MP3 piracy fight gets serious (a must read if you download tunes)

[KJ]

This may be the demise of peer to peer networks (previously Napster etc was closed down as it had a central server ......... this is not good news at all)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2069000/2069747.stm



Record makers could win the right to carry out hack attacks on music sharing services if a US proposal becomes law. Californian congressman Howard Berman has drawn up a bill that would
legalise the disruption of peer-to-peer networks by companies who are trying to stop people pirating copyrighted materials.
If his idea becomes law, record companies will be able to carry out a variety of attacks on the sharing services to make them unusable or so irritating to use that people abandon them.
Existing legislation makes it an offence for anyone to carry out many of the attacks mooted in the proposal.

So far, music companies have used legal action to stop people spreading pirated pop through net-based peer-to-peer networks, such as Napster, Kazaa and Audiogalaxy. Their attempts have largely been successful. Napster has declared itself bankrupt and is trying to relaunch itself as a subscription service; Kazaa has run out of money to pay its mounting legal bills; and Audiogalaxy has agreed to remove copyrighted material from its network that it does not have permission to share.

However, legal action can take a long time to work and now Howard Berman, a democrat congressman for California, has proposed legislation that will letmusic makers act much more quickly.

His proposal would let the record makers carry out hacking-type attacks on
sharing networks to protect copyrighted works.
If it became law, record companies would win the right to place spoof tracks
on sharing services, block downloads, redirect people to non-existent files
and launch attacks that disrupt the smooth running of the networks.
Some record labels have already been known to seed some networks with spoof
tracks or adverts to try to stop people getting hold of music they have not
paid for.
The law would also allow the record companies to place programs on the
machines of peer-to-peer networks to let them trace who is pirating pop.
______________________________________


I havent felt a bit guilty downloading tunes over the past year or so as I saw it as a karma of sorts coming back to to haunt the major record labels ......... if you see the figures you'll realise they've been ripping us off for decades.

The question now is though, where do we go from here? :rolleyes:

KJ

[Turiel]

In fairness, if that became law, it'd start an all-out internet war. The RIAA would be launching attacks against P2P servers and the members of the P2P community who have the means and know-how will return the attacks tenfold. It would cause so much congestion on pipes and routers that it would have major effects on totally non related sites sharing the same bandwidth. I'd hope the US Congress (or whoever) will have the cop on to get this researched before passing it as law, but considering the other laws they've recently passed (DMCA comes to mind) I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt.

[KJ]

Good points Turiel.

Here's some thoughts from a list Im on, they kinda echo your sentiment


...........


"How can they legislate this ???

Give some people in one industry a license to hack certain sites or
networks ???

Under what conditions ??? It can't be one law for record companies
and one for everyone else, can it ?

How about industrial espionage ? Will companies have the right to hack
other companies if they can prove that copyrighted ideas had been stolen
? If not, why not ?

If a web server is attacked that is not on US soil, what then ???

This could get very messy I'd say..."


Also >>>>>>>>>


"They may not be looking for permission to "hack", in terms of breaking
in and damaging sites (or doing a denial of service attack, or whatever)
- It'll probably be targeted attacks that they're looking for the legal
basis to carry out.

It'll be along the lines of what we've seen already through malice
(practical "jokes") - Prior to Boards of Canada's recent album coming
out, some "fun" people uploaded tracks to Audiogalaxy etc. claiming that
they were the new album. They quickly propogated. These tracks were in
fact nothing more than some feedback loops and some old Brian Eno
nonsense. I've downloaded loads of tracks accidentally - I now know there's a
metal
band called "Low", or maybe some metal band had a track called "Low" -
either way, I ended up with a metal track instead of a Low track once
before. The same happened with some "The Rachels" stuff. A record
company need only upload fifteen tracks purporting to be the tracks off
a new album and watch them propogate across the network. When the real
tracks are uploaded by somebody, there'll still be a large irritation
factor involved by people who're looking to download the real album
tracks, thus making the file sharing service less valuable.

Of course, P2P networks will take action (moderation, karma points,
checksumming, encryption, whatever - I think karma points ala
Slashdot.org is probably the only real way to do it - Audiogalaxy did
some sort of file sized based checksumming, but that's hardly foolproof
- MD5 checksumming would be a start, but it'd still be easy enough to
disrupt a P2P network given the resources) to prevent such poisoning"





Ther last paragraph is complete japenese to me, anyone care to explain some of the above tech terms? ("karma points,
checksumming, MD5 checksumming")

KJ

;)

[Turiel]

Karma points are points awarded to members on http://www.slashdot.org (a news site) for decent contributions and such. Community based moderation.

An MD5 checksum is a signature created by running a program (md5sum) on a particular file. This signature is unique to that program and cannot be replicated by another file. For example:

"Song A.mp3" (the real one) would have a MD5 checksum of 5050505050.
Record company uploads "Song A.mp3" which is really a loop of some other song, and not the original file at all. The webserver notices this and rejects the "Song A.mp3" from the record company, cause this new song may have a checksum of 30040050 or something.

Hope this clears things up.

[KJ]

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html


An interesting take on the whole thing by a musician


KJ

;)

[KJ]

Owen Gibson
Tuesday August 20, 2002




US record companies have launched a Napster-style legal assault on a new firm that allows consumers to download the latest tracks from hit artists such as Christina Aguilera and the Red Hot Chili Peppers for free.

Four major companies - BMG, Sony, Universal and Warner - have taken the unusual step of launching action against the internet companies that give access to the offending website as part of ongoing efforts to combat music piracy on the web.

Listen4ever.com is registered in China and, like Napster, allows web users to download songs from a central location. The copyright infringement suit, filed in Manhattan over the weekend, alleges the site is "even more egregious" than Napster.

The site features tracks from thousands of artists, including Christina Aguilera, Bruce Springsteen, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Eric Clapton and Whitney Houston, that users can download for nothing and then copy to CD.

The record companies claim that although they have been unable to determine who owns the site, the internet service providers should stop their users from accessing it because it is clearly aimed at the US and breaches copyright law, despite being registered in China.

Record companies, hit by falling sales, are becoming increasingly desperate to find a solution to the growing problem of internet piracy. Although they succeeded in crippling Napster through a series of lawsuits, a host of similar sites have sprung up in its place.

Meanwhile, the record companies' own attempts at launching legal music download networks such as PressPlay and MusicNet have proved less than popular, partly because of the number of free alternatives and partly because they only offer a limited selection of music.

Listen4ever.com is a relatively easy target because, like Napster, its songs are hosted on a central computer.

Far harder to close down are a new generation of music-swapping services, such as Kazaa and Grokster, which allow users to share tracks stored on their own computers.

These "peer-to-peer" services are already attracting up to 3.5m downloads a week and the British Phonographic Industry fears the scale of the piracy will be far great than caused by Napster.

Unlike Napster, which stored a library of tens of thousands of tracks in a central computer, the peer-to-peer service relies on CD collections stored on home computers.

The software allows anyone signed up to the service to have a look at everyone else's collections, causing a nightmare for copyright lawyers accustomed to tackling corporate theft.

Some 100 million computer owners are registered for the peer-to-peer use, dwarfing Napster, which attracted 20 million users at its peak.

The Recording Industry Assocation of America estimates that record companies have already lost 5% of their worldwide revenue over the past two years due to the rising popularity of illegal downloads.

In the UK a recent report from the British Phonographic Industry showed that single sales were down 15% in the last quarter from a year ago"

[Turiel]

BTW - what Kelly posted in the first message in the thread has actually become (US) law now. I don't think the RIAA have tried anything yet though.

[KJ]

I think this is best suited to this thread ................

"Subject: hmv download service

HMV to offer online music service in the Republic

By Jamie Smyth


Consumers in the Republic will be able to download digital music from
a
large range of artists from next month, through an online subscription
service provided by high-street retailer HMV.

The service, which is the first to be established by a major retailer
in the
Republic or Britain, should help HMV grow its sales here - which new
figures
show were £69 million (EUR88 million) in the year to April 2001.

From next month, HMV customers will be able to sign up for a
subscription
service offering 100,000 tracks from artists such as Elvis Presley,
Genesis,
Kylie Minogue and Dido.

A subscription will cost users £4.99 (EUR7.80) per month for the
right to
download up to 50 tracks per month.

Alternatively users can choose to listen to up to 500 tracks using a
music
streaming function.

The new service is an attempt by HMV to stem the flow of consumers
choosing
to download music files from a host of websites set up to mirror the
now-defunct file-swapping site Napster.

These sites are undermining retailers' revenues and have been blamed
for a 7
per cent decrease in CD sales in the US in the first half of 2002.

But it will also offer HMV a further opportunity to increase its
presence in
the Republic, where it has seven stores and generates significant
revenues
for the group.

Financial accounts filed this month show HMV Ireland more than doubled
turnover to £69.2 million in the year to April 2001, up from £31.3
million
for the previous year.

Operating profit increased to £4.7 million during the same period, up
from
£3 million in 2000.

HMV employed almost 200 staff in the Republic during this period, the
results show.

The new Web service is the result of a partnership deal between HMV
and
online music distribution company ON Demand Distribution.

HMV will offer tracks from bands signed to a number of labels
including EMI,
Warner Music and BMG.

Mr Stuart Rowe, HMV e-commerce director, said it was evident that a
growing
number of customers were ready for digital music.

However, record stores would remain core to the way people chose to
buy
their music.

HMV joins a number of high-profile websites and portals including
MSN.co.uk,
Freeserve and Tiscali, which already use the On Demand Distribution
service.

The new service will be available from HMV's existing website,
www.HMV.co.uk.

© The Irish Times

[Liamo]

Just read Janis Ian's article - superb! Thanks for the link, Kelly!

As someone who occasionally downloads back-catalogue stuff, and tries out music (pretty much the gist of her article) I think she's hit the nail on the head!

Example #1: Allison Kraus' version of "Baby, now that I've found you" is excellent.....it was used for a TV ad and I (and some friends of mine) are hooked; unfortunately, it's not possible to buy it (unless you buy some completely hokey album for €20 with nothing else of interest on it). Would I download it ? Yes (if I could find it). Would I pay €3 for the download ? Yes.

Example #2: The recording of a video and the marketing of a CD causes the cost to us to rise by approximately 50%, if not more....that's us paying them to convince us that we want to buy it. Ironically, the ad for Vanessa Carlton's album that contains "A Thousand Miles" doesn't play anything but that song....is the album any good ? No-one knows. So will I buy it ? Only if they show an ad that gives me an idea of the quality of the rest of the album. AND on condition the album is reasonably priced (doubtful)

Example #3: I recently picked up 2 albums in a shop - both 70s back-catalogue with similar songs on them, one for €8.99 and the other for €18.99 - when I asked the shopkeeper (who I know personally from being in there so much and so who's pretty honest) why the difference, he asked me which one I'd seen advertised on TV. Between that and flying the groups off to exotic locations for videos and paying for irrelevant videos, it seems to me you're not paying for the songs.

Example #4: I have a Queen's "Greatest Hits" album which contains must of their good stuff, but omits "Radio Gaga". That song is on a box set for €50, but that box set just duplicates the ones I already have. Should I pay €50 to hear "Radio Gaga" ?

If the recording industry starts to cop on and charges €2 or €3 for individual songs I reckon they're on a winner....if not, they've only themselves to blame...

[KJ]

Thought this news today fitted best in this thread


"The world's largest film and music businesses have won many battles against internet pirates. Now they are hoping for outright victory in the war. Dominic Timms reports

Monday February 24, 2003
The Guardian

In a scene that could have come straight out of a bloody blockbuster, the world's largest film and music businesses are gearing up for a final battle against internet piracy. Led by associations such as the powerful Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its music industry equivalent the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the big entertainment giants are hoping that a combination of legal warnings and intense lobbying on Washington's Capitol Hill will secure victory against the "evils" of illegal music and video downloading.

The conflict may have been running for some time - as vanquished adversaries such as Napster and Film88 testify - but only now is the war entering its key phase. "There are no skull and crossbones, no cutlasses, cannons, or daggers to identify today's pirates. You can't see them coming; there's no warning shot across your bow. Yet rest assured the pirates are out there because today there is plenty of gold (and platinum and diamonds) to be had," warns the recording industry.

It was one of a handful of trade groups behind last week's "friendly reminder" letter to US and European companies warning them of their corporate responsibility towards copyright law, including preventing employees from illegally downloading music and video. Last April, the Arizona-based computer company Integrated Information Systems was forced to pay a $1m settlement after employees were found to be downloading and distributing music files on the company servers.

But it is not just companies and alleged rogue sites such as Kazaa, Morpheus and Aimster that are under attack. Internet service providers are also coming under threat, particularly from the music industry. Two years after News Corp chairman Peter Chernin suggested there were "too many people in highly profitable businesses who are winking at wholesale infringement of copyright", RIAA chief Hillary Rosen launched plans that would force ISPs to pay a fee for allowing their users to download music tracks and video.

The RIAA has already had some success in its fight against ISPs, forcing one, Verizon Internet Services, to seek a "stay" last week on a district-court ruling made in December that sought to force it to name subscribers accused of illegally sharing more than 600 copyrighted music files.

In an attempt to neuter internet piracy altogether, the big US trade organisations have been lobbying hard to secure legislative measures to combat piracy. They back a controversial bill from South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings that is seeking to legally mandate technology firms, such as PC manufacturers, to include anti-piracy features in their products. Not surprisingly, the prospect of such legislation set off alarm bells across an IT industry that has grown up on a liberal interpretation of America's "fair use" clause on copyright. Late last month IT firms such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple and Hewlett Packard launched the Alliance for Digital Progress (ADP) to fight the Hollings bill. While the ADP says it is as committed as the MPAA to stamping out illegal use of copyright material, it argues that such anti-piracy measures should be left to market forces to decide.

"Piracy of digital content is a serious, complex problem that concerns all of us," says ADP president Fred McClure. "But government-designed and mandated technology that swaps the diversity of marketplace solutions for a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is not the answer. A mandate will raise the price of everything from CD players and DVD players to personal computers. It will make the devices consumers own today obsolete. ADP believes Hollywood should fight piracy by working with industry to come up with solutions that meet consumer expectations, and by providing attractive legal alternatives to piracy by putting content online in a wide variety of digital formats."

The response from Jack Valenti, the MPAA's pugnacious chief, was swift. "It's a bit strange that the IT community launches a million-dollar campaign against the movie industry, and their spokesman at a press conference charges us as the 'enemy'. We are not the enemy. We are not at war with the IT community. We are hoping that these meetings will produce amiable results."

In Europe last week for the Berlin Film Festival, Valenti warned the film industry that it was suffering from around 400,000-600,000 illegal movie downloads every day, a figure that he said would rise to over 1m by 2006 without mandated protection.

If Senator Hollings's bill reaches the statute books it will have international repercussions. "Generally what happens is that what gets agreed over there by the various industry bodies happens worldwide," says Mark Owen, head of intellectual property law at Harbottle & Lewis. But even though international agree ments on digital copyright, such as those drawn up by the World Intellectual Property Organisation and ratified by over 30 countries in 1996, offer an effective legislative weapon in the international fight against copyright piracy, regional interpretations could water this efficacy down. "Punishing ISPs may work in the US but under the EU's e-commerce directive, ISPs are more or less exempt from liability in Europe," he says. The delayed EU directive on copyright - in part Europe's response to WIPO and due to be implemented last December - has still only been signed by two countries.

Yet even with international agreement on copyright, there is likely to be resistance from consumers who, culturally at least, don't see illegal copying as a crime. "There is going to be a big consumer backlash against it because people aren't used to the idea of not being able to copy things," Owen argues. "The computer industry is suffering from falling margins and is trying to get consumers to buy new computers when they've got perfectly good ones. So they have to make them more interesting. So they add all these multimedia capabilities, such as DVD re-writers. If when you get all that and find that you can't actually play the music CD you bought, let alone copy it, you are going to get pissed off if you are a consumer."

Critics of the MPAA and RIAA say the media giants that control most of the music industry, such as Vivendi Universal, Sony and Warner Music, also control much of the film business, and ought to have learned from their mistakes. "The industry had a huge opportunity to provide legitimate file sharing services but spent its time fighting Napster. That was an expensive and time-consuming business and all that happened is that illegal file sharing moved on to other services such as Kazaa and Morpheus," said one Hollywood insider who asked not to be named.

Although legitimate services such as the Sony Music/Universal Music joint venture Pressplay and the Warners/MGM/Paramount/Sony/ Universal initiative Movielink have launched, both are only available in the US.

Others say that the MPAA is using sledgehammer tactics, arguing that unlike physical piracy - which cost Hollywood over $4bn in lost revenues last year - internet piracy is still hidebound by bandwidth limitations. Sending a movie over the internet may take less than the seven days it took in the mid-1990s, but at over two hours today - even on the fastest broadband connections - the 20-minute walk to Blockbuster still looks the more entertaining prospect.

"In the music business the problem is easy to see," says Sir Howard Stringer, the chairman and chief executive of Sony Corporation of America. "We alienated music people; we alienated the consumer when we cranked up CD prices too high, and we alienated retailers for the same reason. There was dissatisfaction at the number of tracks on a CD that were any good. We upset the artists because they felt they were being ripped off. And device manufacturers were confused about it all."

Ring any bells, Hollywood?