Senators back DRM infection everywhereIt is all about tubesBy Nick Farrell: Tuesday 16 January 2007, 08:30Click here to find out more!US SENATORS are channelling the thoughts of the music industry again with a law aiming to shove DRM into every aspect of the net they can think of.While every man+dog is starting to wake up to the fact that DRM is more trouble than it is worth, the US senate seems to think that it will solve the problem of web pirating, which its chums in the Music industry say is more important than curing cancer or global warming.According to News.com, the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act, or Perform Act was reintroduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, Joseph Biden and Lamar Alexander after a previous go was laughed out by the IT industry.The idea of the new law is that Satellite and Internet radio services would be required to restrict listeners' ability to record and play back individual songs.Under the rules all services using the interweb will have to pay "fair market value" for the use of copyright music libraries. While this sounds fine, the Music Industry has been extremely reluctant to reveal what it considers a fair market price for each song. This is because the RIAA has a complex pricing structure based on internal politics within the music business and what it thinks it can screw from online companies.The rules follow the Music Industry's line on satellite radio and will order such outfits to have DRM installed on each single to prevent copying.
Music companies mull ditching DRMTime to remove the restriction on MP3sBy Nick Farrell: Monday 22 January 2007, 07:28Job searchTop INQ jobsTest Engineer, Thames ValleyJava Developer, Warwick , West MidlandsSAS Credit Risk, LondonSAP Integration Specialist, West MidlandsEntertainment Business Analyst, LondonSearch for a job: Job searchRECORD COMPANIES are closer to removing restrictions on MP3 distribution over the Internet.According to iht.com, a meeting of executives in Cannes over the weekend revealed that the major record labels are wrestling with the question of unrestricted internet access to content.John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said that this year it is likely at least one of the big names will experiment with dumping DRM or providing MP3 songs as a way of generating publicity that could lead to future sales. Apparently the music business is at a loss as to what to do about the Internet which has destroyed the monopoly of the leading record producers over the worldwide distribution of music in the past decade.Now it seems that the only reason that the music industry has not gone to such music distribution sooner is because of technology companies which insist on flogging them DRM systems that they claim is 'hacker proof'. Of course the music industry executives do not blame themselves for investing huge amounts of cash in the technological equivalent of snake oil.However, the music industry has its own religious movement to tackle before it can make any shift towards DRM free content. The Recording Industry Association of America is still convinced that it can stop the rot with expensive and increasingly less supported court cases. Its argument is that by narrowing fair use definitions rather than widening them it can bring the Internet to its knees.RIAA chairman Mitch Bainwol said that 'Fair use' does not extend consumers the right to become distributors of music. Although the Industry is starting to notice that consumers are getting increasingly hostile that the RIAA is starting to tell them that they cannot even distribute content to their own living room, or protect expensive CD content by copying it for personal use.
Hacker cracks Blu-ray as wellMuslix64 becomes DVD Jon of HD generationBy Theo Valich: Tuesday 23 January 2007, 08:57HD DVD WENT DOWN first. Then Sony's AACS content protection caved in on late Sunday night.An anonymous hacker, known as Muslix64, will go down in history as the guy that broke protection of both next-generation optical media standards, and both fell witin a month.Janvitos, a forum member on the video resource site Doom9, bought a Blu-ray player with Lord of War BD movie, and one day after a forum post appeared, Muslix64 came out with the solution how to nobble the DRM protection and unlock the files.It seems that Sony thought that AACS would be more secure, because it runs around one key (and it is MUCH harder to find one 128-bit key than 30, 40, or more keys in HD DVD protected land), but Muslix64 pulled it off and is now able to play once-AACS-protected files with a freeware video player such as VideoLan.Muslix64 used a plaintext attack to decrypt both formats, and the difference between his (sucessful) cracks and most of other efforts lies with the fact that he attacks data streams instead of attacking and cracking the BD/HD player software.The forum post goes on and on, explaining how the AACS protection got cracked and what is the right way to unlock the AACS-protected files from their DRM burden.We hope that all those intelectually challenged people in Hollywood won't sue authors of the VideoLan player for being able to play a video file, but it wouldn't be the first time they've missed the boat, the sea and the whole planet, right? µ
Italians give thumbs up to file sharingDownloading ok if not for profitBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday 24 January 2007, 09:18ITALY HAS told the music and film industry to go forth and multiply over its recent attempts to put students in prison for file sharing.According to MSN, The country's top criminal court has ruled that downloading music, movies and software over the Internet isn't a crime if profit wasn't the motivation.The ruling was made in favour of two former Turin Polytechnic Institute students who set up in 1994 a P2P file-sharing network.They were found guilty of illegal duplication and given a one-year sentence, which was reduced to three months on appeal.However the top criminal court in Rome threw out the convictions, ruling that it was not a crime to download computer files from such networks if there was no financial gain.The ruling does create some strange anomalies in Italy. Breaking copy-protection technologies is still illegal even if downloading the material had been decriminalised.However P2P supporters say that the ruling marks an important step in that it says that P2P per se is not a illegal.
Slayer of HD–DVD DRM speaksAACS easier to crack than CSSBy Nick Farrell: Thursday 25 January 2007, 07:46THE HACKER who broke the DRM behind HD-DVD and Blu-Ray has told slyck.com that the technology was easier to break than the CSS system it replaced.Muslix64 said that the work of DVD Jon in hacking the CSS format was much harder because they had to break encryption keys where as he didn't need to do that.When HD-DVD and Blu-Ray came out, the movie industry said that they had constructed enough elaborate DRM architecture to prevent anyone copying content.Muslix64's idea was to bypass the security by finding the volume keys to unlock the AACS protection. muslix64, who told slyck hacks that he does not see himself as a hacker, said he was an upset customer. He said his efforts were "fair use enforcement"!He was so furious that he couldn’t play his movie on my non-HDCP HD monitor because some executive in Hollywood decided he couldn't that he decided to crack the technology.After the HD-DVD crack, he thought it was only fair to crack Blu-ray too. One of the things he was amazed about was that Hollywood spent all this money on DRM protection and then forgot to protect the volume key in the memory.muslix64 said that his hack totally busted AACS and the only way to stop it is to put different keys on every disk, which would cost too much.Many people in the industry are trying to cover up this breach, by saying he has only poked a tiny hole in AACS, but muslix64 says it is more serious than that.He said that all PC based DVD players are currently vulnerable to his hack. muslix64 adds that Microsoft Vista's implementation of HDCP was not much of an obstacle either because any limitations are enforced in the player. This can be overcome by using an open-source player, like VideoLan.More here. µ
RIAA names and shames USCSchool for PiratesBy Nick Farrell: Monday 29 January 2007, 06:52THE RECORDING Industry Association of America (RIAA) has named and shamed the University of South Carolina as the worst crew of pirates in the country.The RIAA has sent the school 914 copyright infringement notices this year while the next 'worst', Clemson received only 71.This must be a tad embarrassing for the college's director of government and industry relations the somewhat colourfully named Ginger DeMint. DeMint, who is the daughter of US Senator Jim DeMint, moonlights as a RIAA lobby person.Apparently she has had a few words with the USC administrators and plans to make changes to the University's technology policy. This could include notices to students about illegal file-sharing, stricter limits on sharing files and university payment to a legal file-sharing service for USC students to use.
RIAA thinks CDs should be three times more expensiveThey are a stealBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday 07 February 2007, 07:34THE RECORDING Industry of America (RIAA) thinks that punters are paying far too little for a CD.The outfit which is competing with pirated and online music which can be traded for next to near nothing, thinks that punters should be paying at least three times what they are for CDs.A page on the RIAA's web site, has been designed to tell consumers that they are actually getting a good deal from the record companies. The page points out that between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40 per cent. During the same period of time, consumer prices rose by nearly 60 per cent. It argues that if CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.However as Techdirt points out, the comments reflect bogus economics as it does not take into account the fact that tech products get cheaper over time. It also shows that the outfit does not really understand the level of online competition it is facing.More here. µ
RIAA forced to cough up $50,000 legal feesVictim supportBy INQUIRER newsdesk: Wednesday 07 February 2007, 16:07THE RIAA IS BEING made to cough up to cover some legal fees incurred by file-sharing defendent Debbie Foster, after the case against her was dismissed last summer.Wired seems to think the case is definitely significant - until now, there has been no precedent existing for the RIAA compensating wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs.Approved by Judge Lee R. West, whose order you can view here (PDF), the court has granted Foster compensation of "reasonable attorney fees," though the judge has denied her "attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927."Wired managed to get a word in with Foster's attorney, Marilyn Barringer Thomson, who apparently is "pleased with the outcome." It looks as if the label, Capitol Records, will end up owing Foster over $50,000, not a figure to be sniffed at. µ
RIAA settlement site promotes P2P file sharingWhoopsBy Nick Farrell: Thursday 15 February 2007, 07:27Click here to find out more!THE RIAA has been growling a bit at Google for making money on the P2P sites using its websense programme. The phrase "contributory infringement" has been bandied about.However, as Wired points out it seems that the RIAA itself has been making cash from P2P sites in a similar way.On the site that the RIAA registered to peddle its new "pre-lawsuit" settlement packages the outfit has put up a parked page that is full of ads pointing to all sorts of file sharing programs.Some of the packages are nasty and contain adware and spyware. As Wired points out under the rules that the RIAA was thinking of using against Google, it means that it would have to sue itself for "contributory infringement".The moment that Wired published this comment the RIAA took down the site. Fortunately Wired had some nice pictures to prove that it existed. We wonder how much cash the RIAA made promoting P2P programs while the site was running? We also wonder how many people were sued by the RIAA for using software that they thought was OK because it came from an RIAA site.
RIAA must turn over attorney billing records to Oklahoma motherHumphrey CheungMarch 16, 2007 15:18Culver City (CA) - RIAA's legal team is spiraling into disaster as a judge has ruled that an Oklahoma mother is entitled to get billing records and timesheets from the RIAA. Debbie Foster wants the records to help her calculate how much the RIAA has spent in attorneys fees after their failed attempt to sue Foster. The judge has ruled that the RIAA has until March 26th to cough up the documents.In 2004, Debbie Foster was sued by the RIAA for allegedly illegally downloading pirated songs from peer to peer networks. Foster argued that she had nothing to do with the downloads, but the RIAA persisted and eventually added Debbie's daughter, Amanda, to the lawsuit.Usually most people settle with the RIAA for a few thousand dollars, but Debbie took the case to court and asked for the RIAA to produce records of what files she supposedly downloaded, along with the dates of the downloads. The RIAA couldn't produce the records and offered to withdraw the case.Now here is where it gets interesting, Debbie asked to be awarded reasonable attorneys fees for her ordeal and submitted her expenses to the court. The RIAA argued that the mother was asking for too much, to which the judge basically said, "Well if you think her fees are too much, show me yours."Presumably any records that are submitted will become public record, something the RIAA would probably not want to have happen. If their legal costs per case are very low, then it shows that the organization isn't doing much research before it sues. But if the costs are high, then it could persuade the judge to award Debbie with a much larger sum for her troubles.
Universities get miffed with RIAAPiracy witch hunt deemed a waste of timeBy Nick Farrell: Friday 23 March 2007, 08:30THERE ARE GROWING signs that US Universities are getting fed up with RIAA demands that they sort out piracy on campus.The RIAA has been running a high-profile campaign to get college students that it thinks have been involved in illegal file trading to settle lawsuits against them at a "discount".The plan depends on the RIAA getting the Universities to identify and turn over the names of offending students so that they can send them the threatening letters.However it seems that two universities are telling the RIAA to go forth and multiply.The University of Wisconsin has told the RIAA that it has no obligation to grass up its students out unless it is ordered to by a judge.The University of Nebraska has told the RIAA that it can't help them at all because it changes computer's IP address each time its turned on. It says it only keeps this information for month. After that month, the school has no way of associating an IP address with a computer or its user.This last excuse has the RIAA fuming because it believes the University should keep its records longer. Of course the University does not have to keep records just to satisfy the needs of the RIAA, and just to indicate how cross they are that the record companies are about bothering them, they have sent them a bill for wasting its IT department's time.
Three quarters of students ignore RIAA threatsStill the body claims successBy Nick Farrell: Monday 26 March 2007, 09:12THE RIAA CLAIMS that its policy of threatening students who it thinks are pirates is a great success even though three quarters of those targeted ignore its demands for cash.The RIAA has been offering discounted settlements to 400 students at 13 universities. Basically it tells them that if they pay about $3000 they will not take them to court and save them from a criminal record that will blight their entire existence.The cunning plan required the letters to be forwarded from the University IT department to the students as the RIAA had not got court orders demanding that the names be identified. Because the RIAA did not have to give anyone any proof, it could also up the ante and really scare people.One Ohio University student was told that she distributed 787 audio files, putting her total minimum potential liability at more than $590,000. No proof was offered.To some extent, the scheme worked. For the cost of a letter, the RIAA managed to collect a huge amount of cash. However it seems that the majority of the students told the RIAA to go forth and multiply. µ
RIAA backs down in face of legal threatsStern letter put it in its placeBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday 28 March 2007, 09:00THE RIAA SEEMS to have had its legal bluff called after it tried to threaten a couple with legal action over P2P downloading.Barry and Cathy Merchant s have the lawyer from hell, Merl Ledford, who not only indicated the weakness of the evidence against his client, but threatened legal action of his own. You should advise your clients that they are facing a "thin skull plaintiff", he wrote. The reply letter which can be seen here, shows the weaknesses in the RIAA's case against people it accuses of piracy, particularly in California, where the Merchants live.The Merchants are described in the letter as middle-aged and conservative. The files they are supposed to have shared were “pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks”.In an age of spoofing, easily cracked wireless home networks and Wintel virus created bot farms, it is fairly unlikely that the Merchants were the perpetrators, Ledford's letter says.The letter says that the RIAA's method of collecting evidence against pirates has been found to be technically dubious. The RIAA's belief that ignoring its demands for “settlement money” as a reason for a law action, is also incorrect and opens them up to being sued.“ Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople,” Ledford wrote.On the basis of the weakness of the RIAA's case, Ledford made a settlement offer to them of $6,880.25 which should be paid to the Merchants to cover their costs. The RIAA backed down completely and dropped its case. It is not clear if the Merchants got costs.
EMI, Apple to go DRM freeInfection free, but for a fee?By INQUIRER staff: Monday 02 April 2007, 03:45THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported that Apple and EMI will make a joint announcement today to sell large chunks of its music catalogue free of digital rights management (DRM) software.That will mark a reversal of the music industry's King Canute like trend to cope with technology and the internet by insisting vendors include software ostensibly aimed at protecting their intellectual property rights. Many, however, have concluded that the music industry in general is just totally ripping off people that buy stuff created by artists who often get ripped off too.EMI is the third biggest music firm in terms of sales and has an extensive catalogue. It's a brave move but perhaps not as risky as the RIAA crows perching on the music industry's ivory tower seem to think.
Homeland Security wants master key for the InternetWill be able to snoop on everyoneBy Nick Farrell: Monday 02 April 2007, 06:55Job searchTop INQ jobsICT Development Officer - Transport for LondonIT Support Analyst - post production - LondonTools Developers - Cambridge - JagexTechnical Solutions Engineer, Mobile - London - GoogleLead Developer/Programmer - GameloftSearch for a job: Job searchTHE US Department of Homeland Security is insisting that Verisign hand over the master keys of the Internet.If it succeeds, the US will be able to track DNS Security Extensions (DNSSec) all the way back to the servers that represent the name system's root zone on the Internet.Effectively it would mean that US spooks could snoop on anyone in the Worldwide wibble and place control of the Interweb tubes firmly in the paws of the US government.The information that Homeland security is after the "key-signing key", currently held by Verisign, was revealed to the the meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in Lisbon.Not surprisingly other countries in the world are a little concerned about this. According to the German magazine Heise Online, a representative of the EU Commission said that the matter is being discussed with EU member states.The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which handles route management within the ICANN, could be entrusted with the task of keeping the keys. But the US authorities claims the right to oversee ICANN/IANA.
RIAA and movie industry want to pretextA law for us and one for the world+dogBy Nick Farrell: Monday 09 April 2007, 07:27Click here to find out more!THE RIAA and the movie industry are lobbying lawmakers in a bid to get it excused from tough laws on pretexting.According to the LA Times, the law which is in response to the fiasco HP bought upon itself by pretending to be other people to spy on hostile journalists, is likely to first see the light of day in California.But the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America say the law should not apply to them as they need to use subterfuge to deal with pirates.Spokespeople for the organisations say that they are not talking about trying to go in and get customer information.Specifically the trade group asked that any owner of a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret be able to use "pretexting or other investigative techniques to obtain personal information about a customer or employee" when seeking to enforce intellectual property rights.However, consumer groups are alarmed at the RIAA's proposed changes as they do not see why the recording industry shouldn't have to follow the same laws that everyone else.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said that if the RIAA gets away with its changes it will create a loophole which is so big that nobody else has to follow the law either.It seems that the RIAA believes that is allowed to break any law it likes if it is defending against trademark infringement.
