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

[JackSpratts]

Jesus’ spokespeople check in

Peer to Peer Justice
The Monitor's View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Rip. Mix. Burn.

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

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

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

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

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

Turning customers into pirates

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

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

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

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

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






Good And Bad News In Grokster Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Why File-Sharing Piracy Will Never Die
Sandy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Bulls, Bears Debate Napster

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

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

The Bull Case

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

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

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

The Bear Case

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

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

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

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

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


Disclosures

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

• SunTrust Capital Markets makes a market in Napster stock.

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

• Craig-Hallum makes a market in Napster stock.

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

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






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

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

"Yes."

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

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

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

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

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

"Six months, maybe a year."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Security Bytes: Infected Computer Leaks Nuke Plant Documents

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

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

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

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







Japanese Govt To Tighten Control After Nuclear Power Plant Data Leak

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

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

He did not specify what action the government would take.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Canadian Porn Performers Want Protection From U.S. Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Couple Fights To Keep Hard Drive
Phil Garber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, the hard drives should remain protected, Ravin said.

“You can’t go fishing because of the first amendment right to speak freely and anonymously,” Ravin said.

Judge Dumont did not issue a written opinion but said he did not dispute Heymann’s request for the computer hard drive. Ravin said Dumont had apparently not determined that the postings may have damaged Scapicchio or Guenther.

“I don’t see how the discovery sought (chat room postings) are relevant to anything in the complaint,” Ravin said.

Ravin said various court decisions have supported a person’s right to make anonymous postings on the Internet. He said the Uhrmanns “have as much right to anonymity as anyone else.”

Ravin said the courts are the “gatekeepers” to protect people from giving up anonymity and becoming potential targets of harassment.

“There is no right to gain personal information that is not relevant to a lawsuit,” said Ravin.

Reavin is currently chair of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association, and past co-chair of the Internet Law Committee of the section.

Ravin said courts have historically supported the right to privacy and to speak anonymously. One historical case involved the publication of the Federalist Papers prior to the American Revolution under the pseudonym “Publius.”

Ravin said two particular lawsuits have been landmarks in protecting anonymous chat room or other Internet postings. One involved a 2002 case where the Dendrite Corp., formerly of Harding Township, had sought the identities of people who had made anonymous e-mail comments critical of the company.

Another 2002 case involved a suit brought against an Emerson, Bergen County, web site operator and numerous anonymous online authors who had posted messages to the site’s electronic bulletin board.

The plaintiffs, who included public figures in Emerson, had subpoenaed the Internet service provider and host of the electronic bulletin board, for the addresses of the anonymous authors.

In the Dendrite case, the court ruled that anonymity was guaranteed unless it was shown that the statements had been illegal or caused significant harm. The judge hearing the Emerson case refused an order to identify the anonymous posters, saying that no harm was shown.

“People who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity,” Ravin wrote in an article in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...506840&rfi =6






Almost All US Libraries Offer Free Web Access
Gretchen Ruethling

Nearly all libraries around the country have free public Internet access and an increasing number are offering wireless connections, according to a study released Thursday by the American Library Association here.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at Florida State University, found that 98.9 percent of libraries offer free public Internet access, up from 21 percent in 1994 and 95 percent in 2002. It also found that 18 percent of libraries have wireless Internet access and 21 percent plan to get it within the next year.

"U.S. public libraries have gained a tremendous amount of headway as it relates to connectivity and access," said John Carlo Bertot, one of the study's authors. "The challenge lies in ensuring that libraries continue to get the support they need to provide necessary improvements to the technology."

The study found that rural areas were more likely to have slower connections and fewer workstations and training opportunities. Arkansas, California, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia and West Virginia had the lowest levels of access.

Urban areas, which also had some of the highest poverty rates, tended to have high levels of connectivity, bandwidth and wireless access.

The study sampled 6,865 libraries out of the total 16,192 in the country and received responses from 5,023 libraries in 34 states.

Hazel Williams, 50, of Chicago said she started going to the library for Internet research two years ago while she was earning her high school equivalency diploma. On Thursday, she was surfing the Web for jobs at the Harold Washington Library Center, which has 78 computers with Internet access, in downtown Chicago.

"Because I don't have a home computer, it's very convenient for me to use it here," Ms. Williams said. "If they didn't have the computer here, it would be kind of hard for me to get one."

People like Ms. Williams who go to the library for Internet access might be one reason that the number of annual library visits has increased from 500 million in the early 1990's to 1.2 billion today, said Carol Brey-Casiano, president of the American Library Association.

The study also reported that almost 40 percent of public libraries filter public Internet access to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually related materials. State library systems in Georgia and West Virginia put filters on all public libraries, the study reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/na...24library.html






Sony Denies Seeking PSP Customer Data
Michael Singer

Sony is dismissing news reports that it's asking online stores for customer information to track shipments of the company's PlayStation Portable game console in the United Kingdom.

Published reports out of Britain suggest that Sony is using the knowledge to confiscate any unauthorized product being shipped to consumers before the official launch date of Sept. 1.

Sony's president of consumer sales, Stan Glasgow, told CNET News.com that rather than targeting customers, the company is going to court on Monday to ask for an injunction against companies that participate in the underground market for the devices, sometimes referred to as the "gray market."

"We are fully aware of the gray market situation and we are trying to address the problem," Glasgow said, "but I seriously doubt that Sony would pursue any criminal action against individuals. It's just something that we wouldn't do."

Sony is getting firm with online retailers that participate in what it calls "parallel importing" of PSP products from the U.S. and Japan. Sony president David Reeves told Gamesindustry.biz that the company sent more than 600 letters asking individuals and companies to stop selling import PSP devices on eBay.

The PSP, a $249.99 portable console for playing video games and movies, is already on sale in Japan and the United States. Shipments into the United Kingdom were delayed by about six months to make sure the company had enough for its U.S. launch.

U.K. customers clamoring for the $249.99 consoles have been turning to online retailers to fulfill their gaming desires, often paying a $100 premium to get their hands on one.

Glasgow responded to the reports during a stop in San Francisco on Friday. Sony executives are scouring the globe touting the company's upcoming product sales strategy, of which the PlayStation Portable is a key element. Incoming Sony CEO Howard Stringer told shareholders in Tokyo on Wednesday that the company is planning its new-product unveiling for late September.
http://news.com.com/Sony+denies+seek...3-5761364.html






Data Everlasting

It took two centuries to cram the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., with more than 29 million books and periodicals, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, and 57 million manuscripts; today it takes 15 minutes to churn out the digital equivalent.

We rely on information stored in some kind of digital format on some sort of media to maintain our scholarly, legal, and cultural record and to continue to make progress with and profit from our digital labor. But the ephemeral nature of both data formats and storage media threatens our very ability to maintain economic, legal, and cultural continuity over time, not on the scale of centuries, but (considering the unrelenting pace of technological change) from one decade to the next.

Awareness of the problem is growing rapidly, especially in large organizations: as official government and corporate records become entirely digital, there are certain obligations to keep them around for future scrutiny. In the United States, for example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that business records, including electronic records and e-mail, must be saved for "not less than five years." And in some industries, such as pharmaceuticals, the regulations for record retention are much longer--30 years or more.

These new requirements, along with an increasing dependence on digital content across the board, have spurred corporations, governments, and universities to devise or acquire ways to preserve just about everything stored as bits. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries are attacking the problem of maintaining and sharing digital content over the long haul with a project called DSpace. Librarians there joined with programmers for Hewlett-Packard to build an open-source software application that not only accepts digital materials and makes them available on the Web, but also puts them into a data management regime that helps preserve them. MIT and 100 other organizations worldwide, including Cornell University, the University of Toronto, the University of Cambridge (UK), the Australian National University, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are actively using DSpace, with more institutions expected to create a DSpace archive this year.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/512739/?sc=swtn






The Court Has Ruled So Enter the Geeks
Jon Pareles

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision Tuesday in the Grokster case means trouble and potentially ruinous judgments against commercial file-sharing services, but it has also established a new standard for software innovation: don't ask, don't sell.

That is, don't ask for or gather information on what users are doing with the software you write, and don't sell ads that profit from access to copyrighted material.

The court found that the file-sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for copyright infringement because they offered marketing and technical advice that clearly induced their customers to share files illegally, so the companies could attract larger numbers of users and thus more advertising.

But the court did not give the movie and recording businesses much ammunition to attack the Robin Hoods of the Internet: those software geeks and culture fans who really just want to share. They are online right now building Web sites that don't make a dime and spending hours writing and editing "mp3 blogs" - Web page collections of downloadable songs. They hook people up, basically because they can and because people want access to art.

File sharing software designers learned "don't ask" from the federal court judgment that shut down Napster in 2001. Napster's legal problem was that it could ask, and every request went through a central server, so Napster presumably knew what users were trading, thus abetting copyright infringement.

The geek response was decentralized programs like the software behind Grokster and Kazaa. But those are ugly programs because they don't just connect people with files to share; they also install spyware and adware to sell advertising and profit off the traffic in (primarily) copyrighted files.

Enter the geeks again, who came up with ways to stop ads from displaying or engineered stripped-down ad-free versions of the software like Kazaa Lite. In a charming move, Kazaa tried to stop distribution of Kazaa Lite, claiming it was a copyright violation.

Then the geeks came up with programs that established independent, ad-free networks or, like Bittorrent, facilitated multiple individual connections. The court's decision may torpedo the parasitical, ad-pumping services like Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus, but no one's going to miss them much. There are plenty of geek alternatives that were devised not as business startups, but for the programmers' satisfaction and the users' sense of connection.

It's a completely alien mentality for profit-focused companies that still dream of being paid every time someone hears a song. Reality has never exactly worked that way, from radio to the Internet. In the United States, songwriters are paid for radio air play, but performers and recording companies are not, on the theory that having a song broadcast sells recordings and concert tickets.

That uncompensated use built a huge recording business. And while most radio is supported by advertising - like Grokster - it feels free to listeners.

So does the Internet, where people share everything from chocolate-chip cookie recipes to the details of last night's date. Motives for sharing music and movies are more complex than a grab for free goods. There's no doubt that getting entertainment free is a huge lure, but so is the access the Internet offers potentially to everything ever recorded or filmed.

Someone has it, and with the right hookup, so can you.

A few thousand CD's and DVD's at the mall no longer seem comprehensive. Even huge catalogs of paid downloadable music like the iTunes Music Store have notable gaps - the Beatles, for instance - and arrive with digital rights management encumbrances that can be confusing or worse.

Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, recently suggested a complete revamp of the overlapping licenses that have made it so complicated to get rights to put music online legitimately. That could take some time. In the meantime, a little digging can find even the most obscure material free and easy to use.

File-sharing software allows people to download without sharing - the logical thing to do if all that matters is getting material free. Yet millions of people open up shared folders anyway (which also opens the sharers up to lawsuits from the Recording Industry Association of America).

Why? To flaunt a collection. To spread the word on music they care about. To give back something for what they get. To feel cool. And while there is no doubt that some people are downloading copies of the latest Mariah Carey album, there are also people who grabbed a track of something they'd never hear on the radio, thus turning them into fans.

Copyright holders seem determined to shut down the buzz that builds stars. They want file-sharing technology to go away, refusing to recognize that the Internet itself could be defined as a file-sharing network. The Recording Industry of America has helped raid stores selling the mix tapes that build reputations in hip-hop, made from material supplied by the acts themselves. It sends cease-and-desist letters to fan blogs posting too many songs or lyrics and proselytizing for the music they love. Yet meanwhile, its member companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote a song into a radio hit or to make a video clip destined for MTV, where people can listen and watch free.

Six years after Napster arrived, it should be clear that geeks and fans are simply going to bypass a legal framework that was built for sales of sheet music and discs. As they did with radio and television, copyright holders should make those volunteers their allies in marketing because, try as they may, they're never going to find the Off switch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/ar...tml?oref=login




















Until next week,

- js.
























Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

June 25th, June 18th, June 11th, June 4th, May 28th, May 21st

Jack Spratt's Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black