's most popular song-swapping software is at it again. Niklas Zennstrom, who co-founded Kazaa B.V., the company that created the program of choice for sharing songs and videos online, now is offering Internet service providers PeerCache -- software that lets the ISP's users download commonly shared files from the ISP itself, rather than over the Internet from another user's hard drive.

The recording industry is taking note. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a trade group, is investigating whether to sue Joltid Ltd., maker of PeerCache, or ISPs that use it.

Legal experts say Zennstrom's new product poses a fresh threat for the music industry, which already blames Kazaa and similar programs for its sharp drop in sales in recent years.

Sony Corp. estimates that file-sharing cost music companies $7 billion in sales over the past two years. Two weeks ago, Vivendi Universal S.A.'s Universal Music Group slashed wholesale compact-disc prices some 30 percent to try to lure buyers back.

And last week, the U.S. recording industry sued 261 individuals that it claims illegally share large numbers of music files online, an attempt to strongly deter the dissemination of copyrighted materials via file-sharing services.

"PeerCache is going to reduce the cost of file sharing to Internet service providers, which means the ISPs will have less incentive to cut down on the file sharing," said Ben Edelman, a fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. "And it increases the speed for the users, which means they will just do it more."

Zennstrom counters that he has three paying Internet-provider customers, including Wanadoo Netherlands, a unit of France Telecom S.A. He will not, however, name the other two or say how much the ISPs paid for the service.

He said he has not yet approached any U.S. ISPs. However, a spokesman for America Online Inc., a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc. based in Dulles, Va., said the company has looked at the PeerCache technology and decided not to deploy it.

Microsoft Corp., based in Redmond, Wash., wouldn't comment on whether it is considering using Kazaa technology for its MSN service.

Bracing for a fight

It would seem that Zennstrom would be wary of taking on Big Music. The industry sued him last year, brandishing threats of criminal prosecution and millions of dollars in fines. He sold the Kazaa software and Web site in 2002 as his company's legal bills exceeded $100,000 a month.

Despite Kazaa's popularity, Zennstrom never struck it rich. He barely recouped the money, some $220,000, he put up to finance the company -- and he still rides a bicycle to work.

But he is bracing for another fight.

"Basically, what the [music industry] should do is outlaw the Internet," he said. "That's what they want to do."
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/ba...,5631336.story


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

Kansan's Bill Could Slow Record Industry Suits
Alan Bjerga

The battle started on the Internet with Napster and Kazaa, but today it comes to Capitol Hill, as the downloading of copyright Internet files faces
a Senate hearing and new legislation from Sen. Sam Brownback.

Brownback introduced a bill Tuesday that would close the special subpoena powers record companies are using to prosecute people who download music from the Internet. Today the bill will be discussed before the Senate Commerce Committee.

Brownback's bill would make it more difficult for the Recording Industry Association of America to prosecute users of "peer-to-peer" file-sharing services -- the systems used to share music online. The association has filed more than 250 lawsuits aimed at stemming the flood of illegal music downloads.

Brownback says he's not arguing that those services should continue to offer free downloads of copyright music. He said he's more concerned about how other groups, namely pornographers, could abuse the subpoena powers the record companies are using.

No one should be allowed to invade someone's privacy, which is what's happening, he said.

"I'm coming at this from a different direction" from file-sharers, he said. "We can't allow anyone to abuse a subpoena."
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/678...printstory.jsp





Cheers and Jeers for the Recording Industry
Cynthia L. Webb


The Recording Industry Association of America's right to pursue a heavy handed legal attack on music pirates. Stealing is stealing, whether it's breaking into a home or downloading a file on the Internet.

No, the RIAA is arbitrarily suing the very people it should be courting and is failing to adapt to a new era of digitally delivered services.

The music piracy controversy is splitting newspaper editorial boards and opinion writers around those two arguments. Here's a sampling:

An editorial in the Detroit Free Press last week blasted the RIAA suits, saying "the music industry just doesn't seem to get it when dealing with its largely youthful audience. The youngest among them were practically born online. And online is where you reach them -- not where you hunt them down with lawsuits and half-baked 'amnesty' offers, as the Recording Industry Association of America started doing this week. ... People who want to do the right thing -- make sure artists are paid -- certainly hope for a cyber-solution. Somewhere between spending $13-plus per CD, when you want only one song, and worrying that the industry will sue you for sampling and swapping, the answer should be found online -- not in court."
• Detroit Free Press Editorial: Online Music -- Industry Should Find Better Solution Than Lawsuits

The Modesto Bee in California also took issue with the RIAA's lawsuit brigade: "The recording industry, basically, calls downloaders thieves. After all, says the industry, they are stealing copyrighted property. Under current law, the recording industry is right. Downloaders -- or filesharers, if you prefer -- are stealing. No one who uses Kazaa or Morpheus or another P2P can say they haven't been warned about the possibility of being sued. But the RIAA shouldn't lose sight of two critical points: Most of those 'thieves' are also their best customers, often buying CDs after having heard a song or two via a filesharing site. The world has changed and the music industry hasn't. To survive they will have to stop assaulting customers in court and find a way to harness the new technology to create profit. Napster, Kazaa and Morpheus figured it out and have at least 65 million fiercely loyal customers."
• Modesto Bee Editorial: Pirates Vs. Dinosaurs

But Mike Langberg of The San Jose Mercury News writes today that the RIAA's legal moves are "absolutely necessary." Langberg: "Internet apologists, who seem to believe the most basic rules of right and wrong don't apply to online activity, are appalled. Not me. Property, whether it's your house or the copyright on a song, deserves to be protected by law. Anyone who takes someone else's property without permission must face the possibility of real punishment."
• San Jose Mercury News's Mike Langberg: Record Companies Are Right to Sue Over Greedy Music Downloading

A Montana newspaper, The Missoulian, also sided with the RIAA in an editorial on Friday. "Do you think the neighbor kids should be able to waltz into your house and steal your stuff? Do you think shoplifters are entitled to take what they can carry out of a department store? Should your broker be able to skim money from your investment portfolio for his personal use? Well, of course not. So, what's all the uproar over the recording industry's filing lawsuits to stop thieves from pirating music over the Internet?," the paper wrote.
• Missoulian Editorial: Recorded Music Is Free Only To Thieves

A New York Times editorial from last week offered a more balanced assessment of the music industry's legal war against piracy. The editorial argued that the RIAA is "right to aggressively pursue people, even minors, who steal their products, but that alone will not solve their problems. They need to change how they do business, and fast, if they want to survive in the 21st century." The newspaper concluded that "[t]he only way for the industry to defend itself is to litigate hard, and publicly, against the copyright infringers. But it also needs to adapt to the times. Consumers do not want to pay $18 or $19 for a single CD, a steep price in absolute terms and when compared with other forms of entertainment, like DVD's, which offer more bang for the buck. Universal Music Group's recent decision to reduce prices as much as 30 percent stands as an example for other companies to follow. The industry also needs to improve its technology. File swappers get their music online not only because it is free, but also because it is convenient. Consumers want to get the music they want in their homes, immediately, and they don't want to be forced to buy a whole CD to get a song they like. Online music stores, which keep prices down by eliminating CD's, packaging, delivery and bricks-and-mortar stores, are the wave of the future."
• New York Times Editorial: Suing Music Downloaders (Registration required)

The Consequences of the RIAA Suits

While a number of musicians have quietly cheered the music industry's moves, some artists are worried that the sweep of lawsuits will alienate their fans, The New York Times wrote in an article on Sunday. "It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," Deborah Harry of Blondie told the newspaper, "adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, 'it's embarrassing.'"

The singer Moby wrote about the debate on his Web site: "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: 'Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?'"

But the Times piece makes clear that artists have serious concerns about the release of their work online: "For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard."
• The New York Times: File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught In The Middle (Registration required)

Meanwhile, in a separate article today, The New York Times reports that the RIAA's moves could backfire and create an anonymous black market of sorts for illegal file swapping. The Times said "hundreds of software developers are racing to create new systems, or modify existing ones, to let people continue to swap music -- hidden from the prying eyes of the [RIAA], or from any other investigators. ... Some experts wonder if the industry's efforts will create more trouble for it than ever. 'The RIAA is breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria,' said Clay Shirky, a software developer who teaches new media at New York University."
• The New York Times: Crackdown May Send Music Traders Into Software Underground (Registration required)

The Associated Press noted in an article that while the RIAA may have a hard time collecting damages on its lawsuits since so many of the defendants are minors. Even though experts quoted in the articles said the RIAA has a good case against defendants who refuse to settle the charges, "proving a parent's liability for a child's activity is much harder, said Jonathan Zittrain, codirector of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. 'And in general, if you win an action against a kid, you don't get to collect against the parent,' Zittrain said."
• The Associated Press via The Philadelphia Inquirer: Song-Swap Suits May Face An Obstacle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep15.html


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

Music Business Facing New Reality
Leonard Pitts Jr.

I hate to say I told you so.

Well, not really. Like most people, I rather enjoy it, to tell the truth.

Not that one had to be a genius to foresee what happened this week: the music industry filing suit against 261 people who had downloaded songs from the Internet without paying for them. The suit seeks as much as $150,000 per stolen song.

Like I said: Big surprise. It didn't take a crystal ball to guess that an industry that estimates its piracy losses at over $4 billion a year would eventually do something drastic.

I and others have made that point repeatedly in recent years. But the young people -- they're almost always young -- for whom ''free music'' has come to seem an entitlement were never impressed.

They dismissed the industry's threats with the sense of blithe invincibility that characterizes young people, often justifying their thievery with the most guileless naiveté.

Consider two exchanges posted on a Napster bulletin board after the industry sued that company into submission.

''Music,'' wrote one fan, ``is not something which should be copyrighted and sold and still owned by the musician.''

''Music should be free for all,'' said another.

As if nobody had to pay the truckers and engineers, roadies and publicists, who make the industry go. As if fan worship was something you could cash.

Now comes the reckoning. Dozens of lawsuits filed and many more threatened.

And suddenly the news is full of people frantically wiping their hard drives of contraband songs and parents of minors having earnest conversations with the tykes about their Internet activities. There is fear, there is defiance and there is anger over the industry's tactics. One student complained to CNN, ``. . . [T]hey can't just hack into our systems and track our activities. It's our property.''

The poor child was apparently irony-impaired.

And it's hard to feel any sympathy for her or any of them because, hey, we told them so.

But one doesn't exactly overflow with sympathy for the industry, either. After all, we told them so, too. This goes back nearly a decade, to when ''Information Superhighway'' was just becoming a cliché and the idea that you could ''download'' music from the Internet was in its infancy. It didn't take a lot to see that this process could someday supplant two of the industry's primary functions: manufacture and distribution.

Given that one can now build a studio in the garage for a couple thousand dollars, you can strike another of the recording industry's traditional functions: recording. Which leaves what? Promotion and publicity?

The point is that we have arrived at a time when the very idea of a ''music business'' as traditionally constituted seems increasingly quaint. The industry could have adapted itself to the new realities 10 years ago, could have pioneered Internet pay services that would have, to some degree at least, headed off the current rush of online shoplifting. But it chose not to. Hidebound and hubristic, it resisted change any idiot could have seen coming. The music barons could have shaped the future, but ignored it instead.

Now they find themselves scrambling to catch up, scrambling to convince young people to pay for something they have become accustomed to receiving free. You think that won't be a hard sell?

I am to business savvy as Donald Rumsfeld is to tact, but this all seems a prime example of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I mean, something's gone truly haywire when an industry is reduced to suing its own customers.

In so doing, the music business may well win the proverbial battle but lose the war.

Given the wealth of entertainment options we have at our fingertips these days, is it so hard to imagine that a young person might choose the one that isn't suing him?

Nobody's going to win this fight. Something else you don't have to be a genius to know.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ts/6750275.htm


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

Is It Wrong to Share Your Music?
Katie Hafner

IT shouldn't be illegal," said 14-year-old Sonya Arndt. "It's not like I'm selling it."

"Isn't it like recording movies?" asked Korbi Blanchard, 13. "They're making a big thing out of nothing."

"It's wrong to be downloading hundreds of songs, but if you only want one or two, it's not that big a deal," said 13-year-old Kristina Lee.

When the record industry's campaign against digital file-sharing yielded lawsuits on Sept. 8 against 261 people - at least one as young as 12 - it struck home with students at Foothill Middle School as news events seldom do.

Almost all of the 1,100 students at the school, in this suburb 25 miles east of San Francisco, have Internet-connected computers at home. And their musical tastes, like those of teenagers before them, are strongly held - Linkin Park, 50 Cent, Good Charlotte - as are their views of right, wrong and fairness.

So Valerie Kriger, a Foothill teacher, chose music downloading as her Friday current events topic.

Later that day, two of Ms. Kriger's classes - her yearbook class, with seventh and eighth graders, and her social studies and English students, all eighth graders - spent their class time sharing their thoughts on the subject with a reporter. In all, nearly 50 students wanted to weigh in with their opinions.

And those opinions came out in a flood. Virtually everyone wanted to express some indignation at the recording industry, mixed with no small amount of confusion over the legal issues.

Theirs is a downloading culture. A few clicks of a mouse bring them not just music, but movies, games, and instant communication as well. Legality seems beside the point as they click their way through licensing agreements, impatient for the software at the other end.

Although happy to give their views, Ms. Kriger's students were decidedly more guarded when asked about their own downloading practices.

Reluctantly, more than half said they had downloaded music. Several said they did not want their parents to know. And only half of those who downloaded music said they knew that they were violating copyrights.

Sonya Arndt, an energetic eighth grader known in class for speaking out, had the most to say. The record industry is simply greedy, she said. The industry should not be going after a bunch of kids. And how were her friends supposed to afford the high cost of CD's?

Individual musicians are not necessarily suffering, either, she said. "They're not losing money, because we still buy the T-shirts and go to their concerts," Sonya said. "They're still famous."

Her friend Korbi Blanchard, a 13-year-old whom Ms. Kriger identified as one of her brightest students, chimed in. "If you're not selling it, why is it wrong?" Korbi asked. "If it's something for personal use, as long as you're not redistributing it, it should be O.K."

At the same time, many of the students are thinking harder about their downloading habits now that they know they could be singled out for what they do.

"It makes me nervous," said Korbi, whose Internet use usually involves shopping and communicating with a small circle of friends. "They're intimidating people."

Sonya, Korbi and others in the class complained about the mixed signals they get from those who are supposedly responsible for informing them what is right and wrong.

That includes the PC makers ("Why do they sell PC's with CD burners if it's illegal?" Sonya asked) and the purveyors of such programs as KaZaA, which allow the downloading to take place. ("Why isn't there a warning that says that what we're doing is illegal?" Kristina Lee asked.)

Sonya's tone veered toward anger when the subject turned to drugs. She told of a friend at the school who was using ecstasy and other drugs, her life a mess. Music downloading, Sonya said, was innocuous by comparison. "Five hours in front of a computer is five hours away from drugs," she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/te...ts/18kids.html


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

Distributors of DVD-Copy Software Sued
John Borland

Hollywood studios Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox sued a handful of small software companies Wednesday, alleging that their distribution of DVD- copying software violates copyright law.

The studios filed suit against Tritton Technologies, QOJ, World Reach and Proto Ventures in New York federal court, asking for unspecified damages and a court-ordered halt to the distribution of the various software packages.

Tritton released its DVD CopyWare software, created by an affiliated European company, to mainstream retail channels in August. The other companies distribute largely online, through Web sites including QOJ's copiesanything.com and World Reach's dvdfastcopy.com.

Representatives for the two studios could not immediately be reached for comment. A Tritton representative declined immediate comment, saying the company needed to review the suit.

The lawsuit is the second focusing on software distributed at mainstream retail stores that gives consumers the ability to easily copy DVDs using standard computer equipment. Hollywood executives fear that such software will help push them into the same cycle of piracy and falling revenues that the music industry is now facing.

A coalition of Hollywood studios led by the Motion Picture Association of America sued 321 Studios, creator of DVD X Copy and the leader in the DVD backup software market, last year. An initial ruling in the case is expected any time. The studios contend that 321's software violates provisions of copyright law that bars distribution of software that circumvents anticopying protections.

Most DVDs are loaded with a copy-protection technology called Content Scramble System, or CSS, but information on how to crack that protection, and tools that do it automatically, have been widely available online for several years.

Studios have won several victories in their legal attempts to push that information offline, winning a court order barring publisher Eric Corley from posting one of the software tools, called DeCSS, on his Web site or even linking to other sites that were making the program available.

However, 321's software, which is much simpler to use, has been available on retail shelves at mainstream stores such as CompUSA for months. Tritton's CopyWare software is available at online stores including Buy.com.

In an interview last month, Tritton Chief Executive Christopher von Huben said he did not expect to be sued, since his company was simply acting as distributor for the CopyWare software, rather than creating it. He compared his company's role to that of CompUSA in distributing 321 Studio's products.

Copyright lawyers at the time said that was unlikely to prevent a lawsuit, however.
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5078419.html


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

Senate Commerce Testimony: Post-Mortem
Edward W. Felten

Today I testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. The issue under discussion was whether (or how) the government should require the inclusion of DRM (anti-copying) technology in digital TV equipment. Here is my written testimony.

If you haven’t been to such a hearing, you might be surprised at some of what happens. For one thing, unlike the hearings you see on TV, some of the Senators are absent, and some come and go during the hearing. (A Senator is on multiple committees, and various hearings are going on simultaneously, along with other business.)

You would probably be disappointed as well at the quality of the debate. It’s not that debate doesn’t occur; and it’s not that the issues at hand aren’t important. But much time is wasted on posturing that is irrelevant to the nominal topic of the hearing and seems designed only to show that one side is purer of heart than the other. An example was the repeated references to porn on P2P networks. This had no connection to the hearing’s topic, and nobody even bothered to connect it to the topic. And none of the witnesses had any connection with P2P technology.

At the witness table, I was seated next to the one and only Mr. Jack Valenti, whom Senator Brownback laughingly introduced as “the eternal head of the MPAA.” Mr. Valenti was accompanied by a seeming army of helpers who passed him notes at a furious pace. He struck his usual apocalyptic tone -- his testimony was titled “The Perils of Movie Piracy – and its dark effects on consumers, the million people who work in the movie industry, and the nation’s economy: Some facts, worries, and a look at the uncharted future”. The first paragraph is a real doozy:

No nation can lay claim to greatness or longevity unless it constructs a rostrum from which springs a “moral imperative” which guides the daily conduct of its citizens. Within the core of that code of conduct is a simple declaration that to take something that does not belong to you not only is wrong, but it is a clear violation of the moral imperative, which is fastened deep in all religions.

And this at a hearing about TV tuner regulation!

Mr. Valenti, characteristically, hit the P2P porn meme the hardest, even, in a surreal moment, inviting the Senators’ staffers to go download some porn from Kazaa and see for themselves how vile it is. As a parent, I had to chuckle on hearing the American movie industry complain about the distribution of inappropriate sexual content to kids. But then again the whole room seemed at times to be an irony-free zone.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000446.html


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

TV Fans Tap Into Torrent Of Shows Online
Reuters

First music, then movies — now Internet file traders have tuned in to television, going online to download their favorite shows.

Web sites like Suprnova.org (suprnova.org) are doing for TV downloads what Napster did for digital music files. You can find last night's episode of American Idol, the entire collection of The Simpsons, and old favorites like Battlestar Galactica.

Such downloads, which may be on shaky legal ground, are popular outside the United States. This is especially true in Europe, where fans sometimes have to wait years to see the latest episodes of U.S. shows like The West Wing and Six Feet Under.

TV shows have long been available from online file trading networks like Kazaa, but can take many hours or even days to download, with the longest wait times for the most popular programs.

But a "file swarming" program called BitTorrent can speed up the process. When you click on a link, BitTorrent downloads the TV show to your computer in fragments, which are simultaneously transferred to other users seeking to download the same show.

In effect, the more popular the file, the faster the download. So the day after a new episode of Survivor airs, downloads are relatively speedy compared with peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa.

But even with a broadband connection, downloading a one-hour show usually takes least two hours, or even days for some of the rarer files. With a dial-up connection, forget about it. Get high-speed Internet, or watch TV the old-fashioned way.

Where do these TV files come from? Some are probably "ripped," or copied, from illegally decrypted DVDs. Others come from tech-savvy users who have turned their computers into personal video recorders like TiVo.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...wnloads_x.htm#


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

His Beyonce, Her Beatles: A Primer on Trading
J. D. Biersdorfer

KAZAA, Morpheus, LimeWire, BearShare, Grokster - they may sound like heroes of a comic book superhero team, but they are all Internet file-sharing programs that provide membership in an online co-op of millions of digital traders.

A file-sharing system basically works like this: you download and install a file-sharing program like KaZaA, which allows you to search the Internet for specific material that somebody else's computer may have. When you find it, you can get a copy of the file. In exchange, you make a folder of your own files to be shared with other users. Because all of this trading is done directly between individuals, it is commonly referred to as peer-to-peer, or P2P, networking.

File sharing became a frequent activity and hot topic in 1999 with the arrival of Napster, a piece of software written by Shawn Fanning, then a computer science student. The prime stock in trade quickly became music, which with the advent of the MP3 format had become easier to compress into small digital files and exchange.

Although the files were kept on the computers of Napster's users, the system used a central index server to match up search requests and file locations. It was the use of this central server that ultimately made Napster legally vulnerable, and it was shut down in 2002 after litigation by the recording industry.

Napster was not the only file-sharing program out there, and several others popped up to take its place. These programs, like LimeWire and BearShare (both work with the far-flung Gnutella file-sharing network), do not use a central server. Instead, they rapidly pass along search queries from machine to machine along the network - making it legally difficult to stop since there is no one computer in charge. What's more, some peer-to-peer programs now encrypt shared files to protect users.

The legal defense of most file-sharing networks is that even if some users trade bootleg copies of "Pirates of the Caribbean" rather than just their own creations or works in the public domain, it is the users who are liable for any copyright infringement, not the network.

Given the open nature of most file-sharing programs, users run some personal risk.

For the best user experience, most programs strongly encourage two-way sharing and request that you designate a folder of your own files to share with anybody else on the network. This shared folder is usually easy to set up, but there is a danger that you might accidentally share all the files on your hard drive, including confidential information. (You can turn off your shared folder in most programs, but that might hinder your ability to download from others.)

Some files shared across the network might be corrupted or carry viruses that can infect your computer. And to make money, many free file-sharing programs inconspicuously bundle in additional software called spyware and adware, which can track your Internet use and deliver advertisements based on that use.

While the battle over peer-to-peer networks continues, a growing number of online alternatives have emerged that operate within the pale of copyright, like Apple's iTunes Music Store and the Pressplay service, whose new owner is planning to reintroduce it this year under a new yet oddly familiar name: Napster 2.0.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/te...rtne r=GOOGLE


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

Boucher Presents P2P 101

Congressman Rick Boucher gave an introduction to the positive side of Peer to Peer networks to congressional aides and others on Wednesday. His presentation included a Powerpoint presentation, the MUSIC WARS special from TechTV, and some other demonstrations. This was certainly a bright spot in the dismal lack of objective coverage of the issue in Washington. TechTV showed a brief clip of Congressman Rick Boucher giving a presentation called P2P 101. Although the attendees were mostly congressional aides, it does show that at least one congressperson "Gets it". Boucher has in the past, demonstrated that he is able to cut through all the disinformation which the RIAA and others are spreading about this technology, and all those in his district should write him a nice e-mail and thank him for his efforts. We must show support for those who are demonstrating that they are open to reason on our issues, with at least as much passion as we oppose those who are fighting to impose draconian legislation against us. WAY TO GO CONGRESSMAN BOUCHER. WE APPRECIATE YOU!
http://www.p2pnet.net/article/8002


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

Files Still Being Downloaded
Leah George-Baskin

Even with the Recording Industry Association of America filing more than 260 suits against people illegally sharing music last week, people appear to still be downloading file- sharing software.

Brian O'Neal, spokesman for Morpheus, said they have not noticed a decline in users. Morpheus is a software product used to download files. After Morpheus is downloaded, O'Neal said they have no way of tracking the actions of individual users. He said they can only determine how many times the product is downloaded. Last week their software was downloaded 262,000 times and 349,000 the week before that, O'Neal said.

"We don't support copyright infringement," O'Neal said. "We have messages to that effect on the Web site. There are many wonderful uses of file-sharing software that don't involve illegal files but it's up to individual users. If it's illegal, it's their choice."

Wayne Russo, president of Grokster.com, a free program similar to Morpheus, said they also inform their users of the copyright law. But like Morpheus, Grokster is unable to monitor what each user does with the software. To monitor those activities is against the nature of the network, Russo said. Grokster is downloaded 60,000 to 100,000 times per week worldwide.

Russo said the RIAA sued Grokster for vicarious contribution to copyright infringement but lost. A Federal Circuit Court found Grokster to be legal on April 25.

"We are no different from Sony, Panasonic, Mitsubishi or RCA, who make videotape players and market and sell them," Russo said. "Videotape players are used for illegal copyright infringement and piracy too, but you don't go after Sony, you go after the pirate."

Amanda Collins, spokeswoman for the RIAA, said recording companies have licensed thousands of their tracks to online music services. She said there are dozens of ways to get music legally from the Internet, and that there is no longer an excuse to obtain it illegally.

"The people have been gauged and peer-to-peer file sharing is a garbage filter," Russo said. It is a way for consumers to try songs before they buy them, he said.

Russo also claimed the recording industry is not merely being harmful to music fans, but is made up of "serial litigators and bullies."

There are easy solutions for these copyright issues, such as blanket compulsory licenses, he said. The Grokster.com president said people are willing to pay for music but the price right now is too high.

"The music industry has been educating the public for a long time now about illegal activity taking place on the Internet," Collins said. "You are not anonymous when you steal music off the Internet; anyone who thinks they are anonymous are sorely mistaken."

Even with the threat of being caught by the RIAA, some students said they don't see a need to stop downloading music.

Jackie Beard, sophomore in LAS, said it is a kind of justice when you can download songs for free.

"It takes less than a dollar for (the recording industry) to make a CD and then they charge you $15," Beard said. "They are ripping you off."

Sophomore in LAS Lori Scardina said she likes the idea of downloading music because it is easier and faster than buying CDs. She said she downloads songs so that she can listen to the songs she likes instead of buying a CD with songs she doesn't like.

"I'm more willing to pay 50 cents for a song than the entire amount for a CD I won't even listen to," Scardina said.
http://www.dailyillini.com/sep03/sep..._story08.shtml


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

Slew Of Record Industry Lawsuits Hasn't Stopped OU File-Sharing
Jessica Moorman

In the wake of recent lawsuits filed by the recording industry, Ohio University students may be a little more worried about possible consequences, but most do not seem to have ceased downloading and sharing free music from the Internet.

As classes began at OU on Sept. 8, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed 261 lawsuits against Internet users who trade copyrighted material via peer-to-peer file- sharing services such as KaZaA, iMesh, Gnutella, Morpheus and others. The targets of these lawsuits were of various ages, backgrounds and professions, but most were sharing more than 1,000 copyrighted files.

File-sharing services have been and remain one of the most hotly debated issues in the news media. On the OU campus, students have 24-hour, high-speed Internet connections, and many computers come equipped with CD burners. Last spring The Athens NEWS even reported of a student-run file-sharing service on campus called Direct Connect. It has since been dismantled, and some universities have begun cracking down on these types of services.

Unlike these other universities, OU has chosen to inform students of the possible consequences of their actions but not aggressively combat file-sharing. Sean O'Malley, public relations manager for OU Communication Network Services (CNS), said that the university places responsibility with the students for correctly using campus computers.

"We believe they're adults and can use things properly," he said, adding that a stricter policy on computer use could hinder student learning.
http://www.athensnews.com/issue/arti...story_id=13980


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

'Dual Disc' to Combine CD, DVD
Tim Burt

The global music industry is poised to launch technology that would combine compact discs and music videos on a single disc in its latest drive to bolster faltering recorded music sales.

Warner Music, part of AOL Time Warner Inc., is due to launch the so-called dual disc early next year in conjunction with Sony Corp., the Japanese electronics and entertainment group.

The three other major music companies — Universal Music, EMI and BMG — support the plan.

One music company chairman, who declined to be named, said: "We are testing the market and we are going to launch it early next year."

Under the proposal, a single disc would combine a music album on one side and a DVD on the other.

Production would be led by the CD manufacturing arms of Sony and Warner Music, which is selling its CD factories to Cinram International of Canada.

The project follows falling demand for traditional CDs and rising sales of DVDs.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology


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

190 Terabytes

Half-Inch Tape Is The Way To Go, Says Spectra Logic

New format for tape libraries.
Bryan Betts

Spectra Logic has introduced its first tape libraries to use the LTO and SuperDLT half-inch tape formats, saying that its former focus on Sony's 8mm SuperAIT drive was a dead end.

"The late 90s were a time when Quantum got it wrong with DLT and messed a lot of people up on supply," says Spectra Logic's EMEA sales director Anthony Yeates.

"We thought DLT wouldn't be the future and chose Sony. In hindsight we should have done half-inch - we spent too much time trying to sell the drive when we should have been selling a technical solution."

He says that although Spectra Logic is late into the market, it brings intelligent libraries with the industry's highest storage density. It can fit 190TB of uncompressed data into a 30-inch rack, and up to four extra racks can be added to take it to 120 drives and over 6000 cartridges.

The high capacity is thanks to a design which stores and moves tapes around in small racks. It also allows media to be loaded and unloaded in bulk.

Yates adds that not only can SDLT, LTO and SAIT be mixed within a single library, it can have Fibre Channel and Gigabit Ethernet interfaces and be partitioned into multiple virtual libraries too. "We can replace five dumb libraries with one intelligent one," he says.
http://www.techworld.com/news/index....ews&NewsID=453


And the upload speed you’ll need for delivery…


BT Goes Symmetrical

Carrier finally rolls out SDSL.
Manek Dubash

BT Wholesale has finally launched its business-oriented SDSL broadband service, following a 12 month- trial at 100 exchanges around the UK. According to BT spokesman Francis King, 12 ISPs were involved in the trials and both the timing and pricing of their launches depends on them.

BT said available data rates will be 250Kbit/s, 500Kbit/s, 1Mbit/s and 2Mbit/s, with prices starting at £450 per month for all data rates plus a maximum of £1,440 annual rental, rising to a maximum of £3,000 as bandwidth increases.

The package will be branded as BT DataStream Symmetric and BT IPStream Symmetric. At first, it will be limited to 100 exchanges serving metropolitan areas in London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Scotland, with 50 further exchanges to be enabled by January 2004. According to BT, details of the exchanges to be upgraded for SDSL in this phase of rollout are being finalised and should be confirmed by the end of October.

Bruce Stanford, director BT Wholesale products, said: "The launch of our broadband symmetric products strengthens the portfolio of business-class broadband products which service providers can offer to their customers. Demand is expected to be strong as SMEs can gain real competitive advantage from using this broadband capability.”

"The next phase of BT Wholesale's broadband symmetric rollout has been designed to help service providers address market demand and to meet their customers' needs."
http://www.techworld.com/news/index....ews&NewsID=438


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

RIAA 'Encouraging Stalkers, Molesters' – Telco
Andrew Orlowski

US telco giant SBC has hit back at the Recording Industry Association of America's legal blitz against music lovers.

In testimony before the Senate this week, SBC's counsel Jim Ellis said that the RIAA was making an end run around the constitution by issuing a blitz of subpoenas with no judicial oversight.

Ellis argued that the legal tactics deployed by the RIAA could be adopted by Net stalkers and child molesters.

"Under the RIAA's interpretation of the law, anyone willing to pay a small fee and represent that its copyright is being violated would be entitled to know the name, address and phone number of the person behind an anonymous e-mail," said Ellis. "This would readily lead the Internet stalker, the child predator or the abusive spouse to their victims."

But the RIAA is already showing how. Its own stalking and child- bothering resulted in a public relations fiasco last week after a 12- year old girl was slapped with a lawsuit for using the Kazaa file sharing service. Brianna LaHara, a Manhattan schoolgirl living in public housing became the first to settle with the RIAA: the lobby group extracting a $2,000 fine despite there being no evidence that her downloading activity caused the loss of a single CD sale or a cent in artist's royalties.

The RIAA had its defenders, however: Senator Barbara Boxer (D) blasted both SBC and Verizon for "encouraging" music downloads. She quoted from a Verizon brochure Verizon Online – Your Guide to Broadband Living and Content [PDF, 8MB] and accused the ISPs of "attempting to protect privacy of theft."

Verizon lawyer William Barr pointed out that Boxer had got her knickers in a twist, and accused her of taking the quote out of context.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32905.html


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

Europe's Downloaders Are Big Consumers Too: Study
Bernhard Warner

Europe's Internet downloaders are avid music fans who own multiple gadgets and are as likely to buy a compact disc as anyone else, according to new research released on Wednesday.

The image belies the notion of the slacker teenager trawling the Internet for free music to hoard. They are regular shoppers in record stores today, and they are very likely to buy song downloads in the future, the researchers said.

"There are strong music fans within the file-sharing community," Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Jupiter Research in London, told Reuters.

"They are more likely to listen to digital radio and visit artist Web sites. There is compelling evidence that this group is the bedrock community for those willing to pay for legitimate (online) music services in the future," Mulligan added.

The music industry has waged an all-out war on Internet file sharing and CD burning, which it blames for a three-year decline in sales of recorded music.

In the United States, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the world's big five music companies, Universal Music, Warner Music, EMI, BMG, and Sony Music, has begun suing individual music-swappers.

In Europe, industry trade bodies and the major music labels have tried a gentler tactic, promoting industry-backed services and educating consumers that downloading copyright-protected media is an illegal activity.

Europe's online downloaders differ from their North American counterparts, said Chris Colman, European, Middle East and Africa managing director of Canada's Sandvine Inc., a technology start-up that works with Internet service providers to minimize the escalating bandwidth costs associated with file sharing.

European downloaders prefer services such as WinMX and eDonkey, which are havens for film, software and music videos. Services such as Kazaa, which runs on the file-sharing Fasttrack technology and are teeming with songs, are more popular in North America, Colman said.

North Americans and Europeans appear to be using peer-to-peer services for different purposes, but there is one constant: file-sharing usage is escalating as the market for high-speed broadband Internet grows, he said.

"We're finding that new broadband subscribers are sharing files earlier and existing broadband subscribers are sharing files more," Colman said.

Jupiter's data, from a survey of 5,000 Internet users this summer in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France and Germany, backs up Sandvine's findings.

According to Mulligan, 15 percent of Europeans surveyed download a movie each month from a free file-sharing service. Spain tops the list with 38 percent admitting to downloading a movie each month.

In contrast, a separate Jupiter survey of U.S. Internet users reported that 12 percent of Americans download a video file each month.

Mulligan, for one, says it would be a mistake for Hollywood and television executives to embark on a legal crackdown against this consumer segment, which could some day be a media company's best customers.

"I think there's definitely an opportunity for television companies and movie studios alike to harness an emerging pattern of consumption here," Mulligan said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3461693













Until next week,

- js.









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

Recent WIRs -


http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17495 September 13th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17325 September 6th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17374 August 30th
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=17325 August 23rd





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