MySpace is trying to tell artists what widgets they can embed on their myspace pages. Think again. The backlash will kill the whole site.

It will be nice to see it happen. (Meaning it will be nice to either see the crappy myspace fail, or a smarter myspace wake up and relax these silly restrictions.)

MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By Brad Stone for the NY Times.

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions...

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."...

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/technology/20myspace.html?pagewanted=print

March 20, 2007
MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By BRAD STONE

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions.

At stake is the ability of MySpace, which is owned by the News Corporation,
to ensure that it alone can commercially capitalize on its 90 million
visitors each month.

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."

Ms. Tequila, born Tila Nguyen, has attracted attention by linking to more
than 1.7 million friends on her MySpace page. To promote her first album,
she recently added to her MySpace page a new music player and music store,
called the Hoooka, created by Indie911, a Los Angeles-based start-up
company.

Users listened to her music and played the accompanying videos 20,000 times
over the weekend. But the Hoooka disappeared on Sunday after a MySpace
founder, Tom Anderson, personally contacted Ms. Tequila to object,
according to someone with direct knowledge of the dispute. She then vented
her thoughts on her personal blog.

MySpace says that it will block these pieces of third-party software - also
called widgets - when they lend themselves to violations of its terms of
service, like the spread of pornography or copyrighted material. But it
also objects to widgets that enable users to sell items or advertise
without authorization, or without entering into a direct partnership with
the company.

A MySpace spokeswoman said yesterday that the service did not remove
anything from Ms. Tequila's page. "A MySpace representative contacted her
and told her that she had violated our terms of service in regards to
commercial activity," the spokeswoman said. "She removed the material
herself, after realizing it was not appropriate for MySpace."

Ms. Tequila and her representatives would not comment.

But Justin Goldberg, chief executive of Indie911, said MySpace's actions
undercut the notion that the social networks' users have complete creative
freedom. "We find it incredibly ironic and frustrating that a company that
has built its assets on the back of its users is turning around and telling
people they can't do anything that violates terms of service," he said.

"Why shouldn't they call it FoxSpace? Or RupertSpace?" Mr. Goldberg said,
referring to the News Corporation's chief, Rupert Murdoch.

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

"Our users weren't happy," said Dalton Caldwell, Imeem's chief executive,
who was nevertheless ambivalent about the MySpace ban because he thought
the move might encourage his users to visit his site directly. "If MySpace
isn't really 'their space' after all, maybe users will think about things
differently."

In the past, MySpace executives have said that the service failed to block
companies like YouTube that began successful businesses from MySpace's
pages.

"We probably should have stopped YouTube," Michael Barrett, chief revenue
officer for Fox Interactive Media, a part of the News Corporation, said in
an interview in late February. "YouTube wouldn't exist if it wasn't for
MySpace. We've created companies on our back."

MySpace and its corporate parent say they want to find ways to support and
exploit the growing widget economy. Last year, Fox Interactive Media
introduced a service called Spring Widget. The service provides tools to
help developers create widgets for use both on computer desktops and online
networks like MySpace.

In a recent use of its technology, the studio behind the horror film "Dead
Silence" used a Spring Widget tool on its promotional MySpace page to count
down the minutes until the film's release.

Fred Wilson, a New York-based venture capitalist who invests in social
media companies, said the strategy showed that the News Corporation was
trying to take advantage of growing interest in widgets while also trying
to carefully control what made it onto MySpace.

But that could be a dangerous strategy, Mr. Wilson said.

"Every attempt everyone has ever made to try to dictate what a person's
Internet experience will be has ended up coming up empty," he said. "You
have to accept the fact that you are never going to be the be-all and
end-all of everyone's experience. They are one click away from everyone
else on the Web."

As for Ms. Tequila, who wrote on her blog that she was a personal friend of
Mr. Anderson, the MySpace co-founder, she wrote that she felt bad about
blasting the site but that she could not stay silent.

"You guys used to be so cool," she wrote of MySpace. "Don't turn into a
corporate evil monster."

This is from the February 7, 2007 program of CNBC's Morning Call.

CNBC On Why DRM Should Go Away (Quicktime - 16 MB)

CNBC On Why DRM Should Go Away (MP3 - 8 MB)

This story was inspired by Steve Jobs' recent
campaign to kill Digital Rights Management (DRM) in iTunes.

The argument supporting this position was best described when the commentator started off saying:
"Mr. Sherman, your anti-piracy software doesn't work anyway. What's the point?"

Long story short:

-DRM is only a hassle for consumers. Real "pirates" hack it anyway.

-DRM doesn't need to exist for new business models - there are numerous subscription services already without DRM.

-For this reason, a subscription service that doesn't let you move your music around between your different devices is already "broken" (while also depriving you of your fair use and first sale rights to make legal copies of media you've purchased legally).

Here is the full text of the entire article linked to above about Steve Jobs (in case the link goes bad):
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1551759/20070207/index.jhtml

Apple's Steve Jobs Ready To Scrap iTunes Copy Protection
With label cooperation, Apple would sell DRM-free music 'in a heartbeat,' CEO says.

By Gil Kaufman

Steve Jobs is great at making lusted-after shiny tech objects, but the Apple Inc. CEO could use a lesson or two in the fine art of blogging. Regardless of his failure to keep it brief and breezy, though, the man who brought you the iPod and iTunes posted a lengthy, fascinating open letter on the Apple site on Tuesday in which he surprisingly stated that he'd be OK with scrapping the Digital Rights Management software that prevents songs downloaded from iTunes from being played on competing MP3 players.

Jobs, who has defended DRM in the past, said he's asked the four major labels (Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and EMI Group) to remove the software that prevents the copying of music files. As of now, songs bought on iTunes will only play on Apple's own iPods, and music bought from other download sites have their own DRM systems that work for competing music players.

"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs explained in the letter about the big four, which control rights to more than 70 percent of the world's music. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."

Part of the deal, he added, is that if Apple's DRM was compromised at any time and the music downloaded from iTunes could suddenly be played on unauthorized devices — hackers have worked hard at finding some work-arounds for the iTunes DRM — the company had only a "small number of weeks" to fix the situation or face the withdrawal of the record company's entire catalog from the iTunes store. Jobs decried the need to employ secret codes in Apple's FairPlay DRM in order to stay a step ahead of hackers in the "cat-and-mouse game" to repair challenges to FairPlay's security.

"Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly," Jobs predicted. He proposed three solutions to the problem:

» "Continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own "top to bottom" proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft's Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony's Connect store will only play on Sony's players; and music purchased from Apple's iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

» "The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company's players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players."

» "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

Why would the big four agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect them, Jobs asks? The simple answer, he wrote, is "because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

"Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That's right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player."

Jobs argued that if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, why would they bother saddling the small remaining percentage of their sales with a DRM system that doesn't work?

"If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM-protected music," he wrote. "If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies."

I had just signed up for a PayPal account too, and was in the process of verifying my bank account. Now I think I don't want to get involved with these guys.

Mark Perkel learned this the hard way, when PayPal gave his account "limited" status after deciding it didn't like some of the content on his website. Furthermore, right before it shut down his account, it reversed a deposit that one of his clients had transferred to his PayPal account, but it did not return the money to his client's bank account after removing it from Perkel's bank account.

According to PayPal's User Agreement, (It's probably the Accessible Use policy regarding adult material that he violated.), if it chooses to make your account "limited," (PayPal has the authorization to do so at any time based on its own discretion), it can and will hold the funds in your PayPal account for 180 days.

Turns out that money is in limbo until Perkel writes PayPal in a secure email on its website and asks for this to be done explicitly. This is despite the fact that he asked them to do so over the phone. (And why wouldn't they have already done so anyway? - if they were reversing the transaction, when the money left Perkel's account, it should have gone back to where it came from.)

PayPal claims that they hold the money for 180 days to "protect ourselves from potential reversals" to the accounts. But there's a free speech issue here - why is PayPal going around making judgements about it's customers' websites anyway? Who's going to be next? Is your PayPal account something you don't want to keep too much money in at any one time, since they can freeze your account and hold it up for 180 days?

These are the questions going through my mind after listing to this MP3 of Marc Perkel talking to Paypal.

If you're listen to the MP3, and in a hurry, the relevant portion is at about 6 min 50 seconds into it. But if you've got a minute, listen to the whole thing. It's pretty interesting.

So Perkel may have violated their user agreement, but closing his account without giving him a chance to take his money out, and then holding on to not only the money he had in his account, but the money his client had transferred to him the day before the account was closed doesn't seem right.

Marc's started an anti-paypal website, to let people know about his experience, but I'm not telling you to boycott these guys necessarily. I just want you to know about this so you can make your own decision. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason why PayPal works for you. Fine.

(This MP3 might also have some great samples in it for you Dee Jay/Audiophile types. Don't say I didn't tell ya :-)

Here's some information for anyone who is interested in the news story about PayPal and their lawsuit settlement over freezing customer's accounts:

PayPal settles customer suit

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.com.com/PayPal+settles+customer+suit/2100-1038_3-5233490.html

Last modified: June 14, 2004, 4:38 PM PDT
By Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Print story E-mail story Your take

PayPal has reached a preliminary settlement with some customers who accused the eBay unit of illegally freezing their funds.

The company on Friday said it will pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which will pay lawyers' fees and costs.

PayPal admitted no wrongdoing in settling the claims, which were filed in 2002 as part of two federal class-action suits that also alleged other customer service deficiencies.

Those two cases were merged, and a third case, pending in California state court, will be dismissed if the settlement agreement is approved.

"In this agreement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any of the allegations in the case are true," PayPal said in an e-mail to customers. The unit "entered into the settlement agreement to avoid further costs of litigation and to devote resources to more productive areas of our business."

An attorney for PayPal customers called the settlement a win not only in securing a financial reward, but in changing the way PayPal does business.

"I think we got it right," said Daniel Girard, a partner with Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo in San Francisco. "The settlement provides for cash recovery and also for a series of changes to the operating procedures at PayPal."

Between June and September 2003, while the litigation was still pending, PayPal released $5.1 million in frozen customer funds, Girard said. As part of the settlement, PayPal agreed to change the way it handled dispute resolution.

PayPal acknowledged that the settlement included an injunction mandating certain changes to the company's procedures, but maintained that the modifications had come about independent of the litigation.

"PayPal has always been looking for ways to improve customer service," said company spokeswoman Amanda Pires. The litigation "didn't really change the way PayPal has been operating. We have improved our customer service as part of our normal course of business."

PayPal claims 45 million member accounts around the world.

The settlement was the product of mediation, begun early last fall, before a court-appointed special master. Within a week, the parties plan to file the preliminary settlement with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., for approval.

The case involves PayPal customers who used the service between Oct. 1, 1999 and Jan. 31, 2004. European Union residents are excluded.

PayPal said it will publish the allocation plan in July or August. Customers will be informed of settlement terms within two months of the court's preliminary approval.

Here's the text from the website in case the link goes bad:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

PayPal Sucks - Closed my Account - Keeping my Money

I'm in the process of building my PayPal sucks site and this blog entry is the first step. It's the art of being an asshole. I'm sure I'm not the only one that PayPal has ripped off and probably won't be the last - but I will be the one they remember the most.

I got an email today from PayPal that they are closing my account. The reason for closing my account is that they claim they don't like the content of my web site - specifically my site on Sexual Issues where I have my Men's Guide to Escort Services - a guide to interacting with hookers, The Nerd's Guide to Sex - a guide teaching men how to properly have sex with women, and The Shy Girl's Guide to Becoming a Whore - a women's guide to surviving the Bush Ecomony.

So - because they didn't like my web site content they not only decided to cancel my PayPal account - but to also keep my money for 180 days. And - I had transfered my money out of PayPal yesterday - but after closing my account today they reversed yesterday's transaction and are going to steal my money.

The people at PayPay are real mother fuckers. But I to am an asshole and I don't get mad - I get even. Whenever I get screwed by someone I use my talents of being a real prick to turn the tables on them and make them feel the heat.

PayPal claims that according to their End User Agreement that they have the right to close down my account for any reason whatsoever - without any form of recourse - keep my money for 180 days - and there's nothing that I can do about it. Well Paypal you on wrong about that because there's a lot to do about it.

I am a person who values free speech and fights hard against censorship and the Corparations like eBay who owns PayPay who think they can come in and tell ME what I can say on the Internet. Well I say - fuck you PayPal! I will not only keep my right to FREE SPEECH but I will use that right to expose you for what you really are.

Now - for those of you who are reading this - you probably don't entirely grasp the details of what I'm talking about. You think - this is PayPal - they have to be more ethical than that don't they? I say - yes they do. So I called them on the phone about it to get them to explain it to me in their own words. And I RECORDED THE CONVERSTATION IN THIS MP3 FILE SO YOU ALL CAN HERE IT FOR YOURSELF!

First things first. The file you are listening to is edited. But the important content is unaltered. I removed about 20 minutes of on hold messages so that you wouldn't have to sit through the wait time. The rest of it is everything that was said between me and PayPal.

What really fun about this is that I got them to say just exactly what they did to me and how they ripped me off and how they aren't going to do anything to fix it. What you hear is a real life detailed experience that I had and what PayPal's end user agreement really means to you - so that if you are thinking about doing business with PayPal - or you are already a PayPal or eBay customer - you might want to reread that user agreement and see if this is really what you want to be agreeing to.

In the recorded conversation - after getting them to plainly explain how they are screwing me - I anounce to them that I have recorded this phone call - and that I'm going to put it on the Internet. All of a sudden it is them flipping out and screaming about their rights - but - there's nothing they can do about it. You see - I'm not the only one who has no choice. When I dialed up PayPal - the very first thing their machine said was, "This call may be recorded." So - I recorded it. Listen to the squeal about their rights - but I don't give a fuck about their rights because they don't give a fuck about my rights.

The big corps think they hold all the cards - but there are things that we consumers can do to fight back. After all 0 this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not of big corporation who think they can enslave us and walk over us any time they want to. I want this web site to be a turtorial about how people like you and me can stand up to these motherfuckers and show them that the People rule. And we do that by taking money out of their pockets.

Now - there are plenty of other people out there with similar stories of being censored or otherwise ripped off be PayPal and the comment section is open for you to tell your PayPal story. Go ahead and put in links to other PayPay sucks sites and tell us who is better. It's time that the online community organized to move away from unethical corporations like eBay who owns PayPal and find services who will play ball with us on OUR TERMS.

And - I want you to let PayPal know that you saw this web site and let them know what you think aboiut it. Here is an Email Form to tell them - you saw it hear - you listened to the recording - and what you think about it.

One think to keep in mind is - PayPal is not a bank - nor do you have the protection that banks offer. They are also not a credit card company. They act like they are a fiscal instution but Master Card and Visa aren't playing moral police with me. And as you can see - if they decide to take your money - they just take it. Even if you transfer your money out of paypal the day before they close your account.

Also - if you are going to link to this page - don't use the blog url. Use this URL instead:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

Here's another PayPal Warning Site I found.

Other PayPal Sucks Sites:

http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.internationalterrorist.com/paypal.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/18/0128201.shtml?tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=93&tid=95&tid=99
http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12148
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007500.html
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2003/Mar/0040.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/02/23/pay_pal/index.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/paypal.html
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paypalperil/
http://www.outofthedark.com/CorporateWars/PayPal/index.html
http://www.ygoodman.com/paypal.asp

What is PayPal?

PayPal is an online service that allows you to email money to other people.

----------------------

Why is my account access limited?

Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s):
# Jun. 13, 2004: In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.

(Your case ID for this reason is PP-040-853-646.)
Posted by marc at June 13, 2004 07:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments

i feel for u mate.. i had my paypal account closed, and by the time i was able to come back to the civilized world to do anything,(was out in the outback) my money, my account all gone.The reason they gave me was inactivity on my account so they took it to themselves to close and wipe my money clean.Your reasons was more obsecure.. wat does an online content (what u write on the net) has anything to do with paypal?

screw them real good!
Posted by: ixnay at June 13, 2004 09:11 PM

Large corporations are all, repeat, all crooked. You will need a website the size of Siberia to contain all the "so and so sucks" information. Let me suggest:

CORPORATIONS SUCK

They are Re-animated Companies. They take a company that has been sold (aka dead) and artificially re-animate it with money from absentee stock-holders. These Frankenstein's Monsters are ruling the world. Nice, huh?

They are evil incarnate. Whaddaya gonna do?
Posted by: Dancho at June 13, 2004 09:49 PM

the URL to the MP3 is 404, bro.

Drew
Posted by: drew niese at June 13, 2004 10:01 PM

As far as the reversal of transaction goes, I think you have a legitimate right to complain.

But I don't think you can call foul as far as PayPal's closing your account is concerned.

From the "User Agreement for PayPal Services":

"This User Agreement ("Agreement") is a contract between you and PayPal, Inc. and applies to your use of the PayPal™ payment service and any related products and services available through www.paypal.com (collectively the "Service"). If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, please do not use or access our Services.

You must read, agree with, and accept all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Privacy Policy, which include those terms and conditions expressly set out below and those incorporated by reference, before you may become a member of PayPal. We strongly recommend that, as you read this Agreement, you also access and read the information contained in the other pages and websites referred to in this document, as they may contain further terms and conditions that apply to you as a PayPal user. Please note: underlined words and phrases are links to these pages and websites. By accepting this Agreement, you also agree that your use of other PayPal websites and Services will be governed by the terms and conditions posted on those websites."

One of the links is the "Acceptable Use Policy", and one of the examples of prohibited services/sites is "information sites or directories that provide links to adult sites or escort services".

PayPal isn't telling you what you can and can't say on the internet. They're not shutting your site down. Private companies *do* have the right to dictate what their services can and can't be used for.

PayPal didn't close your account because of something so arbitrary as "they don't like the content of your web site". They closed it because you broke terms of usage that you had agreed to when you signed up for their services in the first place.
Posted by: MadBlue at June 14, 2004 03:49 AM

Never, NEVER keep a large balance with Paypal. Damn, 6 months sure seems like a long time to keep somebody's money! That's a helluva float! Whatever happened to 30 days, 60 days, even 90 days? Okay, so 6 months go by and then what - They make your money disappear for inactivity like that poor Aussi who was outback!?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:14 AM

Hey, that recording was funny as hell. Well, obviously, congress has to legislate laws to protect the consumer against paypal/ebay. I never use paypal when I put something up for auction on ebay. Hey, just imagine, ebay just closed my account for a bullshit infraction. That means that they probably would have frozen my paypal account too.

How's that song go... Alicia, Alicia...la la la la
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:35 AM

I don't buy keeping the money for 6 fucking months to cover potential complaints. I mean, what if they had already sent you the money; how would they cover their complaints then?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:43 AM

If PAYPAL is acting as any merchant account, they reserve the right to hold funds to handle claims. As a businessman I am not totally bothered by this, if you agree to it. But, I do believe the owner of the account should earn ALL the interest from those funds. Now, I'll go listen to the tape.
Posted by: X-FREEPER at June 14, 2004 06:14 AM

"PayPal still faces probes by the FTC and other states regarding how it does business, including procedures dealing with times when product is not delivered after payment is received, and PayPal's account-freezing policies."

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Mar/gee20040310024206.htmw
Posted by: Babylonian at June 14, 2004 07:51 AM

Mark, I was reading one of your err... other sites...lol....hey, I don't mean to burst your bubble but...BUT... the reason those escorts were telling you that you are so good in bed is because...err.......u were PAYING them and they wanted a tip plus more business in the future.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 07:57 AM

While less than ethical, what PayPal did was perfectly legal. You agreed to their license agreement in the beginning, obviously without reading the whole thing (but honestly, who does?).

As for tape recording you conversation with PayPal... you're gonna wind up in serious shit. That's recording a phone conversation without expressly telling the other party that the call is being recorded is a felony. If they want to, they can sue you to hell and back if you post that conversation on the internet (like you did). If I were you, I'd get rid of it--it's evidence against you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 10:35 AM

No, I think that since Paypal's own recording said that the conversation would be recorded puts Mark in the clear.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, that's not true. The recording said that it is possible that the call may be recorded, but PayPal is required by law to notify all customers of such a recording. IF you argue semantics with a judge, it's not going to help you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 01:14 PM

Dude... you got your Paypal logo right there on your site. Gotta get rid of that...
Posted by: Dancho at June 14, 2004 02:55 PM

your blog on Reagan must have offended Paypal.
Posted by: celery at June 14, 2004 05:51 PM

I don't have a problem with Paypal canceling his account, because they're notorious for not dealing with immoral (to them) stuff. Marc's site does push the comfort level (though I find it informative and hilarious, but that's just me.) And, anyway, that's their right. They can do business with whoever they want. And I can do business with whoever I want. No one's forcing people to use Paypal. Plenty of alternatives out there.

But I do have a serious problem with their holding his funds. They should freeze his account, so that he can only move his funds out, and do nothing else. But tying up his cash is, in my opinion, severely unethical. Not sure what can be done about it, though, except spread the word and cost them business. Worked for me. I avoid Paypal whenever possible now.

So--anyway. I'm starting up an Internet business later this year, and need reviews on digital currency, since Paypal is out. Was out a long time ago. I've heard this happen to lots of people. Anybody use e-gold or its competitors? What did you think?

And, yeah, I was wondering about the legality of taping people without their consent/knowledge. Anybody know the relevant statute? What kind of trouble has Marc got himself into?
Posted by: curt at June 14, 2004 05:58 PM

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

I guess there are states that have a two party notification law..but most states require single...and since you consented at the beginning of the conversation...when they asked...not that there seemed to be a choice offered to you of a press 1 if you consent, or press 2 if you do not...seems to me when they announce it they are just telling you they are and you have no choice.
The recording of the call was good...
Posted by: minerva at June 14, 2004 08:14 PM

Marc, that was the most enjoyable hour I just spent, reading your page and listening to that recording.

Its time big business gets back to basics and realizes just where they get these big bucks from..US. The people. Our little pocketbooks feed their big executive salaries and its time they felt the pinch, just as we have to.

I am cancelling my PayPal account today. Not that my little amount will hurt them, but spreading the word will. I realize that PayPal was bought by eBay, but new auction sites are opening up daily. Competition is good!!!

And to anyone who wants to go the 'moral route', go right ahead! I've been with Ctyme hosting for two years and nothing on Marc's site bothers me at all. AND, I'm a 60 year old lady, widowed and mother to a wonderful young man. If it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone!!

You go, Marc!!
Posted by: Nightwalker at June 15, 2004 03:13 AM

Enough paypal already.

You know, after everything the White House has put this country of ours through, Cheney, despite it all, is in Florida perpetuating the lie that there was a link between Al Qaida and Sadam Hussein! This clown makes me want to puke!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_terrorism_1

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

Mon Jun 14, 8:00 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."
Posted by: richard at June 15, 2004 04:09 AM

Paypal closed my account because i received one payment from adult sponsor. I dont put paypal logo or watsoever on my websites and they closed it, leaving $2,800 in it. And they will not restore my account anymore. Paypal sucks! I will not recommend to my friends.
Posted by: Justin at June 15, 2004 05:45 AM

Unbelievable. PayPal doesn't like YOUR free speech, and gets all whiny when you expose their idiocy.

Ass soon as I drain my account, say buh-bye, Pay-former-"Pal"...
Posted by: gino at June 15, 2004 06:19 AM

Hold the account for 180 days for reversals? Yeah Right!

I got ripped off on eBay, payed with Paypal. Suppose to come in 3 days (express). After 7 days didn't show up. Seller's eBay account NARU'ed. Couldn't contact seller so I filed a Buyer complaint to reverse the transaction to get a refund of my money. After a week of Paypal "investigation", Paypal said they couldn't refund my money because there is NO FUNDS in the account! Why coundn't they reverse it?!?!
Posted by: Mr. A at June 15, 2004 11:35 AM

That's because the person closed it of their own volition, so there is no waiting period for reversals. On accounts that have been limited for some reason or another, they install this waiting period because they believe that people who have done something to warrant a closing might have trouble with reversals.
Posted by: Mance at June 15, 2004 03:12 PM

"This call may be recorded."

Not a complicated concept!

"May" implies a grant of permission; "might" implies the possibility of something occurring. (If I say you MAY use the phone, that is very different than saying you MIGHT use the phone. One conveys my approval for your engaging in that particular activity; the other conveys my assessment of your future activities.)

Marc's right, PayPal's wrong, and they (to be frank) are more fucked than Anna Nicole Smith if they think holding funds for 6 months is REASONABLE.

In the age of electronic banking, 180 days is an ETERNITY, and completely indefensible.

In my opinion.

;)

The EFF released the following advisory a while ago. The concerns still stand.
Check it out.

EFF Reports on Trusted Computing

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Thursday published a landmark report on trusted computing, a technology designed to improve security through hardware changes to the personal computer.

The report, entitled "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk," maintains that computer owners themselves, rather than the companies that provide software and data for use on the computer, should retain control over the security measures installed on their computers. Any other approach, says the report's author Seth Schoen, carries the risk of anti-competitive behavior by which software providers may enforce "security measures" that prevent interoperability when using a competitor's software.

"Helping computer owners defend their computers against attacks is progress in computer security, but treating computer owners themselves as the bad guys is not," said Schoen. "Security architectures must be designed to put the computer owner's interests first, not to lock the owner into the plans of others."

Links:

For the full press release

EFF report: "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk"

EFF companion commentary: "Meditations on Trusted Computing"

CNET story about the EFF report

Better yet, skip Ticketmaster altogether, if you actually have a choice. But usually you don't. Here's the problem with printing your own tickets:

Ticketmaster gives you an option to print your own tickets on your home printer. It sounds good at first, but let me assure you, it's just another bait and switch from the "masters."

Not only does Ticketmaster charge you the same $8.00 service fee (despite the fact that it's managed to pass on the printing costs on to you and has managed to save itself all postage costs for the transaction), but it also sells large, full color ads on the full page "tickets" that you are required to print out completely (because the "ticket" itself is on the top part of the page, and its corresponding bar code is on the bottom part of the page). So your color ink cartridge takes big hit too.

Entrepreneurs of the world: please oh please overthrow the Ticketmaster regime. It truly sucks.

This is from the October 1, 2003 program.

Lewis Black On The Do Not Call Registry Controversy (Small - 8 MB)





The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Here's a clip from KPIX that explains how to claim whatever you might have coming to you as a result of Microsoft's anti-trust practices. Of course it's too little, too late. (What a silly question :-)

Nevertheless, if you are a business that has invested in Microsoft software over the last 7+ years, you could be eligible for some real cash. The vouchers can be used to purchase equipment and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Here are more of the details of the $1.1 Billion Microsoft Settlement.

Click here for a settlement form.

KPIX On Microsoft's Voucher Program (Small - 8 MB)

There's a revolution going on guys, and it starts today!

Musicians are going to stand up for their right to use the Internet to promote their music.

Listeners are going to stand up for their right to not be spied on and treated as criminals for sharing that music.

Ready, set....GO!

Here's an awesome MP3 that will serve nicely as its theme song (courtesy of Zug):
RIAA Phone Call

Here's more information about it.
(Thanks, Jason.)

Lyrics:

well i recollect the days when music was free
you could tape from the radio, burn a CD
now the RIAA wants to know about me
my address, my number, my ISP
yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy?
why the president be lettin' you spy on me
how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me?
trying to be spying on my MP3s

But you protect YOUR corporate privacy
Keep your phone number hidden from the bourgeoisie
Your customers have to play hide and seek
So here's the number to call if you disagree

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

why's the RIAA starting litigations
the cops should be looking for the real perpetrations
the killers, the racists, the rapists
'stead of fucking with us for saving to our hard disk
raise your middle finger if you feel me loc
these fucking subpoenas are a fucking joke
leave us alone, throw us a bone
like i did with your mom that time at your home

There's NO SUCH THING as bad publicity
Even if you giving it out for free
So join us in the twenty-first century
Where we find our new songs on MP3s
Embrace the new technologies
Grokster, Kazaa, and P2P
So call this number now, and help them see
And if you call from work, your call is free!

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

202 is the area code and we're dialin'
775 and then we be smilin'
0101-1-cary sherman
well isn't this fun it's ZUG.com

you know, they've never been fair to the bands.
now the riaa takes a stand?
can't believe we're getting preached to by the man
so what's the plan, stan? I've got a short attention span.

they've gotta change up the music industry
make it all available on MP3
listen to people like you and me
and make us wanna pay a monthly fee

this song is now my lyrical catastrophe
go ahead and grab it, it's completely free
aint gotta pay a dime to listen to me
So share this song and fuck the industry

Number portability is supposed to kick in for consumers in November, but there's a chance that cell phone service providers might find a way to get out of it if we don't remind Congress how important number portability is to us. You can let your representatives know how you feel -- and it takes less than one minute to do so -- by going here.

(Thanks, Cory)

That's funny, I thought scalping was immoral and illegal, and that there were laws against it and stuff. It sure seems like it when the cops arrest people in front of venues for doing so.

I guess it's OK when a corporation stands to make the profit from such practices.

What I want to know is: how are the increased ticket revenues going to make their way back to the artists? My guess is that they're not. Consumers will be hit with exorbitant ticket prices (when ticket prices are already too high for many to even go to concerts anymore). So fewer people will go to shows, and that means smaller crowds for artists. Only Ticketmaster stands to benefit from this system. It will keep track of the auction prices. It will redistribute the profits as it sees fit.

The article says that "venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate," but I wonder how many artists have enough weight to have any say in the matter. I wish that artists really did have the power to refuse to play concerts using this auction system. Some of the larger acts might be able to do this. It will really depend on which acts care about all of their fans, and which acts only care about their rich fans. Only time will tell.

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices
By Chris Nelson for the NY Times.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/technology/01TICK.html?ex=1063435225&ei=1&en=a951a7fd146551eb

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices

September 1, 2003
By CHRIS NELSON

Three years after Ticketmaster introduced ticketFast, its online print-at-home ticketing service, consumers have so embraced it that the company now sells a half-million home-printed tickets for sporting and entertainment events each month in North America. Where ticketFast is available, 30 percent of tickets sold are now printed at home, said the company, which is by far the nation's largest ticket agency.

But consumers - many of whom have complained for years about climbing ticket prices and Ticketmaster service charges - may be less eager for the next phase of Ticketmaster's Internet evolution.

Late this year the company plans to begin auctioning the best seats to concerts through ticketmaster.com.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Along with home printing, auctions are central to "a new age of the ticket," Mr. Pleasants said. In the second quarter of this year, tickets sold online, with or without home printing, represented 51 percent of Ticketmaster's ticket sales. The rest were sold by phone or at walk-up locations.

Ticket Forwarding allows season ticket holders for several sports teams (including the New York Knicks, Rangers and Giants) to e-mail extra tickets to other users, with Ticketmaster charging the sender $1.95 per transaction.

TicketExchange provides a forum for season ticket holders to auction tickets online. The seller and buyer pay Ticketmaster 5 percent to 10 percent of the resale price, a fee the company splits with the team.

In the case of the ticketFast home-printing service, buyers pay an additional $1.75 to $2.50 per order, with the fee set by the event operator. Home printing has won converts among people who want tickets immediately, instead of receiving them by mail or a delivery service or having to stand in line at a will-call window.

One satisfied customer is Brian Resnik, 29, of Tampa, Fla., who says the home-printing fee is a bargain compared with the $19.50 that Ticketmaster charges for two-day shipping through United Parcel Service.

But some other users, who praised the convenience of home printing, objected to being charged an extra fee.

"It's kind of mind-boggling to me," said Joe Guckin, 41, of Philadelphia, who used ticketFast to buy tickets for a Baltimore Orioles home game last season. "You're printing up the ticket, on your printer at home, your paper, your ink, etc. - and you have to pay for that?"

The company replies that home-printing consumers are helping to pay for the technology that makes the service possible.

Ticketmaster has spent $15 million to $20 million to outfit almost 700 stadiums, arenas, theaters and concert halls in this country and Canada with bar-code scanners that read and authenticate the tickets and computers that capture information such as which seats are filled and which doors have the most traffic, Mr. Moriarty said. In 2003, the company has sold 400,000 to 600,000 ticketFast tickets each month.

Some ticketFast customers, like Diane DeRooy, 52, of Seattle, complain that Ticketmaster assesses a lot of fees even before levying the print-at-home charge. A ticket to see Crosby, Stills & Nash on Friday at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, N.J., for example, carries $13.80 in venue, processing and convenience fees, plus a $2.50 charge for the home-printing option. Without the fees, a ticket costs $30.25 to $70.25.

Many of those customers are skeptical about Ticketmaster's plans to auction the best seats to concerts.

"The band's biggest fans ought to have the best seats, not the band's richest fans," said Tim Todd, 47, of Kansas City, Mo., who used ticketFast recently to buy tickets for a concert by the rock group Phish. Ticketmaster would be, in essence, official scalpers, Mr. Guckin said, voicing a sentiment expressed by some other customers.

Industry watchers agree that auctions will affect all concertgoers. Prime seats are undervalued in the marketplace, said Alan B. Krueger, a professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, who has studied ticket prices. He predicts that once auctions begin revealing a ticket's market value, prices as a whole will climb faster.

Gary Bongiovanni, editor of the concert industry trade magazine, Pollstar, predicted that all ticket prices would become more fluid. After a promoter assesses initial sales from an auction, remaining ticket prices could be raised or lowered to meet goals.

The notion of ticket auctions is annoying, Mr. Resnik said, but he is resigned to them.

"I guess the capitalist inside me would say, `Hey, if that's what they can get for tickets, I guess that's just something I can't afford, like a yacht and a Learjet.' "

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
By John Borland for CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months...

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary...

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1025_3-5066754.html

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
John Borland, Staff Writer, CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months.

The RIAA has used court orders to try to identify more than 1,000 computer users it alleges have been offering copyrighted songs on file-trading networks. It plans to use the information gained to file copyright lawsuits against the individuals.

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary.

A Massachusetts federal court has already ruled that some of the group's subpoenas, submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College, had not followed the correct legal process and were therefore invalid. That court left open the possibility that the RIAA could simply refile those subpoenas properly, however.

An RIAA spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's legal action. Previously, attorneys for the group have noted that the subpoenas are aimed at the ISPs that hold subscriber information, not subscribers themselves, and therefore individuals had little or no legal standing to challenge them.

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown
By Frederic Frommer for the Associated Press.

A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive...

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song...

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

...Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/08/15/hearings/

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Frederic Frommer

Aug. 15, 2003 |

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive.

The Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is reviewing the group's responses and declined to make them available Thursday, as did the industry group.

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.

In his letter, Coleman said he would look at not just the scope of that campaign but also the dangers that downloaders face by making their personal information available to others. Coleman said he would review legislation that would expand criminal penalties for downloading music.

The association said in a statement that "hearings are part of any oversight process and we always look forward to having the opportunity to present our position."

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

Coleman was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Wendy vs. Howard Berman on CNN's Next@CNN, August 9, 2003.

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Complete (Small - 21 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 10 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 11 MB)

Garamendi On Emergency Measure (Small - 6 MB)

This story, which features Emerald Yeh, aired sometime last week on San Francisco's KRON Channel 4.

The stills below provide most of the important information.

KRON On The Do Not Call Registry (Small - 6 MB)

a.k.a. Register In The "No Call" Registry (and It's Illegal For Telemarketers To Call You)

A few months ago, I got all hot and bothered about the news that our cell phone numbers would soon be made available to telemarketers via 411 info.

One solution to this is to sign up for the "Do Not Call Registry."

Most telemarketers cannot call your telephone number if it is in the National Do Not Call Registry. You can register your home and mobile phone numbers for free. Your registration will be effective for five years.

If a telemarketer calls you during that time, you can file a complaint.

It just took me less than a minute to register my home and cell phone numbers.

This is just plain funny.

Okay so Wired News has a great story about how Orinn Hatch says one thing and does another with regard to respecting copyright laws. Perhaps now he will just admit that he didn't understand how easy it is to "violate copyright" (gasp!) unknowlingly.

Meanwhile, a link to the the real feed of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on P2P and Filesharing Networks where he made his original inflammatory remarks finds its way to my mailbox. (Clip starts a little bit after 1 hour 28 minutes on the real feed when Hatch gives a little speech at the end.)

And voila, MP3s and uncompressed AIFF files of the most damning part of his little speech are born.

The "original" version was pretty quiet -- so I increased the gain and made the "louder" versions of the MP3 and AIFF files. But for you purists who would rather increase the gain on your own, I left the original in the directory.

There's also another guy talking in the beginning of the "original"-- which is edited out of the "louder" versions.

Enjoy!

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html

Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

Wired News

Search:
Text Size: Small Text Normal Text Large Text Larger Text [Home][Technology][Culture][Business][Politics][Wired Magazine Site][Animation Express]
Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?

By Leander Kahney | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1

11:56 AM Jun. 19, 2003 PT

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.
* Story Tools
[Print story] [E-mail story]
* See also

* Hatch Wants to Fry Traders' PCs
* Will GOP Shake Up Tech Policy?
* Hatching Plans for Stem-Cell Law
* Music a Pol Can Subscribe To
* Picture Yourself in Politics

* Today's Top 5 Stories

* Saddam's Homepage Gets Face Lift
* Smart Bricks, or a Dumb Idea?
* Columbia House Jumps in Game Biz
* The Sound of Stolen Thunder
* Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?

The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."

Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.

Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."

Any such technology would be in violation of federal antihacking laws. The senator, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Congress would have to make copyright holders exempt from current laws for them to legally destroy people's computers.

On Wednesday, Hatch clarified his comments, but stuck by the original idea. "I do not favor extreme remedies -- unless no moderate remedies can be found," he said in a statement. "I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies."

Just as well. Because if Hatch's terminator system embraced software as well as music, his servers would be targeted for destruction.

Milonic Solutions' JavaScript code used on Hatch's website costs $900 for a site-wide license. It is free for personal or nonprofit use, which the senator likely qualifies for.

However, the software's license stipulates that the user must register the software to receive a licensing code, and provide a link in the source code to Milonic's website.

On Wednesday, the senator's site met none of Milonic's licensing terms. The site's source code (which can be seen by selecting Source under the View menu in Internet Explorer) had neither a link to Milonic's site nor a registration code.

However, by Thursday afternoon Hatch's site had been updated to contain some of the requisite copyright information. An old version of the page can be seen by viewing Google's cache of the site.

"They're using our code," Woolley said Wednesday. "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."

When contacted Thursday, Woolley said the company that maintains the senator's site had e-mailed Milonic to begin the registration process. Woolley said the code added to Hatch's site after the issue came to light met some -- but not all -- of Milonic's licensing requirements.

Before the site was updated, the source code on Hatch's site contained the line: "* i am the license for the menu (duh) *"

Woolley said he had no idea where the line came from -- it has nothing to do with him, and he hadn't seen it on other websites that use his menu system.

"It looks like it's trying to cover something up, as though they got a license," he said.

A spokesman in Hatch's office on Wednesday responded, "That's ironic" before declining to put Wired News in contact with the site's webmaster. He deferred comment on the senator's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did not return calls.

The apparent violation was discovered by Laurence Simon, an unemployed system administrator from Houston, who was poking around Hatch's site after becoming outraged by his comments.

Milonic's Woolley said the senator's unlicensed use of his software was just "the tip of the iceberg." He said he knows of at least two other senators using unlicensed copies of his software, and many big companies.

Continental Airlines, for example, one of the largest airlines in the United States, uses Woolley's system throughout its Continental.com website. Woolley said the airline has not paid for the software. Worse, the copyright notices in the source code have been removed.

"That really pisses me off," he said.

A spokesman for Continental said the airline would look into the matter.

Woolley makes his living from his software. Like a lot of independent programmers, he struggles to get people to conform to his licensing terms, let alone pay for his software.

"We don't want blood," he said. "We just want payment for the hard work we do. We work very, very hard. If they're not prepared to pay, they're software pirates."

End of story

Today's stop: Oakland, California.

(These are two shots from the same Starbucks.)

Why am I starting to feel like a Starbucks spokesmodel?

(More background on this here.)

Lawrence Lessig was a bit upset yesterday at the prospect of Starbucks not allowing pictures to be taken inside of their stores.

I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …

I had no problems whatsoever from the Starbucks staff while having my picture taken. They were their usually cheery selves behind the counter while everyone else in the store watched as I danced around holding up my venti iced soy latte.

Another customer took the shots of me, so they're a little shaky (even shakier than normal :-)

Tomorrow I'll have more time to visit a few more locations.

Perhaps you can do the same at a Starbucks in your town :-)

(When you do, be sure to post them to Larry's comment page.)

Taking Pictures Inside Starbucks - 24th St (Small - 2 MB)
Taking Pictures Inside Starbucks - 24th St (Hi-Res - 11 MB)

"We still live in a free society! Yay!"

Here is the full text in case the link goes bad:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_05.shtml#001223

dear Starbucks, say it ain’t true?

So I have this from an extremely reliable source, who vouches totally for the facts that follow.

Story one: Last month while visiting Charleston, three women went into a Starbucks. They were spending the weekend together and one of them had a disposable camera with her. To commemorate their time with one and other they decided to take round robin pictures while sitting around communing. The manager evidently careened out of control, screaming at them, “Didn’t they know it was illegal to take photographs in a Starbucks. She insisted that she had to have the disposable camera because this was an absolute violation of Starbuck’s copyright of their entire ‘environment’--that everything in the place is protected and cannot be used with Starbuck’s express permission.

Story two: At our local [North Carolina] Starbucks, a friend’s daughter, who often has her camera with her, was notified that she was not allowed to take pictures in any Starbucks. No explanation was given, but pressed I would think that the manager there would give a similar rationale.

I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …

posted on [ May 23 03 at 2:10 PM ] to [ bad code ] [ 43 comments ]

From the "we say 'rip mix burn' but we don't really mean it" department.

It's like Apple saying "when we gave you a telephone connectivity kit, we thought you were only going to call these kinds of people on these kinds of phones -- not these other people. Why would you want to use a phone to talk to them? We only wanted you to talk to these kinds of people who are using these kinds of our phones (which we would also like you to buy please)."

"Don't you see. Although it feels like you're using your phone to talk to who you want and get the information you need, you're talking to the wrong people on the wrong kinds of phones (although we also manufacture and distribute the phones you'd like to converse with)."

"Look we have our reasons, ok? So you'd better just give your phone-making kit back! And don't try anything funny -- like making your own phone kit.
We'll tell you who to talk to and what for from this point on. Got it buddy?"

Here Apple -- now you can put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma, Special to CNET News.com.

The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for
Apple Computer's iTunes music application has decided
to give the software a new lease on life, after it was put
out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers
earlier this month.

Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth
to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop
distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. The plug-in
allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving
the music player a peer-to-peer feature.

In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth
said that he will honor, Apple's request to stop
distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next
version of iCommune will work with iTunes and
potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol
for automatic discovery of network-connected devices.

Speth also said that the new version will be open
source under the General Public License, the
same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and
redistributed, as long as the modified code is
returned to the community...

Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use
of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to access other
\playlists across a network, but has given no
indication of when such a version of iTunes
might appear. The current version 3 of the
program shares playlists with other version 3
"iLife" applications, such as iMovie, iDVD and iCal.

ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however,
in that it enables music downloads. Services such
as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have
incurred the legal wrath of the music industry for
enabling users to trade song files, which record
companies say has resulted in mass piracy and
declining CD sales.

However, Apple has said that legal fears played
no part in its decision to pull the plug on iCommune.
The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect
to hardware devices, not to other Macs, according to Apple.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma
Special to CNET News.com
January 28, 2003, 11:09 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-982441.html

The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for Apple Computer's
iTunes music application has decided to give the software a new lease on life,
after it was put out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers earlier this
month.

Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes
software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for
iTunes. The plug-in allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving the music player a
peer-to-peer feature.

In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth said that he will honor
Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work
with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of
network-connected devices.

Speth also said that the new version will be open source under the General
Public License, the same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and redistributed, as long as the
modified code is returned to the community.

"I'm going to get the basics of the next version done, then get it out the
door, with source. Hopefully, from there it will take on a life of its own and
get even better," Speth said in the message.

Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to
access other playlists across a network, but has given no indication of when
such a version of iTunes might appear. The current version 3 of the program
shares playlists with other version 3 "iLife" applications, such as iMovie,
iDVD and iCal.

ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however, in that it enables music
downloads. Services such as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have incurred
the legal wrath of the music industry for enabling users to trade song files,
which record companies say has resulted in mass piracy and declining CD sales.

However, Apple has said that legal fears played no part in its decision to pull
the plug on iCommune. The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect to hardware devices, not to
other Macs, according to Apple.

ZDNet U.K.'s Matthew Broersma reported from London .

Holy cow! Michael Powell got a TIVO and he loves it!

Now he can understand the true joy the modern Consumer can achieve while exercising their fair use and first sale rights.

FCC's Powell declares TiVo 'God's machine'
By Jim Krane for the Las Vegas Associate Press.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is a new convert -- to the personal digital video recorder faithful.

"My favorite product that I got for Christmas is TiVo," FCC chairman Michael Powell said during a question and answer session at the International Consumer Electronics Show. "TiVo is God's machine."

If Powell's enthusiasm for digital recordings of TV broadcasts are reflected in FCC rulings, the entertainment industry could find it difficult to push in Washington its agenda for technical restrictions on making and sharing such recordings.

Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.

"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that...

Powell said the FCC was examining the broadcast flag issue to determine whether the agency has a regulatory role. He suggested that Congress might "assign us a role so we have clear jurisdiction and resources to do it."

Powell said he understood the needs to balance consumers' fair use rights to make personal copies of television shows with Hollywood's fears that TiVo-like technology allows exact copies to be made and easily sent over the Internet.

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/01/10/financial1802EST0373.DTL

FCC's Powell declares TiVo 'God's machine'

JIM KRANE, AP Technology Writer Friday, January 10, 2003

(01-10) 15:02 PST LAS VEGAS (AP) --

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is a new convert -- to the personal digital video recorder faithful.

"My favorite product that I got for Christmas is TiVo," FCC chairman Michael Powell said during a question and answer session at the International Consumer Electronics Show. "TiVo is God's machine."

If Powell's enthusiasm for digital recordings of TV broadcasts are reflected in FCC rulings, the entertainment industry could find it difficult to push in Washington its agenda for technical restrictions on making and sharing such recordings.

Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.

"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.

A TiVo competitor, SONICblue, has been sued by top motion picture studios and some television networks over a ReplayTV device that enables users to share digitally recorded shows over the Internet with a limited group of fellow ReplayTV owners.

Powell made the statements during a brief exchange with Gary Shapiro, who heads the Consumer Electronics Association, a lobbying group opposed to government-imposed restrictions on TiVo-like digital recording technology.

Shapiro was clearly delighted, calling Powell's statement "good news" and suggesting to Powell that his regulatory authority might allow him to rule in favor of sharing recorded TV broadcasts.

"That's up to you, actually," Shapiro said. "We're glad. We hope some of your colleagues in Congress buy a TiVo as well."

Many in Hollywood have railed against the machines, saying they could cut into TV advertising revenues if fewer people watch the commercials that underwrite broadcasters' business.

The entertainment industry has proposed "broadcast flag" technology that could thwart or limit copying or distribution of pirated broadcasts over the Internet, where, it fears, they could be sold.

Powell said the FCC was examining the broadcast flag issue to determine whether the agency has a regulatory role. He suggested that Congress might "assign us a role so we have clear jurisdiction and resources to do it."

Powell said he understood the needs to balance consumers' fair use rights to make personal copies of television shows with Hollywood's fears that TiVo-like technology allows exact copies to be made and easily sent over the Internet.

Already, one upcoming TV series intends to fight back against commercial skipping technology by blending advertising into its programming, offering a seamless hour of entertainment mixed with salesmanship.

The series will air for six weeks on the WB network with Michael Davies, best-known for ABC's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," as its producer, according to a story in Friday's New York Times. Its working title is "Live from Tomorrow."

PVR technology has now found its way into DVD recorders and personal computers. Several new standalone and PC-based models were announced here at the CES trade show this week.

Right on schedule!

I got this press release today:
Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act Re-Introduced

The bill addresses two key provisions of the 1998 law which prohibit the circumvention of a technical protection measure guarding access to a copyrighted work even if the purpose of the circumvention is to exercise consumer Fair Use rights. The bill re-introduced this week would limit the scope of the prohibition to circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement. Circumvention for the purpose of exercising Fair Use rights would be permitted under the legislation...

The bill also amends the provisions of the 1998 law which prohibit the manufacture, distribution or sale of technology which enables circumvention of the protection measures. Under the current law, trafficking in those technologies is a crime if the technology was primarily designed to be used for copyright infringement. Claiming that this legal standard is too subjective to give manufacturers confidence to introduce new products, the legislation would instead focus on whether or not the technology had substantial non-infringing uses. If the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing use, the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product would be lawful under the bill they have sponsored...

Supporters of the Digital Media Consumers Rights Act include Intel, Verizon, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Gateway, the Consumer Electronics Association, Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Computer Research Association and a variety of trade associations representing technology companies, the American Library Association, the American Association of Universities, the National Humanities Alliance, the Digital Future Coalition, the Consumers Union, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the National Writers Union and other organizations representing the public interest and the consumers of digital media.

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alyssa Mastromonaco
January 7, 2003 202-225-3861

Lawmakers Urge Protection of Fair Use

Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act Re-Introduced

Initiating what is certain to be a contentious debate during the 108th Congress, U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA), John Doolittle (R-CA), Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) introduced on Tuesday the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act with the announced goal of protecting the Fair Use rights of the users of copyrighted material and, thereby enabling the consumers of digital media to make use of it in ways that enhance their personal convenience. The legislation (H.R. 107) is identical to that which Boucher and Doolittle introduced during the Fall of 2002.

Maintaining that Fair Use rights are severely threatened with respect to the consumers of digital media, the legislators propose amending a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted at the behest of motion picture studios, the recording industry, and book publishers.

"The fair use doctrine is threatened today as never before. Historically, the nation’s copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the Fair Use rights of the users of copyrighted material," Boucher said. "The re-introduced legislation will assure that consumers who purchase digital media can enjoy a broad range of uses of the media for their own convenience in a way which does not infringe the copyright in the work," Boucher explained.

The bill addresses two key provisions of the 1998 law which prohibit the circumvention of a technical protection measure guarding access to a copyrighted work even if the purpose of the circumvention is to exercise consumer Fair Use rights. The bill re-introduced this week would limit the scope of the prohibition to circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement. Circumvention for the purpose of exercising Fair Use rights would be permitted under the legislation.

"We believe it is entirely proper to outlaw circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement; however, a person who is circumventing a technical measure solely for the purpose of using that material under classic Fair Use principles should be free to do so," Doolittle said.

The bill also amends the provisions of the 1998 law which prohibit the manufacture, distribution or sale of technology which enables circumvention of the protection measures. Under the current law, trafficking in those technologies is a crime if the technology was primarily designed to be used for copyright infringement. Claiming that this legal standard is too subjective to give manufacturers confidence to introduce new products, the legislation would instead focus on whether or not the technology had substantial non-infringing uses. If the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing use, the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product would be lawful under the bill they have sponsored.

"Without a change in the law, individuals will be less willing to purchase digital media if their use of the media within the home is severely circumscribed and the manufacturers of equipment and software that enables circumvention for legitimate purposes will be reluctant to introduce the products into the market," Boucher added.

The lawmakers also would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate a regulation requiring that "copy-protected CDs" be properly labeled.

"The few copy-protected CDs which have been introduced into the U.S. market to date are inadequately labeled and create broad consumer confusion," Boucher said.

"We are not proposing to outlaw the introduction of copy-protected CDs. We, however, want to ensure that if copy-protected CDs are introduced in larger volumes, consumers will know what they are buying," Doolittle added.

Supporters of the Digital Media Consumers Rights Act include Intel, Verizon, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Gateway, the Consumer Electronics Association, Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Computer Research Association and a variety of trade associations representing technology companies, the American Library Association, the American Association of Universities, the National Humanities Alliance, the Digital Future Coalition, the Consumers Union, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the National Writers Union and other organizations representing the public interest and the consumers of digital media.

-30-

Alyssa Mastromonaco
Press Secretary
Congressman Rick Boucher
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
(202) 225-3861

How nice to see during this current frenzy of copyright vigilantism.
Students Learning to Evade Moves to Protect Media Files
By Amy Harmon for the NY Times.

Nor does Cornell consider the trading of copyrighted music files to be among the more serious infractions. Students are typically required to perform a few hours of community service.

"It's theft and you're not supposed to steal, but this is different from someone engaging in credit card scams or breaking into a building to steal a computer," Ms. Grant said. "We're not in the business of trying to punish a student; we want them to learn from their mistake."

Indeed, the push from copyright holders for universities to police their networks has raised questions in the academic world about how to instill students with a sense of morality — and a knowledge of the law — about copyrights without intruding on their privacy and free speech rights.

"The biggest problem that universities are having is they have not openly decided whether their primary responsibility in this regard is law enforcement or education," said Virginia Rezmierski, who teaches in the University of Michigan's School of Information and recently surveyed universities on their monitoring practices. "Right now they're doing more monitoring than education."

Here is the text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/technology/27SWAP.html

The New York Times The New York Times Technology November 27, 2002

Students Learning to Evade Moves to Protect Media Files
By AMY HARMON

As colleges across the country seek to stem the torrent of unauthorized digital media files flowing across their campus computer networks, students are devising increasingly sophisticated countermeasures to protect their free supply of copyrighted entertainment.

Most colleges have no plans to emulate the Naval Academy, which last week confiscated computers from about 100 students who are suspected of having downloaded unauthorized copies of music and movie files. But many are imposing a combination of new technologies and new policies in an effort to rein in the rampant copying.

"For our institutions this is a teachable moment," said Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education. "This is the time for them to step forward and demonstrate the value of intellectual property."

Some students may well emerge from educational sessions on copyright laws and electronic etiquette with a higher regard for intellectual property rights. But many of them are honing other skills as well, like how to burrow through network firewalls and spread their downloading activities across multiple computers to avoid detection.

"If you don't know how to do it, other people will just tell you," said Lelahni Potgieter, 23, who learned her file-trading techniques from an art student at her community college in Des Moines. "There's not much they can do to stop you."

Nevertheless, university administrators are trying, spurred on in part by a barrage of letters from entertainment companies notifying them of student abuses. Many entertainment concerns have hired companies to search popular file-trading networks for unauthorized files and track them to their source.

More pragmatic motivations, like the expense of large amounts of university's network bandwidth being absorbed by students' proclivity for online entertainment, are also driving the renewed university efforts.

Schools have closed off the portals used by file-trading services, installed software to limit how much bandwidth each student can use, and disciplined students who share media files. But nothing, so far, has proved entirely effective.

"It's an ongoing battle," said Ron Robinson, a network architect at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. "It's an administrative nightmare trying to keep up."

In a typical game of digital cat-and-mouse, Mr. Robinson said one of his first moves was to block the points of entry, or ports, into the network used by popular file-trading software like KaZaA.

But the newest version of the KaZaA software automatically searches for open ports and even insinuates itself through the port most commonly used for normal Web traffic, which must be kept open to allow some e-mail reading and other widely used applications to take place uninterrupted.

Even without KaZaA's help, students say they can easily use so-called port-hopping software to find a way past the university's blockades. So Mr. Robinson has rationed the amount of bandwidth that each student can use for file-trading activities.

Software with names like PacketHound, from Palisade Systems, or Packet Shaper, from Packeteer, enable network administrators to distinguish data that comes from the file-trading services and sequester it from the rest of the Internet traffic.

But there are ways around that, too.

To limit the amount of data each student can download, administrators typically link a student ID to the computer in a dormitory room. To exceed those limits, some students find computers registered to others and use them to conduct their activities.

That practice has surfaced recently at Cornell University, where the number of complaints from copyright holders about unauthorized downloading in recent months has stayed at the same level as last year, but the number of students who were found to have been unwittingly downloading for others has risen, according to university officials.

About 50 students at Cornell were disciplined last year for unauthorized downloading, said Mary Beth Grant, the university's judicial administrator. All of those cases resulted from letters from copyright holders, because the university does not monitor what students do with their Internet access.

Nor does Cornell consider the trading of copyrighted music files to be among the more serious infractions. Students are typically required to perform a few hours of community service.

"It's theft and you're not supposed to steal, but this is different from someone engaging in credit card scams or breaking into a building to steal a computer," Ms. Grant said. "We're not in the business of trying to punish a student; we want them to learn from their mistake."

Indeed, the push from copyright holders for universities to police their networks has raised questions in the academic world about how to instill students with a sense of morality — and a knowledge of the law — about copyrights without intruding on their privacy and free speech rights.

"The biggest problem that universities are having is they have not openly decided whether their primary responsibility in this regard is law enforcement or education," said Virginia Rezmierski, who teaches in the University of Michigan's School of Information and recently surveyed universities on their monitoring practices. "Right now they're doing more monitoring than education."

I'll be writing more about the process of converting these documents soon so that more of you can start making your own relevant legal documents more web accessible.

For the time being, suffice to say that I expect to be converting a ton of legal documents from this day forward -- in order to make the information they contain more accessible to the consumers that need to know about it.

I've created two different kinds of HTML version: one preserving the "navigation" of the PDF file and one in a single HTML "plain" file for printing, but with the page numbers clearly marked and consistent with the page numbers of the PDF versions.

Microsoft Anti-Trust Case: Final Documents Converted to Web-friendly formats

I'm creating text versions of these documents -- but it's a busy afternoon so they might not all be done till din-din time Saturday morning Sunday afternoon...
Here's a link to web-friendly versions of all of the PDF documents listed below.

Final Decree
(http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/FinalDecree.pdf)

Memorandum Opinion
(http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/Lit11-1.pdf)

Public Interest Order
(http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/PubIntOrd.pdf)

Opinion on the State Settlement
(http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/StateSettlement.pdf)

State Settlement Order
(http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/Statesord.pdf)

I haven't had time to positively determine for myself if this is good news or bad news yet, but at first glance, it sure seems like a bad idea to put Digital Radio in the hands of a single company.

See the USA Today story on it:
FCC approves plan for radio stations to go digital

Here's the full text of the story in case the link goes bad:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-10-10-digital-radio_x.htm

10/10/2002 - Updated 10:18 AM ET
FCC approves plan for radio stations to go digital

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators gave the go-ahead Thursday for digital radio, approving a plan to modernize the medium with better sound and new features for personalized programming.

The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to adopt digital radio technology created by iBiquity Digital, a company backed by large broadcasters including ABC and Viacom.

The commissioners enthusiastically endorsed the technology, saying it will benefit the industry and consumers.

"We don't get many items where it's a win-win for everyone. There's no down side," Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy said.

Radio has changed little for decades. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said he's heartened that such a dramatic leap forward in technology is in store.

"I'm thrilled and excited to see the radio wagon train finally get to the other side," he said.

The approval allows radio stations to immediately begin broadcasting digital signals, though it probably will take a few months for the first stations to start.

Manufacturers plan to sell digital receivers for car stereos and high-end audio systems starting next year, adding about $100 to the price of a traditional unit. It's unclear how soon digital technology will be included in portable radios.

The iBiquity technology allows broadcasters to use their existing airwaves to simultaneously send digital and analog signals. Listeners won't have to buy a new radio to continue listening to their favorite stations, but can if they want better sound and other options.

Supporters say the new technology will bring CD-quality sound to FM broadcasts, an end to static for AM and new data features.

Radio One, which owns and operates 65 stations and primarily targets black listeners, already has ordered digital transmitters, said John Mathews, the company's director of engineering. He said the Lanham, Md.-based company plans to start digital broadcasts within three months in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Detroit and Los Angeles.

"We wanted to be in the front on this," he said. "The quality improvement is just phenomenal. It's analogous to the transition between cassettes and CDs."

Some digital car stereos will have small screens, displaying news or advertising or pictures of the artist whose song is playing. Others will allow listeners to choose when to hear reports on stocks, sports, weather and traffic.

The digital broadcasts will be free, unlike the subscriber services offered by Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio Holdings, which beam music and talk to radios from satellites.

Digital broadcasts use the same language as computers - a series of on and off electronic pulses. Broadcasts with the proposed technology won't increase a radio station's range, but digital signals can be cleaned up, removing garble and uneven reception.

This article also provides some step-by-step instructions for turning it off in Morpehus, Kazaa and LimeWire.

New Software Quietly Diverts Sales Commissions
By John Schwartz and Bob Tedeschi.

Articles like this always just seem to hurt the P2P community as a whole. If it is true, we'd be hurt the most. We'd have been lied to and our money would have been diverted and the merchants we wanted to help will have been hurt too. All because we installed a file sharing program.

But wait! I know that this kind of stealware isn't built into every file sharing program. If these accusations are true, I hope these few bad apples don't scare people away from the entire file sharing experience, which can be quite educational and rewarding.

What the consumers are not told clearly is that if they agree to participate, their computers may be electronically marked: all future purchases will look as if they were made through the software maker's site, even if they were not.

In many versions of the software, a purchase will look as if it was made through the software maker's site even if the shopper came in through another site that has its own affiliate agreement with the online store in question. Those affiliate sites include small businesses and even charities that use affiliate links as fund-raisers.

Some version of the diversion software is used by some of the most popular music trading sites that have tried to fill the void left by the collapse of Napster, including Morpheus, Kazaa and LimeWire. The companies say their software has been downloaded by tens of millions of Web surfers.

Here is the full text or the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/technology/27FREE.html

New Software Quietly Diverts Sales Commissions
By JOHN SCHWARTZ and BOB TEDESCHI

Some popular online services are using a new kind of software to divert sales commissions that would otherwise be paid to small online merchants by big sites like Amazon and eToys.

Critics call the software parasite-ware and stealware. But the sites that use the software, which is made by nearly 20 companies and used by dozens, say that it is perfectly legal, because their users agree to the diversion.

The amounts involved are estimated by those in the industry to have mounted into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and are likely to continue to grow — in part because most users are unaware that the software is operating on their computers.

There is no cost to the customer, but those who run small Web sites that funnel sales to the big merchants say that they are being hurt. "It's painful when someone walks in and takes sales right from under me," said Shawn Collins, who runs a number of sites that feed customers to Amazon and other merchants. "I probably saw a drop-off of 30 percent in income for the past six months."

The diversion begins when consumers get software from the Internet that helps them swap music or other files, or find bargains online. As they install the software, they are asked whether they would also like to show support for the software maker by shopping through an online affiliate program. These programs typically give a percentage of each purchase back to the affiliate — in this case, the software maker — as a commission.

What the consumers are not told clearly is that if they agree to participate, their computers may be electronically marked: all future purchases will look as if they were made through the software maker's site, even if they were not.

In many versions of the software, a purchase will look as if it was made through the software maker's site even if the shopper came in through another site that has its own affiliate agreement with the online store in question. Those affiliate sites include small businesses and even charities that use affiliate links as fund-raisers.

Some version of the diversion software is used by some of the most popular music trading sites that have tried to fill the void left by the collapse of Napster, including Morpheus, Kazaa and LimeWire. The companies say their software has been downloaded by tens of millions of Web surfers.

Although estimates are hard to come by, those in the business say that the amount of money involved could be large. The affiliate market, in which smaller sites funnel sales to larger ones in return for commissions, accounts for roughly 15 to 20 percent of the estimated $72 billion online market, said Carrie Johnson, an analyst with Forrester Research. A successful affiliate Web site can make $60,000 a month from referrals alone, said Haiko De Poel Jr., chief executive of Abestweb, an online forum devoted to affiliate marketing. He has organized owners of sites to fight Morpheus and others.

A spokeswoman for Amazon, which has 800,000 affiliate sites feeding it customers, said the company worked to protect those sites from hijacking. "We don't allow sites that use a download or a tool to redirect a shopping session to their account if they do not initiate the shopping session," said the spokeswoman, Patty Smith. "We've kicked out a number of sites for doing that."

Last week, Amazon cut off affiliate payments to Morpheus, one site that employs the shopping software, said an online executive. Coldwater Creek, an online clothing store, has also blocked Morpheus.

Some companies that make and use the diversion software said they were rewriting the programs so that they would no longer take money intended for others. But these changes may not affect copies of the software already installed on millions of computers. "We're not interested in stealing any Web site's revenue," said Greg Bildson, chief operating officer for LimeWire. "We know that this is sort of a new and sort of strange area, but we're interested in doing the right thing." He referred calls to TopMoxie, the maker of the software that LimeWire uses to get affiliate money.

Patrick Toland, a vice president for sales and marketing at TopMoxie, said that the company did not intend for its software to displace other affiliates' rights and that his company had altered the software in the last two weeks to stop substituting its affiliate identification code for those of other sites. "The second we realized this is a problem, we turned that boat around and said, `Let's get this out,' " he said. He added that the amount of money involved was minuscule.

Mr. Toland attributed the losses that the Web sites claimed to a tougher marketplace for small players.

Morpheus referred inquiries to Wurld Media, which operates its shopping rebates program. Kirk H. Feathers, the chief technical officer of Wurld Media, said that it had been wrongly accused of stealing and that the company would readily go to court to defend itself.

He acknowledged that an earlier version of the company's software did divert commissions away from other affiliate sites but said that new versions dealt with that situation. Now, the company said, the softwareoffers a choice to the consumer before each purchase: whether to give the commission to the affiliate or to himself in the form of a rebate, with a portion of the rebate going to Morpheus. The software does not misrepresent the user's computer to sellers' sites, Mr. Feathers said.

Arguments that the diversions are somehow the fault of an unintentional flaw do not persuade Erik Petersen, the chief technical officer at an Internet security company, Polar Cove, in Providence, R.I. Mr. Petersen said that he had received complaints about TopMoxie and LimeWire from friends and took a closer look. After conducting a detailed analysis of the software, he concluded that the TopMoxie program was intricately designed to substitute its affiliate identification code for that of other sites as transactions were made. He said that the program remained on the computer even if the user removed the original LimeWire music sharing software. "I don't buy their explanation," he said. "What kind of accident is that?"

Mr. Petersen also pointed to a statement made in an online forum where the technology was discussed, in which a LimeWire developer characterized accusations that the software diverts money as "pretty accurate," but said, "While I agree that this is really a bit of a scam, it is a way for us to pay salaries while not adversely affecting our users."

A chief executive of one software company was similarly unapologetic about the diversion of commissions. "We look at affiliates as competitors," said Avi Naider, the chief executive of WhenU.com, which makes the diversion software used by the music swapping services Kazaa and BearShare. The software, he said, provides services to users and money to each company "so it doesn't have to charge" for the currently free software and services.

The companies also argue that consumers give consent to the terms of the contract when they download the software, whether they read the agreement carefully or not. An expert in online consumer protection said the companies had a point. In the case of the LimeWire agreement, for example, "there does seem to be some indication to the user of what's going on," said David Medine, a Washington lawyer and former Federal Trade Commission official.

Mr. Medine said that he was, however, uncomfortable with the degree of disclosure. "The question is whether the quality of the notice is as good as it could be," he said. "They don't tell you that it's interfering with other business relationships."

Jeff Pullen, the president of Commission Junction, a company that helps link affiliates with Web sites, said that he was not inclined to cut off companies that divert commissions if the customer has agreed to the diversion. "The tactics that they use, maybe they're on the edge," he said. "Maybe, personally, I don't find them particularly attractive. But if they aren't illegal, it's hard for me to point to my public service agreement and say, `I have a reason to kick you off my network.' "

Still, other online merchants are taking action after being confronted by angry affiliates — and they find that they are dealing with a moving target. TigerDirect, an online computer and electronics store, blocked Morpheus from its program earlier this year after discovering that the company was diverting online commissions. "I obviously thought it wasn't honorable," said Andy Rodriguez, the company's manager of affiliate marketing. "They said, `It's our right.' I said, `It's our right to remove you.' "

Morpheus changed its software, Mr. Rodriguez said, but a few weeks ago TigerDirect noticed that sales through Morpheus were "going through the roof" at the same time that many affiliates were complaining of a drop in commissions. So he blocked them again. "Guys at Morphus wanted a piece of the pie for each of our sales," he said. "I'm sorry. Absolutely not.

The diversion programs have made life difficult for affiliate marketers in the last year, said Steve Messer, chief executive of LinkShare, a company that runs a major affiliate network. But he sees a silver lining. "It's showed affiliate marketing has come of age," Mr. Messer said. "If you look at it, the volume of transactions passing through LinkShare's affiliate marketing got so big that when affiliates get upset, the largest merchants in the world react. If it's just a few dollars, nobody would've noticed."

LinkShare is working with other companies in their market to come up with industry standards to govern ethical practices in online advertising, Mr. Messer said. "For some people, WWW stands for the Wild, Wild West," he said. "Hopefully, that's coming to an end."

Alt Text
Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Don Hogan Charles/The New York Times
Shawn Collins, who feeds customers to Amazon and other online merchants, says his commissions have fallen 30 percent in six months.

A Software Cleanup

Computer users who want to remove shopping software from their machines can do so in a few steps. Instructions for removing three of the most common programs:

BUYERSPORT - The shopping software with Morpheus:

Click the Start button.

Click on Find.

Click on Find Files or Folders.

Type in mbho.dll. Click on find now. When the file appears in the directory window, drag mbho.dll into the trash.

LIMESHOP - The software with LimeWire:

Click the Start button.

Click on Settings.

Click Control Panel.

Double-click Add/Remove Programs.

Click LimeShop.

Click Add/Remove.

SAVENOW - The software used by Kazaa:

Click on Start.

Click Settings.

Click on Control Panel.

Double-click on Add/Remove Programs.

Click SaveNow.

Click on Add/Remove.

Multimedia

Chart: A High-Tech Switch

Greeks fight computer game ban

How totally bizarre. This is how the Greek government has decided to fight back against online gambling.

See the CNET story by Matt Loney and Rupert Goodwins:

In Greece, use a Game Boy, go to jail.

The law applies equally to visitors from abroad: "If you know these things are banned, you should not bring them in," said a commercial attaché at the Greek Embassy in London, who declined to give her name.

Internet cafes will be allowed to continue to operate, providing no games-playing takes place. If a customer is found to be running any sort of game, including online chess, the cafe owner will be fined and the place closed.

This goes for visitors too!

Here's the text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html

In Greece, use a Game Boy, go to jail
By Matt Loney and Rupert Goodwins
Staff Writers, CNET News.com
September 3, 2002, 11:18 AM PT

In Greece, playing a shoot-'em-up video game could land you in jail.

The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for owning mobile phones or portable video games.

Greek Law Number 3037, enacted at the end of July, explicitly forbids electronic games with "electronic mechanisms and software" from public and private places, and people have already been fined tens of thousands of dollars for playing or owning games.

The law applies equally to visitors from abroad: "If you know these things are banned, you should not bring them in," said a commercial attaché at the Greek Embassy in London, who declined to give her name.

Internet cafes will be allowed to continue to operate, providing no games-playing takes place. If a customer is found to be running any sort of game, including online chess, the cafe owner will be fined and the place closed.

The Greek government introduced the law in an attempt to prevent illegal gambling. According to a report in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Greek police will be responsible for catching offenders, who will face fines of 5,000 to 75,000 euros (about $4,980 to $74,650) and imprisonment of one to 12 months. "The blanket ban was decided in February after the government admitted it was incapable of distinguishing innocuous video games from illegal gambling machines," the report said.

The Greek gaming community has reacted with a mixture of shock, disbelief and anger. One Web site, www.gameland.gr, has started a news service about the ban and opened a petition to protest it. In addition, it is posting English translations of the law and messages of support from around the world.

A test case is to come before the Greek courts next week, and the Greek gaming community is already planning protests in the event that the defendant is convicted.

"We are trying to organize a protest against this law," said Petros Tipis of Thessaloniki-based gaming company Reload Entertainment, which has had to cancel a gaming tournament that was to be held this week.

If the prosecution of the defendant next week is successful, said Tipis, the Greek gaming industry will take the case to the European Court.

In the meantime, Tipis told ZDNet UK, a lot of people in Greece are very worried about the new law. "They are taking it very seriously," he said. "It even affects the games that come with Windows. This law isn't the right one," he added. "It is unfair. It was introduced too quickly."

Reload's tournament, which was to be held Fridah, was a qualifier for the CPL Oslo 2002 gaming tournament. "Now we are trying not to lose the two slots we were given from CPL for the tournament," Tipis said. "This was the first time for a qualifier (for this tournament) in Greece."

ZDNet UK's Rupert Goodwins and Matt Loney reported from London.

Digital copying rules may change
by Noel C. Paul for the Christian Science Monitor.

In a few years, Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day...

...Currently individuals can legally record TV shows, make digital audio files of CDs, and lend books to friends. Such activity is protected under a federal "fair use" statute, which takes into consideration most consumers' need for flexibility.

New regulations being discussed significantly erase fair-use rights in the name of piracy prevention. Ultimately, the entertainment industry hopes to charge consumers for what they now do free of charge.

"The only way they can charge you, they realized, is to first take away your legal right, and then sell that right back to you," says Joe Kraus, president of DigitalConsumer.org, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0819/p14s01-wmcn.html

from the August 19, 2002 edition

Digital copying rules may change
By Noel C. Paul
In a few years, Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day.

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions. The technology would identify programs that broadcasters do not want consumers to copy without first paying a fee.
E-mail this story

Write a letter to the Editor

Printer-friendly version

Permission to reprint/republish

And in Congress, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require all digital devices, and the software that runs them, to include a copyright protection system. The system would make it impossible for consumers to make unauthorized copies of music, movies, and television programs.

Such protections, proponents say, would give Hollywood an incentive to offer more entertainment in digital format, thereby spurring consumers' adoption of such technologies as high-definition TV and broadband services.

"The entertainment industry historically has been very, very slow to embrace technology because of concerns about piracy," says Mark Kersey, a broadband analyst with ARS, a market research firm in La Jolla, Calif.

Millions of consumers, for example, already watch pay-per-view movies and undoubtedly would pay for the ability to download digital movies onto their set-top boxes. But consumer advocates argue that the flood of digital entertainment for the home would come at a high cost, both in terms of money and consumer flexibility.

Currently individuals can legally record TV shows, make digital audio files of CDs, and lend books to friends. Such activity is protected under a federal "fair use" statute, which takes into consideration most consumers' need for flexibility.

New regulations being discussed significantly erase fair-use rights in the name of piracy prevention. Ultimately, the entertainment industry hopes to charge consumers for what they now do free of charge.

"The only way they can charge you, they realized, is to first take away your legal right, and then sell that right back to you," says Joe Kraus, president of DigitalConsumer.org, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

If certain antipiracy measures pass in Washington, Mr. Kraus says consumers may have to pay extra to play a CD in more than one player; be no longer able to transfer music from a CD to an MP3 player; and be unable to watch a program recorded onto a DVD on a separate machine.

Allowing consumers access to media, but restricting them from adapting it is similar to teaching people to read but not allowing them to write, says Clay Shirky, a professor at New York University. "To say we must make a device that does not do one of those functions is saying that the device is no longer a computer any more," says Mr. Shirky.

The entertainment industry's greatest concern is that the proliferation of digital technology and high-speed Internet access may let consumers download a movie, for example, and send it to thousands of users before it even exits the theaters.

According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day. "[These films] are innocents in a jungle, ready to be ambushed by anyone," says Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade association in Washington.

Mr. Valenti believes consumers should still be able to record copies of films from television onto VHS and DVD formats. He is primarily concerned with consumers making additional copies of films, even if just for a neighbor.

"It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow," says Valenti.

MP3s not source of music industry woes, by Jack Kapika for The Globe and Mail.

Forrester's latest study, released Tuesday, says that consumers need a "Music Bill of Rights" to protect their right to get tunes over the Internet.

The five major international record companies, through their trade organization, called the Recording Industry Association of America, have been blaming a 15-per-cent drop in record sales over the past two years on Net-based file-swapping services, starting with Napster.

In reality, other factors led to the drop in revenue, Forrester said: the economic recession and competition from surging video-game and DVD sales.

"There is no denying that times are tough for the music business, but not because of downloading," Forrester's principal analyst, Josh Bernhoff, said. "Based on surveys of 1,000 on-line consumers, we see no evidence of decreased CD buying among frequent digital music consumers."

...The road ahead will be rough, the Forrester study cautioned. The record companies will spend the next two years struggling as they try to deliver digital music while testing out various technologies and legal moves to stop people from swapping the songs.

But by 2005, Forrester predicts that the five big labels will endorse a standard download contract that supports burning and a greater range of devices.

That will lead to soaring sales as finding content becomes effortless and impulse buying sets in. Labels will make content available on equal terms to all distributors, while on-line retailers become hubs for downloading.

By 2007, the new business model should generate 17 per cent of the sales in the music business, Forrester predicts.

Full text of article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020813/gtmusic

POSTED AT 6:24 PM EDT Tuesday, August 13
space
MP3s not source of music industry woes: Study
space


space Advertisement
space

By JACK KAPICA
Globe and Mail Update

The record industry has it wrong: Swapping music MP3s is not the cause of the industry's woes, but it may be the cure.

That conclusion comes from Forrester Research, an emerging-technology research firm, and flatly contradicts what the record executives are saying.

In fact, Forrester's latest study, released Tuesday, says that consumers need a "Music Bill of Rights" to protect their right to get tunes over the Internet.

The five major international record companies, through their trade organization, called the Recording Industry Association of America, have been blaming a 15-per-cent drop in record sales over the past two years on Net-based file-swapping services, starting with Napster.

In reality, other factors led to the drop in revenue, Forrester said: the economic recession and competition from surging video-game and DVD sales.

"There is no denying that times are tough for the music business, but not because of downloading," Forrester's principal analyst, Josh Bernhoff, said. "Based on surveys of 1,000 on-line consumers, we see no evidence of decreased CD buying among frequent digital music consumers."

Moreover, the Forrester paper predicts that music downloads will become big business, with sales reaching more than $2-billion (U.S.) by 2007. But it adds that the big surge in sales will happen only after 2005, when the record companies unite in their efforts to sell music together.

Under the analyst's proposed Music Bill of Rights, people will pay for the music they download, and will be happy to do so. It says that consumers must be able to find music from any label, not just two or three. They also want the right to control their music by burning it onto CDs or by copying it onto an MP3 player.

Finally, consumers will have the right to demand the ability to pay by the song or by the album, not just via the subscription services now offered by such experiments as Pressplay, MusicNet, FullAudio, and Emusic.

"We call this set of features — which any paid music service must meet to satisfy customers — the Music Bill Of Rights," Mr. Bernhoff said.

The road ahead will be rough, the Forrester study cautioned. The record companies will spend the next two years struggling as they try to deliver digital music while testing out various technologies and legal moves to stop people from swapping the songs.

But by 2005, Forrester predicts that the five big labels will endorse a standard download contract that supports burning and a greater range of devices.

That will lead to soaring sales as finding content becomes effortless and impulse buying sets in. Labels will make content available on equal terms to all distributors, while on-line retailers become hubs for downloading.

By 2007, the new business model should generate 17 per cent of the sales in the music business, Forrester predicts.

The company painted a picture in which big song hits will prompt people to download them directly to their cellphones, portable players or PCs. Artists will also embrace the Internet and sign downloading rights over to their labels, it said.

Looks like you can't just uncheck the Windows Media Rights Management box after all (see the gif on my "more" page -- i'm still dinking around with images in Movable Type)

I just happened to have to reinstall Windows Media Player 7.1 over the weekend (due to my Real One player expiring on me for no apparent reason...More on that experience later in perhaps far too much detail...)

So I took a gander at the EULA while I was installing WMP 7.1 and took a screen grab of the window that wouldn't let me uncheck the Windows Media Rights Management box (and also states very clearly in writing that Rights Management is a requirement, not an option).

Also, this paragraph of the EULA seems pretty darned relevant. How the heck did "security" get grouped in with "digital rights management" and my having to agree to allow Microsoft to install DRM updates on my computer that might "disable my ability to...use other software on my computer"??:

* Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

Full text of Supplemental Eula:

SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE ("Supplemental EULA")

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") operating system components, including any "online" or electronic documentation ("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Microsoft operating system product described below (each an "End User License Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of this Supplemental EULA. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE OS COMPONENTS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCT EULA AND THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE OS COMPONENTS.

NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERSION OR EDITION OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS MILLENUM EDITION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM OR ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THOSE OPERATING SYSTEMS (EACH AN "OS PRODUCT"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the applicable OS Product EULA.

General. The OS Components are provided to you by Microsoft to update, supplement, or replace existing functionality of the applicable OS Product. Microsoft grants you a license to use the OS Components under the terms and conditions of the EULA for the applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by reference, except as set forth below) and the terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA, provided that you comply with all such terms and conditions. To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect to the OS Components.

Additional Rights and Limitations.

* Reproduction. If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable OS Product, you may reproduce, install and use one copy of the OS Components as part of such OS Product on all of your computers running validly licensed copies of the applicable OS Product provided that you use such additional copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms and conditions above. For each validly licensed copy of the applicable OS Product, you also may reproduce one additional copy of the OS Components solely for archival purposes or reinstallation of the OS Components on the same computer as the OS Components were previously installed. Microsoft retains all right, title and interest in and to the OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.

* Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY) INCLUDED IN THE OS PRODUCT EULA APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS PROVIDED THE OS COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU WITHIN THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE OS PRODUCT EULA. HOWEVER, THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY IS PROVIDED.

IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, WORKMANLIKE EFFORT AND LACK OF NEGLIGENCE. ALSO THERE IS NO WARRANTY, DUTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NONINFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU.

EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS OR THE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES), THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE OS COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

Si vous avez acquis votre produit Microsoft au CANADA, le texte suivant vous concerne :

SI LE PRODUIT OS APPLICABLE VOUS A ÉTÉ CONCÉDÉ SOUS LICENCE PAR MICROSOFT OU PAR L'UNE QUELCONQUE DE SES FILIALES À 100%, LA GARANTIE LIMITÉE (SI ELLE EXISTE) APPLICABLE EN VERTU DU CONTRAT DE LICENCE UTILISATEUR FINAL (" CLUF ") RELATIF À CE PRODUIT OS S'APPLIQUE AUX COMPOSANTS SYSTÈME D'EXPLOITATION DE MICROSOFT Y COMPRIS TOUTE DOCUMENTATION " EN LIGNE " OU SOUS FORME ÉLECTRONIQUE (LES " COMPOSANTS OS "), À CONDITION QUE CEUX-CI VOUS AIENT ÉTÉ CONCÉDÉS SOUS LICENCE PENDANT LA DURÉE DE LA GARANTIE LIMITÉE DU CLUF RELATIF AU PRODUIT OS APPLICABLE. LE PRÉSENT CLUF SUPPLÉMENTAIRE N'A PAS POUR EFFET DE PROROGER LA DURÉE DE CETTE GARANTIE LIMITÉE.

SI LE PRODUIT OS VOUS A ÉTÉ CONCÉDÉ SOUS LICENCE PAR UNE ENTITÉ AUTRE QUE MICROSOFT OU QUE L'UNE QUELCONQUE DE SES FILIALES À 100%, MICROSOFT EXCLUT TOUTE GARANTIE RELATIVE AUX COMPOSANTS OS COMME CELA EST STIPULÉ CI-APRÈS :

EXCLUSION DE GARANTIE. DANS TOUTE LA MESURE PERMISE PAR LE DROIT APPLICABLE, MICROSOFT ET SES FOURNISSEURS VOUS FOURNISSENT LES COMPOSANTS OS, AINSI QUE, LE CAS ÉCHÉANT, TOUT SERVICE D'ASSISTANCE RELATIF À CES COMPOSANTS OS (LES "SERVICES D'ASSISTANCE"), " COMME TELS ET AVEC TOUS LEURS DEFAUTS ". EN OUTRE, MICROSOFT ET SES FOURNISSEURS EXCLUENT PAR LES PRÉSENTES TOUTE AUTRE GARANTIE LÉGALE, EXPRESSE OU IMPLICITE, RELATIVE AUX COMPOSANTS OS ET AUX SERVICES D'ASSISTANCE, NOTAMMENT (LE CAS ÉCHÉANT), TOUTE GARANTIE: DE QUALITÉ, D'ADAPTATION À UN USAGE PARTICULIER, D'ABSENCE DE VIRUS, DE PRÉCISION, D'EXHAUSTIVITÉ DES RÉPONSES, DES RÉSULTATS OBTENUS, DE FABRICATION Y D'ABSENCE DE NÉGLIGENCE. EN OUTRE, IL N'Y A PAS DE GARANTIE DE PROPRIÉTÉ, DE JOUISSANCE PAISIBLE, D'ABSENCE DE TROUBLE DE POSSESSION, DE CONFORMITÉ À LA DESCRIPTION OU D'ABSENCE DE CONTREFAÇON. VOUS ASSUMEZ L'ENSEMBLE DES RISQUES DÉCOULANT DE L'UTILISATION OU DU FONCTIONNEMENT DES COMPOSANTS OS ET DES SERVICES D'ASSISTANCE.

EXCLUSION DE RESPONSABILITÉ POUR LES DOMMAGES ACCESSOIRES, INDIRECTS ET CERTAINS AUTRES TYPES DE DOMMAGES. DANS TOUTE LA MESURE PERMISE PAR LE DROIT APPLICABLE, MICROSOFT OU SES FOURNISSEURS NE POURRONT EN AUCUN CAS ÊTRE TENUS RESPONSABLES DE TOUT DOMMAGE SPÉCIAL, ACCESSOIRE, INCIDENT OU INDIRECT DE QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT (Y COMPRIS, MAIS NON DE FACON LIMITATIVE, LES PERTES DE BÉNÉFICES, PERTES D'INFORMATIONS CONFIDENTIELLES OU AUTRES INFORMATIONS, INTERRUPTIONS D'ACTIVITÉ, PRÉJUDICES CORPORELS, ATTEINTES À LA VIE PRIVÉE, MANQUEMENT À TOUTE OBLIGATION (NOTAMMENT L'OBLIGATION DE BONNE FOI ET DE DILIGENCE), NÉGLIGENCE, ET POUR TOUTE PERTE PÉCUNIAIRE OU AUTRE DE QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT), RÉSULTANT DE, OU RELATIFS A, L'UTILISATION OU L'IMPOSSIBILITÉ D'UTILISER LES COMPOSANTS OS OU LES SERVICES D'ASSISTANCE, OU LA FOURNITURE OU LE DÉFAUT DE FOURNITURE DES SERVICES D'ASSISTANCE, OU AUTREMENT EN VERTU DE, OU RELATIVEMENT A, TOUTE DISPOSITION DE CE CLUF SUPPLÉMENTAIRE, MÊME SI LA SOCIÉTÉ MICROSOFT OU UN QUELCONQUE FOURNISSEUR A ÉTÉ PRÉVENU DE L'ÉVENTUALITÉ DE TELS DOMMAGES.

LIMITATION DE RESPONSABILITÉ ET RECOURS. NONOBSTANT TOUT DOMMAGE QUE VOUS POURRIEZ SUBIR POUR QUELQUE MOTIF QUE CE SOIT (NOTAMMENT TOUS LES DOMMAGES ÉNUMÉRÉS CI-DESSUS ET TOUS LES DOMMAGES DIRECTS OU GÉNÉRAUX), L'ENTIÈRE RESPONSABILITÉ DE MICROSOFT ET DE L'UN QUELCONQUE DE SES FOURNISSEURS AU TITRE DE TOUTE STIPULATION DE CE CLUF SUPPLÉMENTAIRE ET VOTRE SEUL RECOURS EN CE QUI CONCERNE TOUS LES DOMMAGES PRÉCITÉS NE SAURAIENT EXCÉDER LE MONTANT QUE VOUS AVEZ EFFECTIVEMENT PAYÉ POUR LES COMPOSANTS OS OU 5 DOLLARS US (US$ 5,00), SELON LE PLUS ÉLEVÉ DES DEUX MONTANTS. LES PRÉSENTES LIMITATIONS ET EXCLUSIONS DEMEURERONT APPLICABLES DANS TOUTE LA MESURE PERMISE PAR LE DROIT APPLICABLE QUAND BIEN MÊME UN QUELCONQUE REMÈDE À UN QUELCONQUE MANQUEMENT NE PRODUIRAIT PAS D'EFFET.

La présente Convention est régie par les lois de la province d'Ontario, Canada. Chacune des parties à la présente reconnaît irrévocablement la compétence des tribunaux de la province d'Ontario et consent à instituer tout litige qui pourrait découler de la présente auprès des tribunaux situés dans le district judiciaire de York, province d'Ontario.

Au cas où vous auriez des questions concernant cette licence ou que vous désiriez vous mettre en rapport avec Microsoft pour quelque raison que ce soit, veuillez contacter la succursale Microsoft desservant votre pays, ou écrire à : Microsoft Sales Information Center, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052-6399.

A guy reformatted his hard drive and then found out none of his Windows Media files would work. Turns out that Windows Media Player turns the "copy protection" (copy prevention) on by default when it rips CDs, so when he reformatted his hard drive the player thought he was trying to play the copy protected files on a computer other than the one they had been licensed for.

Let me say this another way: when you rip CDs on a Windows machine using Windows Media Player, it makes a unique identifier for your computer (that has privacy implications, yes, but I'm trying to make another point here).

That unique identifier is associated with a license that is stored separately from the file itself that will only let those files be played back on the one single computer that matches the unique identifier. No other devices. Ever.

(Without a lot of hassle anyway -- Without having to backup and restore your licenses on the other computer -- or use Microsoft's Personal License Migration Service (PLMS) -- two processes that, to date, have performed less than dependably -- according to many a sad music collector....)

And it turns out there is a solution: turn it off! Change the settings on your player for now, and say "no" when it asks you about wanting copy protections (fair use copy preventions) in the future.

See the Guardian story by Jack Schofield:

When you first run Windows Media Player, it will ask if you want to keep copy protection on, and you can turn it off if you wish. If you missed that dialog box, it is still easy to turn off copy protection by going into the Tools|Options menu. Click on the Copy Music tab, and under Copy Settings, uncheck the 'Protect Content' box. In previous versions, this box was called the 'Enable Per sonal Rights Management' check box." Turning off copy protection would seem the best idea.

Text of article in case the URL goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4477138,00.html

Ask Jack

Send your questions and comments to Jack.Schofield@guardian.co.uk
Published letters will be edited for brevity but please include full details with your original query

Jack Schofield
Guardian

Thursday August 8, 2002

Catch WMP
I have been collecting music using Windows Media Player to copy from CDs. When I needed to reformat my hard drive, I copied all my files to CD-R, re-installed my operating system and copied them back, only to find my music would not play.
Rowan Burgess

Jack Schofield replies: Microsoft's web site says: "By default, Windows Media Player [7.x] is configured to protect content that is copied from a CD to your computer from unauthorized use by using Personal Rights Management. When this feature is enabled, each track that is copied to your computer is a licensed file that cannot be played on any other computer unless you backup and restore your licenses on the other computer."

Reformatting the hard drive has made your PC, in effect, a different computer. Since you did not back up and restore your licenses, there is no obvious way to play the protected files. However, Michael Aldridge, lead product manager in the Windows Digital Media Division at Microsoft in Seattle, says: "There is still a way to get these licenses back and it is pretty easy using our Personal License Migration Service (PLMS), [which] was designed to address the exact situation you outline. The customer just has to be connected to the internet, then they can automatically restore their licenses just by playing the music files in question.

Windows Media Player will recognise that the music had a license and will go out on the web and update their music files with new licenses. All this service does is note these files once had a license and provides a new one. No internet connection is required for playback after that. "If the reader is connected to the internet and this is still not working, it is most likely because they created their music collection with an earlier version of Windows Media Player (7.0) and then upgraded on top of that collection. We did anticipate this scenario and developed a tool to help them update their licenses: the Personal License Update Utility. This must be run before they upgrade their system or transfer their music files to a new PC.

If they don't use this utility they will need to re-create (re-copy) their music CDs into their music library on their PC. Find out more information about this process at www.microsoft.com/ "You can also choose to turn off copy protection when you create your music collection, which can be done easily in any version of [WMP7.x or later].

When you first run Windows Media Player, it will ask if you want to keep copy protection on, and you can turn it off if you wish. If you missed that dialog box, it is still easy to turn off copy protection by going into the Tools|Options menu. Click on the Copy Music tab, and under Copy Settings, uncheck the 'Protect Content' box. In previous versions, this box was called the 'Enable Per sonal Rights Management' check box." Turning off copy protection would seem the best idea.

Digital Speech.org has created a boilerplate letter you can send to your representative.

I hope to get to this later this evening. I'll let you know how it goes...

Here's more about GeekPAC from Doc Searls:
Setting Fire to Hollywood's Plans for the Net: The GeekPAC Story.

Hollywood Vigilantes vs. Copyright Pirates

Also, in the spirit of fair use - a poorly formatted version of this article is available by clicking "more"...

JULY 31, 2002

PERSPECTIVE
By Heather Green

Hollywood Vigilantes vs. Copyright Pirates
The entertainment industry doesn't need a law letting it hack and disable file-sharers. Why is Congress even considering it?

It would be fun to look at the most recent Hollywood-backed copyright protection bill and simply call it what it is: downright silly. Unfortunately, the debate over what to do about copyright protection seem to be building to a head in Washington, with Hollywood's view -- that no holds should be barred -- holding sway.

That means, unfortunately, that heedless bills like this one, which was introduced on July 25 in the House of Representatives by Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Howard Coble (R-N.C.), actually have to be taken seriously. So, instead of ignoring it as the scrap of nonsense that it is, let's call this bill irresponsible.

What's all the fuss? Berman's bill gives copyright owners a legal right to hack into and disable peer-to-peer networks suspected of illegally trading copyrighted works. It's an aggressive new tactic in a battle that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America initially waged primarily against those behind the software and services that they allege are contributing to copyright infringement.

FREEDOM TO ATTACK. Critics of the new tactic are calling it vigilante justice, and it certainly looks a lot like that. Frankly, the provisions under which a copyright owner gets to hack someone else's computer are pretty loosey goosey.

All copyright holders need to do before launching an attack is alert the Justice Dept. about the kind of software they're using. They don't have to tell Justice how long they plan to conduct a hacking campaign or even which site it will target. They don't even need to inform the person whose computer they are hacking what is going on -- even after the fact.

Meantime, consumers who share a network with the person being attacked could end up having their service impaired. And a legitimate file-sharing service could come under attack without a chance to respond to a copyright holder's claims of infringement.

THE SYSTEM WORKS. Forget how nonsensical and rare it is to grant any industry this kind of power. There's actually a more compelling point: Plenty of laws are already on the books to protect copyright holders. Copyright infringement is a crime. Courts and law-enforcement agencies already exist whose sole goal is to prevent crime. Entertainment companies have the option of tracking what they think are unlawful activities and alerting law officials.

Under the four-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright holders can also issue subpoenas to Internet service providers (ISPs) to obtain contact information about a potential infringer. Then copyright holders can send a warning e-mail or instigate litigation.

The beauty of these scenarios is that they follow the basic guidelines of due process by protecting innocent people, getting the bad guys, and providing at least the modicum of a forum for someone accused of copyright infringement to protect themselves.

THREE-PRONGED APPROACH. Using the existing system can produce results. Just ask the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Established in 1988 by technology companies, the BSA uses existing laws to go after pirates. Software outfits so far have a lot more skin in the game than the entertainment industry. They lost about $11 billion in sales last year. The RIAA, meantime, can't quantify the dollar impact of online piracy beyond stating that millions of dollars are at stake.

The BSA uses a three-pronged approach: working with policymakers, running education campaigns, and collaborating with law enforcement. The group often conducts its own investigations, referring those cases to law officials. It sends notices to ISPs about potentially pirated material, including material on peer-to-peer networks. It works with governments and businesses in the U.S. and abroad to run education campaigns.

Yet, even as the software piracy rate has increased, the BSA hasn't called for new laws. Unlike some entertainment companies, the BSA isn't asking Congress to mandate the inclusion of technology in all software, PCs, and servers to protect copyrighted works.

NO "SILVER BULLET." That's because the BSA has a sense of what works and what doesn't. And vigilante use of technology -- or the call for mandated technology that could affect other consumers, innovation, or the market -- just doesn't make sense. "There isn't one technological silver bullet," says Bob Kruger, BSA's vice-president for enforcement. "You have to look at it as a multifaceted problem that takes a multifaceted solution. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you're not got to be able to make a big difference."

The RIAA argues that it needs special exemptions. The organization does work with law enforcement and ISPs, but it says too many separate computers and services are out there for it to rely on the existing legal structure. In its fight against piracy, it wants to explore all the options. "Traditional methods can't control mass, worldwide piracy. That's why the Berman bill offers a unique perspective," says Mitch Glazier, senior vice-president for government relations at the RIAA.

Copyright holders haven't proven that they deserve that kind of power. Legislators shouldn't be willing to consider something as outlandish as Berman's bill until entertainment companies have proven first that they have exhausted the other legal avenues already available. Instead, the entertainment industry and Congress should take a look at the BSA's most recent piracy report, which explains why the the BSA has been successful in the past, and why it now faces new problems.

THINK LONG AND HARD. The chief reason for the lowering of piracy rates over time is simple, according to the BSA report. "As PC technology and the demand for software spread from the U.S. to other countries during the 1990s, there was, at times, a lag between the demand for software and the effective distribution of legal software.... The software industry has worked hard to have a legitimate sales presence in every country, making legal software sales and support easier to obtain."

As to the reason for a recent uptick in piracy, instead of pointing the finger at the Internet, the BSA explains that the increase is due to the economic downturn, with people in harder-hit countries turning back to pirating software.

Congress should consider a lot of things before considering Berman's bill. Legislators also should look at how other industries handle piracy. Instead of swallowing the entertainment industry's line, Congress needs to do a little thinking on its own.

Doc Searls has written a brilliant piece on the last month or so of developments surrounding the complex CARP and "Crazy Tech Legislation" (like the Berman Bill) Battles on Capitol Hill.

This thing is so loaded with important content, I know I'll be going over it in more detail over the course of the day, but I didn't want to hold up pointing it out to you:
Hollywood Steps Up Its Assault on the Net While Webcasting Death March Claims KPIG.

Here's the LawMeme discussion along with a nice synopsis by Lisa M. Bowman for CNET:
File-traders in the crosshairs.

From CNET article:

Jennison thinks the RIAA will target people in their late 20s or early 30s who are making available massive numbers of files that are current and popular. The RIAA may also look for people who could otherwise afford to buy CDs but instead choose to play the free-swapping game, she speculated.

Others suggest that the industry would pursue, as University of Wisconsin's Vaidhyanathan called them, "hacker types," or people who look like they might spell trouble to mainstream Americans. Already, similar tactics have been put in play by the movie industry, which successfully convinced several judges that the operators of hacker publication 2600 aided copyright infringement by providing links to code that could be used to crack copyright protections on DVDs.

The record industry also could lean on law enforcement to do its dirty work for it, said P.J. McNealy, a research director at Gartner. "One of the problems with file-sharing right now is consumers aren't afraid of police knocking in doors and seizing computers," he said. However, criminal copyright charges, which usually must involve monetary losses or an intent to make money, often are hard to prove in cases involving individuals.

Henry Jenkins takes a deeper look for the MIT Technology Review into the implications of viewers' "contracts" with programmers to watch advertising as part of the deal:
Treating Viewers As Criminals.

...I stumbled across the recent comments of Turner Broadcasting System CEO Jaimie Kellner, who asserted that television viewers who skipped commercials using their digital video recorders were guilty of "stealing" broadcast content. Kellner told an industry trade press reporter that "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots." He conceded that there may be a historic loophole allowing us to take short breaks to go to the bathroom but otherwise, we are expected to be at our post, doing our duties, watching every commercial, and presumably, though he never said it, buying every product.

Kellner's intemperate rhetoric is, alas, characteristic of the ways that the media industry increasingly thinks about, talks about, and addresses its consumers in the post-Napster era. Napster may—and I stress, may—have been legitimately labeled piracy, but now all forms of consumerism are being criminalized with ever-decreasing degrees of credibility. Once going to the bathroom or grabbing a snack on a commercial break gets treated as a form of theft, the media conglomerates are going to be hard pressed to get consumer compliance with their expectations, making it impossible to draw legitimate lines about what is and is not appropriate use of media content.

Name-calling is the last resort of once powerful institutions that are finding themselves losing control in the face of rapid media change. Never mind that the same media giants are often the manufactures of the new media technologies we are using to skip their commercials or that some of the advertisements they want us to watch are marketing us features which allow us to skip advertisements. Never mind that we now have many more media options and we need the networks frankly far less than the networks need us.

I don't know about you but I want to renegotiate my contract! There has been a significant increase in the number of commercials per hour since I first started watching network programming. Consequently, my workload has doubled or tripled, while my compensation—the programming—has gone down in quantity, if not in quality. One wonders whether it isn't time for television viewers to form a union, demand that people like Kellner sit down at the negotiating table, and cut a better deal with us, if they continue to expect viewer loyalty. And given research linking extensive television viewing with obesity, perhaps we might have some way of holding the networks accountable for their workplace safety violations as well, before some of us start to spontaneously explode.

Check out:
http://www.craigslist.org/craig.vs.hollywood.html.

Craig Newmark, a ReplayTV user (aided by the EFF) is suing Turner Broadcasting (among others) and seeking a declarative judgement asserting his right to space- and time-shift TV programming -- and to skip commercials while doing it -- using a PVR.

Right on dude! You big sweetie! Stand up for our right to watch shows later and go to the bathroom during commercials! (Has it really come to this?)

Craig vs Hollywood
Thursday, June 6, 2002

Hey, folks, you know that craigslist has a strong commitment to political issues that affect the online community, like privacy and free speech. We figure we should focus on what we know something about, and otherwise, provide you a platform for whatever you want to discuss.

The major Hollywood companies could be embracing new technologies, serving their customers better and making more money, for themselves, and for artists. A lot of people in Hollywood know this.

However, a lot of folks in entertainment seem to be panicking, taking bad advice and trying to get anti-consumer laws passed, to restrict personal freedoms, like what you do when you buy something like a CD or DVD, or record a TV program.

To help everyone out, Craig is suing Hollywood, with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is a major pioneer in the fight for online rights.

To oversimplify, the Hollywood lawyers are telling us that when we view TV, skipping commercials is a copyright violation... and it gets worse from there.

Craig and others are telling them that this ain't okay.

Craig is not representing craigslist in this regard, but we figure you should know about this.

(For that matter, he can even help people figure out good ways to prevent actual piracy, which could help out artists and the named companies.)

The idea is that Hollywood and also the tech industry are really well-represented, but no one stands up for ordinary citizens and consumers. (No one really stands up for the artists, and the industry is encouraging piracy by its current actions, but that's another fight.)

Hey, whenever you can, please help us out: support our legal challenge in whatever way you can, stay informed, and tell people in your company and even Congress that you're concerned about this. I'd appreciate it if you were to join EFF or any group concerned with your online rights.

More info is available on the EFF site here.

thanks!

Craig

Here's another gem from Dan Gillmore:
Paranoia, stupidity and greed ganging up on the public.

Dear Reader:

If you are reading this column in the newspaper, but did not read every article and look at every advertisement in previous sections, stop now. You must go back and look at all of that material before continuing with this column.

If you are reading this column on the Web and did not go to the newspaper's home page first, stop now. Go to the home page and navigate through whatever sequence of links our page designers have created to reach this page, and don't you dare fail to look at the ads.

Ridiculous? Of course.

Tell that to the dinosaurs at some major media and entertainment companies. They insist they have the right to tell you precisely how you may use their products...

The law also is still somewhat unsettled when it comes to hard-disk video recorders, also known as personal video recorders or PVRs. But Hollywood is in attack mode against one of the most innovative home products in years, SonicBlue's Replay machine, and the entertainment industry's anger at these devices is growing.

Jamie Kellner, head of Turner Broadcasting, part of the AOL Time Warner conglomerate, told the newsweekly CableWorld that you are a thief if you use one of a PVR's best features -- skipping commercials.

``Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots,'' he said. ``Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis.''

Whenever you fail to watch a commercial, he added, ``you're actually stealing the programming.''

It gets better. When the interviewer asked whether it's OK to go to the bathroom or get a soft drink out of the refrigerator, Kellner replied, `` I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.''

What a relief. At least AOL Time Warner doesn't believe we should be chained to the sofa when we watch one of its old movies.

Here's the letter I sent to Gateway:

Dear Mr. Waitt, CEO
Gateway Computers, Inc.,

Thanks for your company's recent digital music website launch.

I am a teacher and computer consultant that will be recommending Gateway products to my students and clientele in the future because you guys were the first company to take a stand on these issues -- and that really means a lot to me.

Thanks,

Lisa Rein
lisarein@finetuning.com

http://www.finetuning.com

If you agree with Gateway's position on Digital Music, perhaps you'll take five minutes to write write at letter to Gateway's CEO to say "thank you":

Ted Waitt, CEO
Gateway, Inc.
14303 Gateway Pl.
Poway, CA
92064


or send an e-mail:
c/o corporate.communications@gateway.com

Finally! A technology company that is willing to stand up for its future!

Gateway has launched a great new campaign to help educate consumers about their rights in the digital marketplace and help educate lawmakers about the dangers of attempting to regulate innovation.

Thanks Gateway -- for standing up for all of us!
(And for putting an advertising budget behind it!)

Here's a quote from the Your Personal Rights & Responsibilities as an MP3 User section of the new Gateway Digital Music Website:

Gateway believes:

• You have the right to make copies for your own use of any CD you've purchased legally -- so you can listen to it in different locations and have a backup if something happens to your original copy.

• You have the right to enjoy legally acquired music in any format you want -- like converting CD tracks to MP3 files to take with you on a portable or car MP3 player.

• You have the right to download music from the Internet that you've paid for or that's been made available for download by the artist or record label.

Some content distributors want the government to regulate your ability to do these things. There's even a bill before the U.S. Senate that would force the technology industry to implement anti-piracy technology that could prevent all digital copying - even copying that's legal today under U.S. copyright laws.

If this concerns you, it's time to protect these rights. Take action. Write your senator and congressman.

Get more information at www.digitalconsumer.org, www.digmedia.org, or www.hrrc.org. Let's protect our right to legally use technology to improve the quality of life.

Kevin Kelley takes a shot at providing some examples of how music might be sold in the future, now that simple copies of songs are basically "free."

See the NY Times article:
Where Music Will Be Coming From.