Some computer taps don't need search warrantsCourt decidesBy Nick Farrell: Monday 09 July 2007, 09:00A FEDERAL APPEALS court has decided that Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor some of a suspect's computer use.According to San Francisco Gate, San Diego County, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said coppers were allowed to look at the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting.The court said it was a bit like the "pen register" devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls.The use of pen registers were approved by the US Supreme Court which said that ruled callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls.The court said computer users know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses. It pointed out that although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed."
FBI lied to get ISPs to turn over dataFake emergency lettersBy Nick Farrell: Friday 13 July 2007, 07:33THE FBI'S counter terrorism unit sent a large number of fake emergency letters to phone companies, asking them to turn over phone records immediately.According to Wired, the letters are part of a legitimate procedure which is supposed to be used so that the spooks can get access while the Feds are getting a warrant.But it seems that the letters, signed by Larry Mefford,the Executive Assistant Director, in charge of the Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, were faked and the department had no intention of getting a warrant.More than 60 of the letters have been made found and made available by the Electronic Frontier Foundation,It seems that the FBI have been ignoring guidelines about how they are supposed to be using these letters. Perhaps they were re-assured when Alberto Gonzales told a Congress that there was no way that the FBI would ever do anything like lie to ISPs.
China begins clampdown on Internet gamingPlaying times limited, boot camps set upBy Paul Hales: Tuesday 17 July 2007, 12:09ONLINE GAMING ADDICTS in China this week find themselves the target of an offensive by the authorities to wean them off their habit.The China National Children's Centre estimated that 13 per cent of the country's Internet users under the age of 18 are web junkies. As many as 2.3 million minors may be affected by this disturbing affliction, it said.Now, eight Chinese ministries including the propaganda ministry, have banded together to put the squeeze on gaming, laying down strict guidelines as to how much time web-heads can stay online.Meanwhile, gaming junkies are being sent to eight government-funded "rehabilitation camps" being set up around the country, in a response to claims that over wibbling can lead to criminal behaviour. Most inmates are sent involuntarily to the camps by parents worried about their boggle-eyed, sullen and occasionally-twitching offspring.No new Internet cafes may be set up in the country before the end of the year, while those already open have to install what local media calls "anti-addiction software" on connected computers.The authorities believe that any more than three hours gaming per day can begin to frazzle your brain. Five hours or more is positively unhealthy.Internet cafes not limiting their gamers to within the guidelines will be shut down.There are even reports that games sold in the country will have to be tweaked to shut themselves down when they are played too much.
RIAA forced to pay defendant's legal billsTurn up for the booksBy Nick Farrell: Tuesday 17 July 2007, 07:50Click here to find out more!THE RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (RIAA) has had to pay a woman it alleged shared music on a P2P network over $68,685.23 in lawyerish fees and costs.In this case they threatened Debbie Foster when it appeared that the person who was file-sharing was her daughter Amanda. But rather than call off the hounds, the RIAA carried on with the case against the mother.The case in Oklahoma, has proved to be a rout for the RIAA and its methods proving that a person did any file-sharing.Later when it was fairly clear that the file sharing was nothing to do with Debbie Foster, and there was a huge amount of negative publicity, the RIAA wanted to just walk away from the case, saddling Debbie Foster with a hefty legal bill.The RIAA wanted Foster to be stuck with paying her legal costs because it technically dropped the case against her. However Judge Lee R. West said that was "disingenuous" and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true."He found the RIAA's case against Foster "untested and marginal". He found its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case".It is the first time that the RIAA has had to cough up in a case of this kind.
US Senators back web censorshipThink of the childrenBy Nick Farrell: Thursday 26 July 2007, 08:38US senators issued a bipartisan call for filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet.In a meeting where civil liberties groups were not invited, Democrats and Republicans said that the web needed to be censored to protect children.Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted 'The Internet is made out of tubes" Stevens argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone could not protect their children.While parents can buy filtering and monitoring technologies to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies was far from universal and may not be fool-proof, Inouye said.Stevens, who has also been arguing for phone companies to charge Internet customers twice for the same service, said that Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protection available in other parts of society find their way onto the Interweb.The committee wants the FCC to identify industry practices "that can limit the transmission of child pornography".The FCC would have to come up with a way to identify filtering technologies and identify what could be done to improve the process and better enable parents to "proactively protect" children online.
Youtube calls in the censorsPromises no more copyrighted videosBy Nick Farrell: Tuesday 31 July 2007, 07:40GURGLE (tick: GOOD) has promised a court that it will start filtering out copyrighted videos from its Youtube operation.Philip Beck, who is representing Google, told a judge in Manhattan that the filtering technology would be introduced "hopefully in September"Currently the outfit has to look at every video and see if it violated someone's copyright, or act on a complaint, Beck told the robed but unwigged one.Youtube was working "very intensely and co-operating" with content-producing companies to introduce video-recognition technology that would detect illegally copied material before a clip is posted, he claimed.Viacom, the entertainment company which owns MTV and Nickelodeon, is suing YouTube for a $1 billion claiming that it allowed more than 160,000 clips of programming to be illegally uploaded to Youtube's site.BooBTtube said its filtering action goes beyond what is required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which gives companies such as Google protection from copyright suits in the US.It claimed that under law GlooTube only has to remove copyrighted material if it is requested to do so. Which it does.If the filtering goes ahead all that could be left on YouTube are shedloads of video bogs which are very dull.
Something slightly different.QuoteUS Senators back web censorshipThink of the childrenBy Nick Farrell: Thursday 26 July 2007, 08:38US senators issued a bipartisan call for filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet.In a meeting where civil liberties groups were not invited, Democrats and Republicans said that the web needed to be censored to protect children.Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted 'The Internet is made out of tubes" Stevens argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone could not protect their children.While parents can buy filtering and monitoring technologies to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies was far from universal and may not be fool-proof, Inouye said.Stevens, who has also been arguing for phone companies to charge Internet customers twice for the same service, said that Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protection available in other parts of society find their way onto the Interweb.The committee wants the FCC to identify industry practices "that can limit the transmission of child pornography".The FCC would have to come up with a way to identify filtering technologies and identify what could be done to improve the process and better enable parents to "proactively protect" children online.
Nothing unusual here:QuoteChina begins clampdown on Internet gamingPlaying times limited, boot camps set upBy Paul Hales: Tuesday 17 July 2007, 12:09ONLINE GAMING ADDICTS in China this week find themselves the target of an offensive by the authorities to wean them off their habit.The China National Children's Centre estimated that 13 per cent of the country's Internet users under the age of 18 are web junkies. As many as 2.3 million minors may be affected by this disturbing affliction, it said.Now, eight Chinese ministries including the propaganda ministry, have banded together to put the squeeze on gaming, laying down strict guidelines as to how much time web-heads can stay online.Meanwhile, gaming junkies are being sent to eight government-funded "rehabilitation camps" being set up around the country, in a response to claims that over wibbling can lead to criminal behaviour. Most inmates are sent involuntarily to the camps by parents worried about their boggle-eyed, sullen and occasionally-twitching offspring.No new Internet cafes may be set up in the country before the end of the year, while those already open have to install what local media calls "anti-addiction software" on connected computers.The authorities believe that any more than three hours gaming per day can begin to frazzle your brain. Five hours or more is positively unhealthy.Internet cafes not limiting their gamers to within the guidelines will be shut down.There are even reports that games sold in the country will have to be tweaked to shut themselves down when they are played too much.
DRM not dead, just getting sneakierColumn Big stick being swapped for poisoned dartBy Martin Lynch: Thursday 02 August 2007, 09:35Click here to find out more!IT MIGHT seem obvious but DRM will never go away because there's just way too much money at stake. There are fat cats, lawyers, publicists, shareholders, producers, fluffers and all manner of important nobodies to pay in the music/movie industry and DRM is there to ensure [giggle] that no one sneaks off without ponying up a bit a of cash. Hell, even the musicians and actors themselves might get a little of the action, but they're not as important as the corporate behemoth between them and us. DRM is their Arnie, an over-developed oaf guarding the profits – badly, I might add. So badly that DRM is as useful as an asthmatic trying to ref a rugby match. Even so, not all the hippie hollering about 'Free Music' and 'Burn DRM' is going to change a thing.DRM might get kicked in the nuts every now and then by u-turning, backstabbers like Apple, but like Arnie's most famous creation used to say: "I'll be back". Steve Jobs' open letter about how bad and evil DRM was, managed to do two incredibly complex things simultaneously: it advocated the end to DRM while elsewhere Apple's iTunes Fairplay DRM software was preventing millions of iPod owners doing what they liked with the music they had just bought. And that's what really annoys most people: DRM goes beyond protecting the 'artist's' rights by interfering with their rights to do what they like with their legally purchased content. I know it sure as hell freaks me out. Well, it would, if I bought stuff from iTunes but that doesn't stop me from having comradely empathy for the millions that do.There was a wave of optimism and 'Death To DRM' cries when EMI dropped DRM on its downloads through Apple, and now some others, but the promised rebellion has failed to materialise. The other big publishers have stood firm and show no sign of swapping their legal writs for flowery hats anytime soon. In fact, not only is DRM not going to go away, it's going to get smarter. Imagine the cast of CSI being real and tasked with a way of marking content in such a way that it can be linked to the owner. Well, that's what's next. Forensic DRM technologies, like watermarking, are currently sneaking into the market and can be used to identify the end-users of digital content.The idea is that the content is marked in such a way that it's unique to you once you buy it and if, by chance, a copy of that content pops up at a car-boot sale, armed Plod and the bespectacled RIAA reps will be swinging through your bedroom in a shower of glass and Flash-Bang grenades. Or, maybe they'll just send you a letter.Either way, the idea is that you'll be nabbed. In reality, very few people will be nabbed because this is meant to be the ultimate in DRM since the watermarking is designed to be indestructible. It's the looming threat of capture that's the real DRM here. That they will know exactly who owned the original of any copies found is meant to be 'the' anti-piracy deterrent. The One Plank To Rule Them All. The technology is being sneaked into some set-top boxes right now so that the providers of downloaded content can keep tabs of what subscribers are watching and attempting to copy. And possibly trying to copy another 50 times for sale down the pub.What's driving a lot of the newer DRM initiatives is the advent of IPTV, still a fledging market but promising to be a massive money spinner. After all, even though you pay to watch a movie does not mean you can copy it, you law-breaking viewers. Software-based DRM, which lurks invisibly on recorders, set-top boxes and even in the signal received, is seen as the way forward. After all, software DRM can be upgraded fast in the background, once breaches have occurred. And breaches there shall be.So far copyright on DVDs, CDs and even some high-def discs has been cracked and hacked to death. There's no guarantee that stealth DRM will do the job for the safety of downloaded content but that's not stopping the media bigwigs trying. My feeling is that the clever hacking crowd can't wait for a new challenge.However, it should be noted that DRM can only truly work if people (a) know about it and (b) fear being caught. On recent evidence, it's doubtful. Piracy levels are higher than ever and according to recent research, 40 per cent of people have never even heard of DRM. By those standards, new research into stealth DRM should be halted immediately seeing as for many, it's already invisible. µ
Music-eating worm feeds on MP3sThe industry bites backBy INQUIRER newsdesk: Friday 03 August 2007, 11:08Click here to find out more!A WIGGLY WORM that deletes any mp3 files it gets its, um, hands on has been detected.The worm's not that smart or dangerous, unless you leave the virtual barn door open, in which case you could find your digital music collection decimated.Sophos' most vocal worm-hunter, Graham Cluley reckons the authors of the worm, "are more likely to be teenage mischief makers than the organized criminal gangs we typically see authoring financially-motivated malware these days."But he's only guessing. It could equally - in fact even more likely - be some twisted music company, pirate-hunting exec thinking he's doing his industry a good turn. Not that the worm knows whether the files it's deleting have been paid for or not.Rival insecurity firm, Symantec named the worm W32.Deletemusic. It says it wriggles its way from USB stick to hard drives in a rather low-tech fashion. µ
Google showing "signs of arrogance"Fortune favours the vagueBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday 08 August 2007, 07:15FORTUNE MAGAZINE has penned an article which suggests that Google is going the way of Microsoft and becoming too arrogant over the recent FCC auction of radio spectrum.The search engine outfit lobbied hard in Washington to dictate terms on the auction so that it can take its profitable targeted advertising beyond PCs and inject it into any other medium it can find. Its goal appears to be cellphones, Fortune said.Google promised the FCC it would bid at least $4.6 billion to purchase spectrum rights, but only if the FCC met all of its terms.It told the regulator that it must ensure that all networks should be "open platforms." Punters should be able to use any device, networks should support standard software like Internet browsers and e-mail, network operators would be required to lease some capacity to other providers and it would all have to be mutually compatible.As Fortune points out, this would make the phone network the same as the Internet. While this sounds like a good idea, it will go down like a bucket of cold sick with the US telcos.Google seriously expects them to stump up billions for wireless frequencies and then be told that they have no control of them.Not only would this reduce the value of any spectrum sale, the only one who would make money on it is Google's advertising business. But Google lobbying has forced the FCC to compromise and allow at least open devices and software. The FCC drew the line at leasing and forced compatibility.Fortune is amazed that Google seemed to have the pulling power to even get that far with the FCC, but is even more stunned that the search engine outfit is not interested in compromise and wants to fight to get its other conditions on the table.While a long term goal of open networks is probably good for consumers, the outfit is getting so arrogant that it could hack off everyone.
ISPs want BBC to pay for the IplayerNet neutrality row in BlightyBy Nick Farrell: Monday 13 August 2007, 08:21THE NET neutrality row has crossed the pond into Blighty with ISPs demanding that the BBC pay them extra for its punters to run its "Iplayer".The Beeb wants to allow customers to download TV content on the "Iplayer" to allow users to download programs that they have missed.However the largest broadband providers in the UK are threatening to "pull the plug" on the scheme unless Auntie gives them large sums of money to make them to go away.Tiscali, BT and Carphone Warehouse say that they are are concerned that the BBC's programme will will place an intolerable strain on their networks. They want the beeb to pay up so they can upgrade these networks to take the additional strain. Of course they would like to do they same thing to the Boob Tube site, but that is not a public body in the UK.According to the Independent, they have told BBC executives that they will limit the bandwidth available to the "Iplayer" so that only some punters can access the "Iplayer" at any one time.So in otherwords we do not want to pay for the broadband explosion that we encouraged,so a public body like the Beeb will have finance our private company and if the government doesn't we will throttle broadband development.
China implements Big Brother IT system full on1984 not the cr*p telly showBy Nick Farrell: Monday 13 August 2007, 07:54WHILE BRITS moan that their CCTV systems are getting a bit intrusive, the Chinese are experimenting with taking the idea to truly Big Brother proportions.More than 20,000 police surveillance cameras are being installed along streets in southern China guided by software which can automatically recognise the faces of police suspects and detect unusual activity.According to News.com the beta version of Big Brother is being trailed in a port area and then spreading across tech city Shenzhen, a metropolis of 12.4 million souls.Residents are issued with cards fitted with computer ID tags. The tag tells coppers the citizen's name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord's phone number.The data might include credit histories, subway travel payments and small things bought by the card. So when a camera spots a person in the street, the police can look at all their ID information and know their favorite kind of soap.The move enables undemocratic thugs coppers to fight crime and control an increasingly mobile population, it's claimed but it is also handy at seeing who is attending street protests and if they owe a few payments on their credit cards.If people do not have the right card it is possible for the government to say that they cannot live in a particular area and enforce that decision by screening the CCTV camera across a crowd.
Vista's DRM "protects" users from high definition mediaTreacherous computing arrivesBy Egan Orion: Saturday 11 August 2007, 14:40VISTA'S DRACONIAN "content protection" features often degrade its users' video and audio quality and have led to design hurdles and higher costs for PC components, a speaker told the USENIX Symposium in Boston last week.Peter Gutmann, a researcher at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, implied that the design of Vista makes the user the enemy. In an earlier paper, he had called the DRM rules built into Vista "the longest suicide note in history."Shamelessly pandering to the Big Media copyright holders, Vista automatically degrades so-called "premium" content such as high definition movies and audio tracks when they are output to less than bleeding-edge new devices that don't happen to support Intel's High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) DRM scheme. It apparently does this even if the media files being played are not copyright protected commercial media but the users' own home movies or music they've recorded in high-definition format, Gutmann said.He said that Vista's DRM features have also been frustrating to PC component manufacturers, because the new content protection functions in Vista make it harder to develop new drivers. When ATI finally shipped new video drivers for Vista, they crashed the OS, forcing both Dell and Gateway to delay shipping Vista compatible computers, Gutmann reported. He also said that PC hardware costs have increased because component vendors have had to get written approval of their designs from Hollywood studios before they can begin production.Big Media content protection measures also incorporate encryption that drives higher CPU and GPU loads, according to Gutmann. This results in higher electricity usage and heat output and can degrade the graphics performance of some high-end video cards, he said.Gutmann surmised that the Vole made new DRM features its highest priority in developing Vista, speculating that it gained approval and money from Hollywood for doing so. In his opinion, Microsoft should rather have focused its efforts on developing security features to protect users.Thus we find in the DRM features of Vista the actualisation of the darkening, dystopian future that Richard Stallman warned us about several years ago when he renamed the Vole's Trusted Computing as Treacherous Computing. µ
US spies hand satellite spy data to copsEye in the skyBy Nick Farrell: Thursday 16 August 2007, 08:45Click here to find out more!FORGET CCTV, US coppers are to get data from the country's vast network of spy satellites.According to Rupert Murdoch's big organ the Wall Street Journal, the director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell, is allowing some of the intelligence-gathering satellites in the paws of domestic security officials.Initially the spy network will be used to improve border security, determine how best to secure critical infrastructure and help emergency responders after natural disasters.However next year it will be the local copper's turn to play with the gear. The WSJ says it will allow them to see real-time, high-resolution images and data, which would allow them, for example, to identify smuggler staging areas, a gang safehouses, or possibly even a building being used by would-be terrorists to manufacture chemical weapons.Of course it could also be used to tail suspects on their way to and from crime scenes and particularly shapely people sunbathing in their back yards.
Nine Inch Nails tells fans to pirate"Steal, steal and steal some more"By Nick Farrell: Tuesday 18 September 2007, 09:34THE SINGER for the Popular Beat combo Nine Inch Nails has told his Aussie fans that CDs are too expensive Down Under and they should pirate them.Crooner Trent Reznor admitted that his record label Universal Media, was fuming at him over the comments which were made during a concert.Reznor himself was fuming at the prices of CDs in Australia which he said were far too high.He said that since the record labels had done nothing to drop the price fans should "STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another these mother****ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that's not right."You can see the rant on Youtube here.
US drivers to be infra-red scannedSpotting the dummiesBy Nick Farrell: Thursday, 04 October 2007, 7:50 AM WHILE Blighty might have more CCTV cameras per head than anyone else in the world, it seems that the former colony of Virginia, now calling itself the United States of America, is going out of its way to top it in the surveillance stakes.The latest plan is to scan all commuters in the Washington area with infra-red cameras as they approach a planned network of high-occupancy and toll lanes.Solo drivers can buy their way around congestion, while people who share their cars will ride free. But there is a worry that people will put dummies in their cars to fool the system and make it look like they are running a car pool. The scanning device shines an invisible infrared light on people in vehicles to zero in on real human skin.The outfits running the scheme claim that the infra-red system can tell the difference between a human, a dummy, and a dog.However the idea is raising privacy concerns. It would be possible for an image to be demanded by a court in a divorce case. It could also be sold to insurance companies seeking to increase rates for long-haul commuters.
Music industry wins landmark caseAll your P2P are belong to usBy Nick Farrell: Friday, 05 October 2007, 9:00 AM JAMMIE Thomas, a single mother of two, was told to pay the RIAA $222,000 for 24 shared songs it claimed she put onto a P2P site.According to Wired, she was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, and Aerosmith.The RIAA managed to squeeze some interesting rulings from US District Judge Michael Davis.Firstly the the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive.This was partly because Thomas bought a new hard-drive after the RIAA sniffed her shared folder.Davis also told the jury that the RIAA did not have prove the defendant was at the keyboard when investigators accessed Thomas' share folder.This means that it does not matter if someone else hijacks your computer you are still liable.Davis also ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability even if no one downloaded the files. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded anything.Throughout the case Thomas, 30, maintained that she was not the Kazaa user " Tereastarr" whose files were detected by RIAA's investigators.But the judge's rulings on the case, implied that all the jury needed to do was see evidence that her IP address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files to find her guilty.We suspect we have not heard the last of this case.
RIAA cast itself against world and tideAnd a Yahoo exec's had enoughBy Egan Orion: Wednesday, 10 October 2007, 9:41 AM THE RIAA might have won $220,000 from a single mother in court last week, but it was a pyhrric victory, no matter how that case is finally decided, because it brought to light the RIAA's alienation from the artistic and technological ecosystems upon which it depends.Two statements turned up today that illustrate this. They are both all the more indicative of deep dissatisfaction with the giant multinational entertainment corporations that make up the RIAA because the writers don't merely express outrage at the RIAA's bullying tactics, but more importantly, question and ultimately reject its, and its members', entire business strategy, reason for existing, and value to society.David Rovics is a musician who's making a living without any involvement with the music companies. His essay "The RIAA vs. the World" is lengthy, but thoughtful and well argued. If you're interested in why and how musicians don't need the RIAA, you might want to read it.Ian Rogers is the general manager of Yahoo Music. He wrote in his bog today about telling some music company executives that he's done with digital restrictions management (DRM).The digital genie's out of the bottle and the music company dinosaurs' days are numbered. µ
Keep on Downloading--Just Don't Get Caught!The RIAA vs. the WorldBy DAVID ROVICSThe Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing massive multinational corporations with tentacles in every corner of the global economy including the music business, has just won a lawsuit against a mother of two who refused to be pushed around. Jamie Thomas' pockets were not nearly deep enough to mount the kind of legal defense for the occasion, but she rightly thought that paying an out-of-court settlement of several thousand dollars for the "crime" of sharing music online was ridiculous. So she told the RIAA they'd have to take her to court. They did, and they won.The fact that one of these cases actually went to trial, the amount of money involved, and the fact that the defendant could have been your neighbor, a middle-aged single mother of two who was not selling anything, but was just engaging in commonplace song-swapping via Kazaa's peer-to-peer network, has made this case newsworthy. But what lies beneath it are the ever-growing tens of thousands of people who have been spied upon, harassed and threatened with lawsuits if they didn't pay the RIAA thousands of dollars for sharing copywritten music in a way the RIAA, the US government, the World Trade Organization, etc., deem inappropriate.In spite of the RIAA's campaign to staunch the profit losses of it's corporate members by waging a campaign of fear and intimidation against your average everyday music fan, the numbers of legal and "illegal" downloads continue to rise rapidly. However, the industry's campaign is not just about robbing working class American music fans of hundreds of millions of their hard-earned dollars. The music industry is waging a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the US and the world, spending tremendous amounts of money on advertising campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their cause and the wrongness of our actions.The RIAA is both powerful and desperate. They are a multibillion-dollar industry that has been "suffering" financially for years, and they are up against the very nature of the internet that being peer-to-peer sharing of information in whatever form (stories, songs, videos, etc.). The internet has given rise to unprecedented levels of global cultural cross-pollination, and it has led to a democratization of where our news, information, music, etc., comes from that has not been seen since the days of the wandering troubadors who went from town to town spreading the news of the day.The RIAA is trying to use a combination of the law, financial largesse, and encryption and other technologies to try to reassert their dominance over global culture. But perhaps most importantly, they are trying to reassert the moral virtue of their position, the rightness of their positions vis-a-vis the concept of intellectual property and the notion that the fear campaign they're engaged in somehow benefits society overall and artists in particular.The success of their campaign to convince us that the average person is essentially part of a massive band of thieves can be easily seen. Look at the comments section following an article about the recent lawsuit, for example, and you will find people generally saying they thought Ms. Thomas was wrong but that the amount of money involved with the lawsuit is outrageous. You will find people admitting that they also download music illegally, and they feel bad about it, but it's just too easy and the music in the stores is too expensive.Obviously the idea of anyone being financially bankrupted for the rest of their lives because they shared some songs online is preposterous, and very few people fail to see that. But the idea that Ms. Thomas did something wrong is prevalent, even among her fellow "thieves," and I think it needs to be challenged on various fronts."We're doing this for artists"The RIAA represents artists about as effectively as the big pharmaceutical companies represent sick people. I'll explain. The vast majority of innovation in medicine comes from university campuses. The usual pattern is Big Pharma then comes in and uses the research that's already been done to then patent it and turn it into an obscenely profitable drug (especially if it's good for treating a disease common among people in rich countries). Then they say anybody else who makes cheap or free versions of the drug is stealing, and by doing so we're stifling innovation and acting immorally.Similarly, the vast majority of musical innovation happens on the streets by people who are not being paid by anyone. The machine that is the music industry then snatches a bit of that popular culture, sanitizes it, and then sells it back to us at a premium. They create a superstar or two out of cultural traditions of their choosing and to hell with the rest of them. Sometimes the musicians they promote are really good, but that's not the point. The point is that if the RIAA were truly interested in promoting good artists, they'd be doing lots of smaller record contracts with a wide variety of artists representing a broad cross-section of musical traditions. But as it is, if it were up to the RIAA we'd be listening to the music of a small handful of multimillionaire pop stars and the other 99.9% of musicians would starve.The overwhelming majority of great music in the US (and most certainly in the rest of the world) is not supported by the RIAA. Rather, it is marginalized as much as possible. "Payola" is alive and well. The commercial radio stations are paid to play RIAA artists and paid not to play anyone else. A strategic, financial decision is made to promote a few styles of formulaic anti-music, each style represented by a few antiseptic pop stars, the lowest common denominator that can be created by the corporations behind the curtain. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of great writers, recording artists and performers are ignored, denied record contracts, promotion, airplay, distribution, etc.In short, the RIAA does their best to stifle art, at the expense of money. They represent some artists, no doubt a few very well-off ones, the few (occasionally very talented) beneficiaries of their money-making schemes. In the US, even the system through which royalties are distributed ends up benefitting only the industry and a few pop stars. The comparatively little airplay independent artists receive is measured by organizations like ASCAP in such a way that it is largely ignored, and royalties we should be receiving end up in the pockets of the industry."Downloads hurt CD sales of our artists"OK, so the RIAA's claims to represent artists in general may be laughable, but surely they have a point when they complain about the annually decreasing CD sales of Coldplay and the Rolling Stones? Even if they are just a cartel representing the interests of the few and trying to prevent access or representation by the many, surely suing average music listeners is at least some kind of response to their artists losing sales to these free downloads?The kind of logic that sees loss of CD sales for major label artists as a direct response to being able to download their music online for free is flawed. It assumes that people would be buying the CD's of these artists were it not available for free. The reality, I'd suggest, is very different and also hard to measure with any degree of accuracy.With the rise of the worldwide web has come an explosion of interest in an ever-broadening array of music. People are downloading for free and paying for new music from all over. When bigtime artists get loads of conventional publicity and everybody can't avoid knowing that Janet Jackson has a new CD out because this news is covering the sides of every bus in the city, many people will go ahead and download tracks from her new CD if they can find them on the web for free. But would they bother buying the CD in the current, rich musical environment of the internet otherwise? Or would they just move on and download other stuff from the independent artists they're constantly discovering out there on the web instead?I'd suggest the latter, and I'd further suggest that there is no reliable way of knowing whether or not I'm correct. If the major artists are losing sales because of the availability of their songs for free on the web, I couldn't care less. However, I think what is more the case is they are losing sales to the internet itself, as a result of the blossoming of grassroots musical culture that the internet is fostering."Giving away music hurts small artists"This is an argument the RIAA is fond of putting forward. Sadly, many of my colleagues, many other independent recording artists, believe it. They seem to think that if the major artists are losing sales to the internet, it must be happening to us, too. Either deliberately or through inaction, they don't put their music up on the web for free download. Fans of theirs, it often seems, respect this and don't put up the music either (sometimes). I'm convinced this is all born out of confusion, and these artists are shooting themselves in the foot.What's good for GM is definitely not what's good for the guy in Iowa City making electric cars out of his garage. I constantly run into people who assume that I must be losing CD sales and suffering financially as a result of the fact that I put up all of my music on the web for free download. Sometimes they are artists who think I'm something of a scab. Other times they're fans who appreciate the free music but are concerned for my financial well-being.Principles aside for the moment, on a purely practical level, the reality is that many independent artists, most definitely including myself, have benefitted from the phenomenon of the free MP3. Like others, the fact that I'm making a living at all at music -- unlike the overwhelming majority of musicians is largely attributable to the internet, and specifically to free downloads.It's not simple, and it's fairly easy to hypothesize one thing or another and back it up with selective information. But overall, my experience has been that I sold a few thousand CD's a year before the internet, and have continued to sell a few thousand CD's a year after the internet. Gig offers and fans in far-off places have multiplied, however, and in so many of these cases it's clear that they first heard my music on the internet, usually because someone they knew guided them to my website.Every year, over 100,000 songs are downloaded for free from my website, and many more from many other websites where they are hosted in one form or another. This represents many times what CD sales could possibly have been for me without a major record contract, previous to the internet. My conclusion is that the free download phenomenon behaves more like radio airplay that I never would have had otherwise. And it's international airplay that has led me to tours in countries around the world and gigs in remote corners of the US that resulted directly from someone telling someone else about songs of mine they could find online for free.The reality, pop stars aside, is that the overwhelming majority of musicians who are able to make a living from their music make it from performing. For DIY musicians who are not having their tours booked by Sony BMG's booking agencies, the most valuable resource are fans, especially the ones who are well-organized and enthusiastic enough that they want to organize a gig for us somewhere. Through fans like this, we can cobble together another tour. This process has been helped immensely by the "viral marketing," the buzz that can happen when music people like is freely available on the web.I'm sure that there are many people who would have bought my latest CD if they weren't able to download it for free. Of this there is no doubt. But to think that this is therefore how the free download phenomenon works in general is extremely simplistic. For every person who downloads the songs instead of buying the CD, I'd guess there are 100 who hear the music on the web for the first time, who would probably never have heard it otherwise. For every 100 people who hear the music for free, say one of them will buy a CD to support the artist. For every 1,000, maybe one will organize a paying gig. This may not cause a big rise in CD sales, but ultimately it doesn't hurt them, either, and what it does for sure is dramatically increase the overall audience of independent artists around the world."But people are stealing private property on those P2P networks"There are many ways to try to compensate artists for original work, scientists for ground-breaking research, inventors for great new inventions, etc. There is no single, sacred way to do this. There are many ways to support art and artists in society and reward them for their work. Paying royalties based on airplay, downloads and/or CD sales is one way among many.If royalties are going to be a primary way artists are compensated, there are many ways to do this, too. With CD sales, according to the current system, the songwriter gets something like 7 cents per song per CD sold in the stores. With radio airplay, the onus on paying the royalties that may eventually get to some of the artists is on the radio stations, and the radio stations are usually supported by corporate advertisers.If the RIAA really thought their artists could compete with the rest of the world's artists on a relatively open playing field, they'd probably be busily trying to create some kind of web-based infrastructure where corporate advertising would pay some kind of royalties for their artists. If this infrastructure existed, people would drift towards it as the path of least resistance, compared to finding music on P2P networks.The problem is, the RIAA doesn't control the internet the way they control the commercial radio airwaves, and they know that the musical tastes of the people are broadening, and threatening their pop star system, threatening their profit margins. They can't keep out the competition, so they're trying hard to control the environment in a way that's most beneficial to their corporate interests -- screw everybody else. Screw independent artists and screw the public at large.I don't know if anybody can predict these things with certainty, but it seems to me the basic nature of the internet will ultimately triumph over the narrow interests of the music industry. The music industry will not cease to exist by any means, but it will shrink somewhat, and will have to give way to the flourishing grassroots music scene which the internet has nurtured.It seems to me that the most relevant question in terms of the efforts of the RIAA is, at what cost to society at large? How far will they go to maintain this broken system, to maintain the inequities of their star-making machinery?And another crucial question: why should a system be allowed to continue that massively rewards a few artists for their "original" records full of "original" songs, while leaving destitute the masses of musicians and others who created the cultural seas in which these "original" artists swim?Musicians, as a whole, represent some of the richest people in the society and many of the poorest. The music industry's system, in conceptual terms and in practical terms, is broken. It represents the interests of the monopolies against the interests of the rest of the world's people, cultures, musical traditions and musical innovations.To my fellow musicians I say put all your music up for free download, help your careers and screw the music industry. To music fans I say keep on downloading, don't feel bad about it -- and try not to get caught.David Rovics is a musician. He can be reached at: DRovics@aol.com
RIAA defendant asks the judge to set aside the verdictJammie dodgerBy Egan Orion: Tuesday, 16 October 2007, 9:21 AMTHE WOMAN ordered to pay the RIAA $222,000 for allegedly sharing 24 copyrighted songs moved to set aside the trial verdict Monday, on the grounds that the jury award is unconstitutionally excessive compared to any conceivable valuation of the RIAA's injury.If successful, Jammie Thomas' petition could take the wind out of over 20,000 similar RIAA lawsuits, a fact that the RIAA has acknowledged in another file sharing case in New York.It challenges the constitutionality of the penalty provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act, which authorise fines of $750 to $150,000 for each instance of copyright infringement. Thomas' lawyer Brian Toder argued that such high penalties are excessive for downloaded music, even offensive, and counter to established US Supreme Court precedent.Assuming that each song is valued at the Itunes rate of 99 cents, the minimum fine of $750 is more than 750 times the amount of financial injury.If each downloaded song deprived the music industry of only 70 cents in revenue, Toder argued, then the proportion of the minimum fine to actual damages would be more than 1,000-to-1. He pointed out that prior court rulings, including by the US Supreme Court, have held that financial penalties above a 9-to-1 ratio to actual damages suffered are excessive.He wrote, "Whether the court recognizes actual damages of zero dollars, $20 or whatever figure plaintiffs suggest ... the ratio of actual damages to the award is not only astronomical, it is offensive to our Constitution and offensive generally."Toder asked the trial judge to either reduce the amount of the award or order a hearing to establish the amount of actual damages. No hearing date for Thomas' motion has been set. µ
RIAA slimes file sharing defendantOh, cry us a riverBy Egan Orion: Tuesday, 16 October 2007, 11:50 AMTHE RIAA seems determined to drive away all of its customers, judging by what it said late yesterday, Wired reports.Barely an hour after Jammie Thomas' attorney filed a petition in her continuing opposition to the RIAA's heavy handed tactics in Duluth, Minnesota, the RIAA issued a statement saying that she "continues to avoid responsibility for her actions."They, and their lawyers, know that any court case isn't over until it's over, that is, until the last appeal is decided, but it seems to be trying to recover its public image by dumping further approbrium on the defendant.Since they're obscenely rich and she's a lower middle class single mother of two kids, one must wonder where they left their brains and forgot to reclaim them.It's a poor attempt to regain a little traction in the court of public opinion
Mechanics sued for listening to radioKwik-Fit in the dock over copyright infringementBy Jesse Denzin-Weber: Monday, 15 October 2007, 5:55 PMIf you are enraged by Sony telling you not to rip your CDs then wait till you hear about not listening to your radio.Kwik-Fit, an Edinburgh-based chain of car repair garages, has been slapped with a bill for Ł200,000 in damages simply because its mechanics switched on their radios.The lawsuit has been brought by the Performing Rights Society which collects royalties for songwriters and performers.The PRS says Kwik-Fit mechanics were using personal radios while at work and the music (which is protected by copyright) could be heard by colleagues and customers. This act of playing or performing music in public renders the firm guilty of copyright infringement.At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Emslie refused to dismiss the case and ruled that the action could go ahead.The PRS gave evidence from a countrywide inspection which demonstrated that music had been played audibly on more than 250 occasions during and after 2005.Lord Emslie stated, "The allegations are of a widespread and consistent picture emerging over many years whereby routine copyright infringement in the workplace was, or inferentially must have been, known to and 'authorised' or 'permitted' by local and central management."More on the PRS' stance can be found here.One question, why is Kwik-Fit to blame here? If it is copyright infringement to play music from the radio within earshot of co-workers and customers, than why isn’t the PRS going after the radio companies?They are the ones distributing music illegally…µ
Utter bulls#1t if you ask me. Just now somebody will say they want 'royalties' for playing music in your own house.
