Music industry seeks out copyright-friendly politiciansHas cash to splash in election yearBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 10:06 AMTHE ENTERTAINMENT business is advertising for presidential candidates who will sing from its hymn sheet.The Washington-based Copyright Alliance has sent an email to the 17 candidates vying for Democratic or Republican nominations next year asking for them to champion "meaningful copyright protection" in their policy statements.It says that it will make the answers it gets public, although we suspect that only people who will care are the music and film industry.The five questions it poses suggest that without people doing what the film and music industry wants, the entire US economy, and democracy, will collapse. According CNET, the way the questions are phrased even the most anti-copyright politician would have to agree with the music business.One question asks how would a candidate might promote "the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the US Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?"In other words if you do not uphold and strengthen copyright law you are not supporting the scientific progress or the US constitution.RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol told hacks that when Americans vote, the value that should be important to them is a commitment to creativity. The only way that commitment can be expressed is through a commitment to intellectual property rights, whatever the motivation.Politicians filling in the form will have to be careful. The entertainment business will pay top dollar in campaign contributions for those presidential candidates who will do as they are told.
Kill the DRM, say retailersKilling tradeBy Nick Farrell: Thursday, 22 November 2007, 3:24 PMRETAILERS say that the entertainment industry's obsession with DRM is killing off what is left of their flagging trade.The Entertainment Retailers Association are begging Hollywood and the record companies to stop installing DRM and making their products impossible to sell.The organisation says that draconian DRM technologies, not P2P piracy, is responsible for the slow growth in the market.Punters are simmering with anger over copy protection systems that tigger their fair use rights and impose limitations on where and how content can be used.It is getting so silly now that incompatible DRM formats are making punters wonder if content will even work on their machines.As a result, the ERA says, customers are seeing file sharing and pirating an easier and safer option than buying legitimate content.ERA director Kim Bayley told the Financial Times that the copy protection mechanisms were stifling growth and working against the punter's interest.In short, DRM is driving the punters away.As CD and DVD retailers move towards the Christmas rush, early sales this season are slower, something that music industry will probably put down to an increase in piracy and look for harsher forms of DRM.EMI, which killed off DRM on its product this year, has reported good sales which suggest that giving the consumers what they want rather than punishing them for buying your product is probably the best bet.
State refuses to spy on students for the RIAASubpoenas overbroad and burdensomeBy Egan Orion: Friday, 30 November 2007, 8:34 AMTHE OREGON State Attorney General's office went to federal court Wednesday to protect the privacy of state university students against subpoenas issued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), writes the Associated Press.It's first time a state attorney general has stepped in to block RIAA subpoenas.The RIAA sent the University of Oregon subpoenas demanding that the school identify 17 students that it claims violated copyrights by downloading music files.In documents it filed in US District Court in Eugene, the state moved to quash the subpoenas, calling them "overbroad and burdensome."The filing complained, "Sadly, the university's efforts thus far have been met by accusations that the university is obstructing the process and even conspiring with law breakers. Those accusations are not warranted."It continued, "The record in this case suggests that the larger issue may not be whether students are sharing copyrighted music, but whether [the RIAA's] investigative and litigation strategies are appropriate."The state's memorandum in support of the motion refers to another unresolved case in Oregon, in which a Beaverton woman alleges she was a victim of illegal spying, threats and abusive legal tactics at the hands of the RIAA and its agents.Deputy State Attorney General Pete Shepherd said the state isn't trying to protect students who break the law, but it has an obligation to protect students' privacy and the subpoenas go too far. "We don't think the university can be compelled to produce investigative work for the recording industry," he said.A spokesdrone for the RIAA called the university's position "misguided". µ
MPAA caught with its pants downDo as we say, not as we doBy Charlie Demerjian: Tuesday, 04 December 2007, 9:40 AMTHE MPAA, CHAMPION of nothing good nor right, has been on a crusade against it's customers for nearly as long as the RIAA, font of most of the worlds evil. This time however, they appear to have (so far) unrepentantly done what they decry, copyright violation.The story goes a little like this, the MPAA weasels released a toolkit for universities to ostensibly track down people the content MAFIAA might be interested in extor^h^h^h^h^hchatting with. Ironically, this toolkit is based on a lot of open source software, not the usual DRM'd proprietary monstrosities they are so fond of. Getting really ironic, they appear to have modified the files and distributed them without giving out the source or telling people how to get said source files.The technical term for doing this to GPL'd software is copyright violation. This is because if you abide by the GPL, you have a license to the copyrighted work therein. If you do not abide by it, like the MPAA appears not to have done, then you are a copyright violator.One of the copyright holders tried in vain to get them to listen, only getting the run around from clueless secretaries. He eventually had to, wait for the added irony, contact the MPAA's ISP to get the offending copyright violations removed. Tis to laugh.The before and after shots show the MPAA did actually remove it, but the fact remains that as of now, they appear to have done some copyright infringement, and the source and changes are nowhere to be found. Unless they do soon, we can only assume they will be sending Matthew $738,098,331.24 per CD shipped, a fair and reasonable sum by their own standards.We should point out the difference between making available, distribution, intent and criminality here, but we suspect the MAFIAA members already know it quite well. Is the cheque in the mail?
Music industry raises white flagBetter late than neverBy Nick Farrell: Tuesday, 04 December 2007, 9:31 AMIT LOOKS like Warner and Sony are going to follow EMI and Universal and start issuing music in MP3 format without DRM.The change of heart follows a public revolt of the Wal Mart against DRM.Wal-Mart has said that it will stop supplying MP3s with DRM from its online store and other retailers are expected to follow.On the positive side, EMI and Universal have been making a killing supplying DRM-free music and Warner and Sony have been missing out.The Labels told Bill board that they have been watching the success of an MP3 test that Universal Music Group (UMG) began in August.The label flogs 85 percent of its current catalogue as MP3s and is set to permanently embrace that digital format.Disney's Hollywood Records has supplied 40 titles in DRM free Mpp3 for sale at Amazon and walmart.com.Billboard sources claim that Sony will carry out MP3 test even though in the past it said it was totally against the idea.
Jammie runs out of dodges as DOJ backs RIAAEstablishment bears down on single mumBy Egan Orion: Wednesday, 05 December 2007, 3:21 PMIN REPLY to a motion filed by Jammie Thomas, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) sided with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to argue that the jury's $222,000 damage award is not unconstitutonal.Thomas was found to have willfully infringed the music company's copyrights on 24 songs she made available on the Kazaa file-sharing network. The jury awarded the RIAA $9,250 per track for a total award of $222,0000.The US Copyright Act allows statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,0000. Thomas has argued that the damages assessed violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, which says that legal penalties imposed may not be "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."Thomas' motion claims that even the minimum $750 statutory damage amount is excessive because the record labels make only about 70 cents per track sold.It asks that damages assessed be limited to actual damages proven, or at most, ten times actual damages. It terms any award more than the record label's actual damages "purely punitive."In another case, a judge allowed the same argument, writing "a court may... prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered."The RIAA argued that statutory damages need not relate to actual damages. At trial, it didn't quantify its actual damages.It also said that Thomas has no grounds to oppose the jury's damage award because she failed to object to the jury instructions at the time.The DOJ supported the RIAA's position and made a couple of additional points.It said that statutory damages can be awarded in place of actual damages, writing: "Statutory damages compensate those wronged in areas in which actual damages are hard to quantify...."More importantly, the DOJ argued that it's impossible to determine actual damages, since it's not known how many other Kazaa users accessed Thomas' file share and committed additional copyright infringement.The DOJ's entry in the RIAA's corner isn't too surprising, because it has a duty to argue in support of US federal laws like the Copyright Act unless and until they are ruled unconstitutional.However, by making the argument that it's impossible to calculate the RIAA's actual damages because the extent of actual file-sharing is unknown, the DOJ lends its support to the RIAA's contention that merely making files available on a peer-to-peer network equates to actual distribution, without any real proof.This issue came up during Thomas' trial. The jury instructions initially read that the act of making files available did not by itself constitute distribution. But the RIAA objected to that particular jury instruction, and it prevailed. The final jury instructions stated that the jury had only to find that Thomas had made the files available in order for it to conclude that she committed copyright infringement.If Thomas loses this motion, she can argue against that ruling in an appeal.
RIAA backs down on granny charges'Unlicenced investigator'By Nick Farrell: Monday, 17 December 2007, 9:37 AMTHE RIAA has backed down in its file-sharing case against a grandmother who had her life wrecked by Hurricane Rita.However, it is not out of the kindness of its heart. Although Ms Crain claimed she had never been file sharing and had been displaced by the Hurricane, that had not been enough of a defence to stop the music industry.But what seems to have changed the RIAA's mind is her counter-claim that the RIAA was using an unlicensed investigator to snoop on her.RIAA court cases have featured the expert testimony of security outfit MediaSentry. It is the outfit which has provided the RIAA with evidence that people have been pirated music.However MediaSentry is not allowed to snoop on punters in Texas because it is not a licensed private investigator.It appears that the RIAA has realised that Ms Crain's counter-claim has legs and it stands to lose a lot of P2P cases that depend on MediaSentry evidence.MediaSentry's snooping status was also questioned in a case in Oregon a couple of weeks ago . It appears that the RIAA fears that if a Judge rules that MediaSentry spying is illegal than all its cases will go belly up.
Sony to abandon DRM – reportMusic to customers’ ears, perhapsBy INQUIRER staff: Friday, 04 January 2008, 10:28 AMGIANT MUSIC conglom Sony BMG is getting ready to abandon copyright protection software, according to a report in Business Week.The magazine said that Sony BMG will make at least part of its catalogue available without DRM (dreaded rights management).That means it is playing follow-my-leader to the other major music labels.It also represents a u-turn for the firm that made itself the target of ire by dropping code onto peoples' PCs from its CDs without them being aware of it.
US security spooks want to read every email, file transfer and web searchLegally, that isBy Egan Orion: Tuesday, 15 January 2008, 2:50 PMIN AN INTERVIEW published in the print edition of the New Yorker on Monday, US National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said his office is drawing up plans for expanded government surveillance of Internet traffic that will make the ongoing Congressional debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act look like "a walk in the park."McConnell, a 65-year old former US Navy admiral who was appointed a year ago to oversee all 16 US government intelligence agencies, said his office is drafting a Cyber Security Policy to closely monitor all Internet activity.The New Yorker printed that "Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search." It added, " Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said."The infrastructure for the US government to spy on all Internet traffic is already in place. Now they're just scratching their heads trying to figure out how to talk the US Congress into making intrusive monitoring of all Internet activity legal.The interview with McConnell was not published on the New Yorker website.
RIAA website gets trashedThe poor fellowsBy Egan Orion: Monday, 21 January 2008, 4:27 PMTHE THUGS IN SUITS at the RIAA might be good at suing single mothers, extracting college savings from teenagers, and bribing US congress-critters to threaten universities with loss of federal funds over students' file sharing, but it seems they're not very good at running a website to catapult their own propaganda.Over the weekend, web denizens on the social news site Reddit got interested in a slow SQL query targeting the RIAA's website. Then, according to TorrentFreak, "someone allegedly decided to up the ante and wipe the site's entire database."One of the posters at Reddit found evidence that the RIAA's website seems to use the Exponent Content Management System (CMS), older versions of which apparently "have a lot of vulnerabilities... including SQL injection."In addition to completely trashing the RIAA's website, some playful geeks made it link to the file sharing anarchists' site Pirate Bay and other diverse amusements.The RIAA managed to restore the website at least once, but it might be going down a lot because they haven't fixed the SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities, according to TorrentFreak. µ
Students are not P2P pirates after allMPAA got its figures in a twistBy Nick Farrell: Wednesday, 23 January 2008, 5:53 PMA SURVEY which the movie industry used as the basis to attack US universities has turned out as reliable as a sworn statement by Geoffrey Archer.For two years the MPAA has waved a survey under the nose of its tame politicians in Washington claiming that 44 per cent of illegal movie downloads were conducted by college students.The survey was penned by the research outfit LEK, and was used by the MPAA to lobby the US House of Representatives to get laws that would force Universities to clamp down on piracy or lose state money.It seems the real figure is closer to 15 per cent and since a lot of students live off campus it means that about five per cent of P2P piracy is done using university networks.In short, all the over reaction, all the court cases, all the song and dancing was all a complete pile of dog doo. What is scary is that the law is still before the House of Representatives and the MPAA does not look like it wants it retracted.Meanwhile, the MPAA said that the study went wrong because of human error, but it still thinks that students are stealing a huge amount of movies.In other words, there are no facts here, but the MPAA wants to lock up students because of a gut feeling.Kenneth Green, the director of The Campus Computing Project told Inside Higher Education that the corrected MPAA numbers confirmed that P2P piracy was primarily a consumer broadband problem and nothing to do with universities.He added that the MPAA owed an apology to the campus community.We doubt this is likely to be forthcoming.
RIAA sticks it to writersProtection racketBy Nick Farrell: Tuesday, 05 February 2008, 8:15 AMTHE RIAA has long held that its court actions against P2P pirates were all about protecting the creative work of musicians and song writers.However its agenda became fairly obvious yesterday when the record labels within the RIAA all agreed with Yahoo, Apple and Napster to lower royalties to songwriters.Its argument is that music studios have suffered much from the switch to traditional records to digital media and they need the extra money. It should be songwriters who pay for the expensive court cases and the losses sustained.The debate is about the "mechanical royalty", which are payments made for copies of sound recordings and music.The RIAA wants the Copyright Royalty Board to reduce the rate to eight per cent of wholesale revenue. Currently the cash to be split between publisher and songwriter is about nine cents per song, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
RIAA's 'making available' theory fallsDefault judgment is deniedBy Egan Orion: Tuesday, 26 February 2008, 1:42 AMTHE MUSIC MAFIAA was handed its head on a plate by a US federal judge, when New Haven, Connecticut, US District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton denied the RIAA's request for a default judgement in Atlantic v. Brennan on February 13, striking down the recording industry's lame argument that merely "making available" music files is sufficient evidence of nefarious copyright infringement.Several recording industry companies had filed a lawsuit against Brennan for copyright infringement in February 2007. The defendant failed to respond or appear in court, so the plaintiffs won an entry of default against him. However, after the plaintiffs moved for a default judgement, the judge denied the motion.In a tightly reasoned and meticulously sourced nine page ruling, Judge Arterton set forth the brief history of the case, quoted the plaintiff's complaint, discussed the principles guiding judicial rulings on default judgements, and applied those to the circumstances before her.In particular, she laid out that the court's decision on whether or not to grant a default judgement must consider: "(1) whether the default was willful or culpable; (2) whether granting relief from the default would prejudice the opposing party; and (3) whether the defaulting party has a meritorious defense. "On the first of these criteria, she found that the defendant's default was only "negligent at most," thus only slightly favouring the plaintiffs but favouring them nonetheless.She then took up the third question listed above in order, that is, whether "a meritorious defense" existed. After noting that a potential defence need not be "ultimately persuasive at this stage" but might be merely possible, if proven at trial, she addressed the elements of copyright infringement, quoting case law that: "A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement must establish two elements: '(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.'"With reference to "the nonexistent factual record" due to the substance of the plaintiffs' allegations resting on nothing more than their own information and belief, she was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the defendant would have a meritorious defence to the allegation of reproduction other than to deny that the claim was actionable and not barred by the fair use doctrine.Then, however, she pounced, writing:"At least one aspect of the Plaintiffs' distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on 'mak[ing] the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others.' This amounts to a valid ground on which to mount a defense, for 'without actual distribution of copies... there is no violation [of] the distribution right.'"She also cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling -- "(affirming the district court's finding "that distribution requires an 'actual dissemination' of a copy")."On the second issue, which she addressed last, she found that the plaintiffs had shown no evidence beyond merely their "information and belief" that copyright infringement had even occurred, failing to support the conclusion that denying the motion might "result in the loss of evidence, create increased difficulties of recovery, or provide greater opportunity for fraud and collusion." Thus she did not find that the plaintiffs would be unduly prejudiced, were their motion for a default judgement to be denied.With one prong of the three criteria falling for the plaintiffs but two decided in favour of the defendant, Judge Arterton found for the defendant and therefore denied the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment.Arterton also mentioned other "colorable defenses" that defendants might claim, such as unconstitionally excessive, disproportionately high damages and anticompetive behaviour on the part of the plaintiffs. And those might yet carry weight, but those are, however meritorious, secondary arguments at this point.The music cartel was dealt a major setback by having its "making available" theory of unauthorised distribution shot down in court. It can appeal of course, or it can simply file an amended complaint in this case. But its presumed guilty "making available" theory is now well and truly blown, we can all only hope.
Dutch boffin calls RIAA expert 'borderline incompetent'Mafiaa confronted by Dutch courageBy Sylvie Barak: Wednesday, 27 February 2008, 8:48 AMONE OF THE WORLD'S top experts in the science of P2P file sharing has offered his harsh evaluation of the RIAA's so-called expert witness report.With what can only be described as a good dose of Dutch courage, Delft University's Assistant Professor Johan Pouwelse, dealt a devastating thump on the head to the music industry when he labeled the RIAA's super expert, Dr Doug Jacobson's report as 'borderline incompetent'.Prof. Pouwelse is the same bloke who stopped the Dutch equivalent of the RIAA dead in their tracks back in 2005. In the UMG v Lindor trial, the RIAA claimed it had carried out its analysis with sophisticatedly advanced equipment and software which, it assured everyone, was never, ever mistaken.But now, Ms Marie Lindor has decided to fight back with a report drafted by her very own internationally renowned expert witness. In his report, Pouwelse writes that certain procedures that should have been taken to ascertain that a particular computer had been uploading copyrighted works illegally, weren't taken.And, taking no prisoners, Professor Pouwelse goes on to say that Jacobson, a director at the Iowa State University Information Assurance Center, lacked 'in-depth analysis', 'proper scientific scrutiny' and that his reports were 'factually erroneous' and frequently contradicted his own deposition testimony.Going for the jugular, Powelse describes the systems and techniques used in the indictment of Ms Lindor as 'overly simplistic', Jacobson's investigative process as 'unprofessional' and his methods 'self-developed', 'unpublished' and unaccepted by the scientific community.He concludes by giving his expert opinion that Jacobson has shown 'borderline incompetence'.
RIAA penalty charges don't make it to the artists$400 million sloshing aboutBy Silvie Barak: Friday, 29 February 2008, 9:35 AMARTISTE MANAGERS are gearing up for a right old scrap with their tight-fisted music Uberlords, ito discover just when their poor prodigies can expect to get paid their dues after the RIAA got settlement agreements, estimated at about $400 million, with the big P2P companies.P2P outfits Napster, Kazaa and Bolt.com all had to cough up millions to Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI to compensate artists for the illegal downloading of their music. But now managers claim that they've hardly seen a penny filter down to the artists, who are getting so frustrated that they have considered filing a few lawsuits themselves.John Branca, who has represented Korn, Don Henley, The Rolling Stones and a plethora of others, commented: "Artist managers and lawyers have been wondering for months when their artists will see money from the copyright settlements and how it will be accounted for,"Record label sources responded to the accusations by saying that the big corporate bosses were still determining how best to divide the cash. In a process that could take a very long while to settle, the mathematically minded music industry boffins have decided to calculate how much every single specific artist is owed, with regard to the level of copyright infringement suffered by each.Artist managers claim that this stalling tactic is the result of a music industry in serious decline, wanting to hang on to every dollar they can. But, warns Irving Azoff, manager of superstars Christina Aguilera, The Eagles, Van Halen, Seal and more, "They will play hide and seek, but eventually will be forced to pay something,".Of course, some labels deny the allegations outright. Warner Music's representative reckons the label "is sharing the Napster settlement with its recording artists and songwriters and at this stage nearly all settlement monies have been disbursed."But according to some theories, there may not be any money to distribute at all. Fighting the digital music revolution may have cost more in legal expenses than the settlements were even worth.
Iran threatens to shut down the country's internetIran pulls a Pakistan but gives a really stupid reason for itBy Sylvie Barak: Tuesday, 04 March 2008, 6:09 PMACCORDING TO a couple of Iranian news sources, the government of Iran could pull a Pakistan, and even go one better and block private access to the Internet altogether in the lead up to March 14th's general elections.In reformist daily newspaper, Etemad Melli, Iran's Minister of the Interior, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, is quoted as saying, "Shutting down the Internet service will depend on security plans and on the Ministry of Telecommunication".Another Iranian official, Muhammad Javad Mahmoudi, gave a different and highly suspect reason for the potential internet shutdown, saying that it was only so that the government would be able to use the Internet unimpeded (by slow bandwidth) despite claims by the Iranian Student's News Agency (ISNA) that the governments' Internet lines had recently been upgraded.Iran has restricted and censored the Internet before, but it hasn't ever yet shut it down on such a worrying scale. In 2006, for example, authorities banned download speeds faster than 128 kilobytes a second on private computers. Millions of Iranians keep up to date with political news on the web and even Iranian political parties actively maintain their own active Web sites
