Unlimited Tunes from Apple? Not So Fast

-from BusinessWeek
So by now you’ve all heard about the “all you can eat” music plan. While it sounds like a subscription service Job’s argues that it’s not. For those who have not heard what this plan covers, it basically allows Apple to raise the prices of the Ipods so you can have a lifetime of free downloadable music tracks from itunes.
While the insiders on both Apple and the Music industries wouldn’t talk about it, they did say that something like this would take at least a year to hammer out the details, so don’t get your hopes up to high now. check out the link at the top for more details

Bye Bye TorrentSpy and ISOHunt Both Plan to Start Filtering Copyrighted Content

-from Zero Paid

TorrentSpy decides to not block US visitors and chooses to filter pirated content from its search results instead, something which ISOHunt plans to do as well.

It’s a sad day for those in the US who use TorrentSpy or ISOHunt, two of the world’s largest public trackers sites, to find movies, music, and more to download for it seems the party’s nearing an end.

It’s being reported today that TorrentSpy and ISOHunt plans to use a hash-based system called FileRights to automatically filter BitTorrent trackers that link to pirated content from its search results to help satisfy a suit brought against them by the MPAA for the illegal facilitation of copyrighted material.

FileRights will use file hashes provided by individual copyright owners of their content that will detect and remove any torrent trackers that link to unauthorized copies. Copyright owners sign up for an account with the system and then enter the hash values of their content into the system database. FileRights will then automatically remove any links to this content.

The site says it works as follows:

FileRights.com maintains a large database of copyrighted works managed by the content holders themselves. This database forms a master list of copyrighted materials that should be removed from BitTorrent sites. When a content holder uploads information about the works they have found on a bittorrent site FileRights then distributes this information to our website subscribers so that work can be removed (filtered) from their search results. The entire process is automated to minimize the effort required by both the content holder and website operator.

“With FileRights we used the community networking power of the Web to automate and aggregate the entire copyright filtration process,” said Justin Bunnel, one of TorrentSpy’s founders and CEO of FileRights. “Torrentspy now uses the FileRights cooperative filtering process to filter search results on its popular search engine.”

“No longer will site by site DMCA affidavits be required for copyright owners to remove links to allegedly infringing files. With FileRights we used the community networking power of the web to automate and aggregate the entire copyright filtration process,” he continued.

Ira Rothkin, TorrentSpy’s attorney, also notes that ISOHunt, the subject of an MPAA lawsuit as well, will so too be using FileRights to filter copyrighted material from its search results.

Jacqueline Chooljian, a federal judge for the Central District of California in Los Angeles ruled on May 29th that TorrentSpy must begin tracking users’ activity on the site, a ruling which TorrentSpy is still appealing but, which will most likely stand due to the fact that the US Govt has gone to great lengths to ensure copyright protection despite the costs to the privacy of consumers and to the neutrality of the internet as a whole.

If TorrentSpy and ISOHunt do start filtering pirated content as stated, it will most likely simply mean more traffic for those file-sharing Swedes at The Pirate Bay and to increased usage of Newsgroups and private BitTorrent tracker sites instead. As is always the case with a crackdown on a specific file-sharing program or site, it merely means that users turn to alternative sites and programs but, never do they usually throw in the towel and go legit.

So far I haven’t notice any filtering of either site’s search results but, it’s hard to believe they would do this instead of merely blocking access to US visitors and stand up for the principles of user privacy and net neutrality. By eliminating copyrighted video content as requested by the MPAA they will only lose traffic to competing sites like the Pirate Bay and others and merely be reduced to glorified porn and PC game hubs.

**UPDATE:

ISOHunt has posted a response in regards to filtering copyrighted content

First of all, we do filtering on links that’s been identified for various reasons. It maybe virus infected files in torrents, it maybe copyright owners requesting takedown of links to their material. For copyright takedowns, we’ve long had a copyright policy and procedure for it. This is not censorship on content, this is filtering for identified abuse. Although DMCA has often been used as a way to censor, that’s a problem with the DMCA and the “request and takedown” regime itself, and the way some websites blindly accept takedown requests.

While I claim to be no saint, we do random sampling on requested links and verify against the identity of the owner requesting their takedown. We have on occasions rejected requests due to situations like music companies requesting takedown of torrents that looks like porn. That also goes into problems of how do you know whether torrents are what they claim to be by their filenames, but that’s another issue.

On the recent news of our partnership with FileRights.com, some clarification on a lot of misinformed reporting and comments. We haven’t started using their database yet, the system is still being developed. The idea is to take some pain away from the current “email takedown request, verify links, respond” process to “establish identity as copyright holder or its agent once, use API’s to automate the requests, and we random sample the legitimacy of the requests”. Nothing more or less is done to our copyright policy for filtering based on identified, unauthorized links to copyrighted works. It’s not DRM and it’s not censorship. It’s to automate the process so it’s easier for content owners (request once instead of 100 different BitTorrent trackers and sites), and easier for us (verify and process once for multiple sites, and no need for legalese in emails).

If you don’t like it, take it up with your congressmen about the DMCA if you are in the US. Or, seed torrents of stuff that you produced, and no problems for any of us. Wink Bram Cohen did say something about BitTorrent not designed for piracy, and I think he’s right.

>> This reply by ISOHunt brings up some interesting questions and responses, not the least of which is the statement about “BitTorrent not being designed for piracy”(Say what?).

In a response to this posting on ISOHunt a Canadian has the gumption to note how insane the whole affair is, that as a CANADIAN visiting a CANADIAN SITE why is it that it is allowing an AMERICAN LOBBYING GROUP to tell it what to do?

Perhaps the real blame lies in us, the American people, for consistently allowing by default our corporations and our country to tell others what’s best for them and how to run their show. Net neutrality may just be a pipe dream after all if we’re allowed to scare the whole world into complying with our own self-interests.

Downloadsquad responds to RIAA threats

from Downloadsquad
Posted Jun 15th 2007 4:07PM by Grant Robertson
Recently, when a counterclaim was filed by Ms. Del Cid against the RIAA containing allegations of Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse, Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Civil Extortion, and Civil conspiracy, we published a short editorial on our perception of the unfolding events. Del Cid’s allegations are quite serious; in her and her lawyer’s view the RIAA broke serious criminal statutes while amassing evidence for their case.

Our editorializing seems to have ruffled the feathers of an IFPI executive who is now threatening action, not against us, but against another blog who simply linked to our piece. In an effort to quell what Paul Birch of Revolver Records calls, “malicious statements and blogs on the internet” he has threatened Andrew Dubber of the blog New Music Strategies with veiled words about lawsuits, and by directly threatening to file a formal complaint against him with the University of Central England, Dubber’s employer. All because in the course of discussion on the topic Andrew Dubber’s blog follows exclusively he felt it relevant to link to something we wrote.

Shame on you Mr. Birch.

We may not like hot dogs Mr. Birch. However, when we see someone eating one we don’t attempt to knock it out of his hand, we simply continue to eat our hamburger and remind ourselves that the hot dog eater is free to hold whatever belief, preference or opinion he wishes. If the juicy hamburger of opinion we attempted to share with our readers offends you, you have every right to say so. Threatening the career of another human being who shares our distaste for hot dogs is unethical and wrong. Just as it would be if we slapped the hot dog from your hand.

The defendant in this case has every right to file counterclaim against your sister organization, the RIAA and we have every right to offer opinion on that counterclaim. Andrew Dubber has every right to link to our opinion in the course of conversation. These are all luxuries we enjoy and obligations we undertake as members of an advanced and free society. You also have the legal right to complain to anyone about whatever you deem worthy of complaint; Ethically and professionally however, you’ve planted yourself on rather shaky ground.

Let me make perfectly clear; We’d do it again. I’ve personally followed the RIAA/BPI/IFPI’s litigious nonsense for years, writing many widely read and well respected articles on the subject. I’ve never, nor has anyone who writes for this blog, made any threatening statements — as Paul Birch claims — or given more than opinion from the perspective of a music fan, computer expert and hobby-grade legal analyst. RIAA lawsuits are a subject we feel passionate about; Not because we support widespread and rampant piracy but because we are dedicated to individuals like ourselves who increasingly come under attack from corporate interests, and the erosion of fair use rights. We firmly believe that the RIAA’s legal tactics are unfair, advantageous and despicable, and we know quite well the stories of lives which have been torn apart financially and, emotionally by their incorrectly aimed “scattergun” approach to legal action.

If Paul Birch would like to discuss how he feels we’ve been wrong — how we’ve “singled out RIAA management” for malicious statements — we welcome his inquiry. I’d personally love to discuss the concept of malice with a high-ranking executive in the music business.

Paul, you can personally reach me, Grant Robertson, the Lead Blogger of Download Squad by email or through our comment system. I look forward to your reply.

Update: Andrew Dubber’s blog has gone off-line for reasons which are still unclear. Jon Newton of P2Pnet has republished the email exchange between Dubber and Birch in full, Thanks Jon!

AT&T to start scanning their users for pirate material…

So AT&T wants to began to scan every file that people send over their network, I think that this is a balant violation of peoples privacy, but since AT&T already gave your phone records to the4 government I guess they could care less. This was brought on because of a deal that they have with Hollywood, about selling TV shows, or so such. I would think the internet would be up in arms about this, but because AT&T gets the Iphone I guess people will just take one for the team.
LA Times [via Broadband Reports]

RIAA Accused of Extortion, Conspiracy, etc..

Aren’t these the people that said that tapes would kill them? Apparently RIAA is going to court for extortion, conspiracy, computer fraud, trespass, and kicking babies (I think don’t quote me) All in all I think that this is rather funny, because all I can say is it’s about time. I’m pretty sure what these people are doing violates some parts of the Bill of Rights.

• In the case of UMG v. Del Cid, the defendant has filed the following five (5) counterclaims against the RIAA, under Florida, federal, and California law:

  1. Trespass

  2. Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030)

  3. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201)

  4. Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523)

  5. Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code §§ 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. § 559.72 et seq.

hopefull they’ll get convicted but since the courts love the bigh corps, Enron, they’ll probably just get slapped on the wrist.
Recording Industry vs the People

DRM-free iTunes Songs Have Embedded User Info

So Itunes has apparently started to release songs free of DRM protection rights. A big win for Pirates and normal people who use Itunes and don’t have ipods, right? Turns out that the first parts of the almost epic win is wrong. These songs that have no DRM are embedded with your user information. So if you end up uploading the songs you bought, you could get busted. Sound like this is a win more for RIAA not the pirates.
TUAW Tip: Don’t Torrent That Song… [TUAW]

Rumor: EMI’s DRM-Free Tracks Hitting iTunes This Week

-from Gizomodo

Electronista is reporting that “according to French sources familiar with negotiations for multiple online music stores,” Apple is set to drop EMI’s DRM-free catalog onto iTunes this week. Techs are entering the last stages of encoding and prepping the files to go live.

While previous statements seemed to indicate a gradual release starting this month, the kinda-but-not-really late release is in part due to a desire to dump the whole catalog at once.

Also partly to blame is EMI’s recent wheelings and dealings with Amazon, which may have kept Apple and EMI from finalizing their deal until last week. In sum, keep your eyes open but hopes only moderately skyward on Tuesday. They’ll get there eventually. – Matt Buchanan

DRM-free iTunes set this week? [Electronista]

New bill lets colleges use federal funds to fight P2P

-from ARS techncia
By Nate Anderson | Published: April 02, 2007 – 07:15AM CT

Representative Ric Keller (R-FL) feels that colleges in America are teaching students more than literature, history, and computer science. They are also dens of thievery, places where students learn to steal “billions of dollars in intellectual property from hardworking people whose jobs hang in the balance.” Rep. Keller is talking about illegal file-swapping, of course, and his new bill (HR 1689) could give schools more money to combat the P2P scourge.
Related Stories

The bill is called the “Curb Illegal Downloading on College Campuses Act of 2007.” It amends the Higher Education Act, a bill that supplies federal money to universities, allowing that money to be used for programs that reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content.

The goal is to free up university money that would otherwise be spent on bandwidth costs and to keep networks more secure by keeping out viruses that may attach themselves to P2P files. The bill notes that “computer systems at colleges and universities are intended primarily to aid in educating and increase research capability among students and faculty;” clogging a campus network with BitTorrent traffic does not fall under the school’s educational mandate.

The Higher Education Act (HEA) generally allows schools to spend the money they receive only on certain prescribed areas such as financial aid grants and Pell loans. The new bill would allow that money to be used for more things, but does not contain a request for additional funding. Whether schools would be interested in using a limited pool of federal money to police student file-swapping remains to be seen.

There’s no guarantee that the bill will make it to a vote, of course. It has already been shunted to the House Committee on Education and Labor, and might languish there until the end of this Congressional term except for the fact that the HEA needs to be reauthorized, and soon. The HEA expires this summer, and Congress will certainly find a way to extend it yet again or fully reauthorize it, since few things look worse than cutting massive student aid programs.

Campuses have come under plenty of scrutiny in the past few weeks, with the RIAA and the MPAA calling schools out for high levels of illicit P2P usage. Individual representatives in Congress have also taken an interest in the issue; can it be long before the carrot of additional funds for security is supplemented with the stick of penalties for not addressing the problem?

Students largely ignore RIAA instant settlement offers

-From ARS Technica
By Ken Fisher | Published: March 26, 2007 – 12:13PM CT

While the RIAA is touting a settlement percentage north of 25 percent with its recent campaign against file sharing at US colleges and universities, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of students are shunning the insta-settlement approach. According to the RIAA, some 116 students have used their new web site to settle copyright infringement claims, but that means that another 284, or 71 percent of students contacted through the program aren’t taking the easy way out. At least not yet.
Related Stories

The average settlement amount offered by the RIAA is about $3,000, so this latest pre-litigation strategy has drummed up at least $350,000 in revenue by our estimate. That’s no small amount of money, but considering that music sales this quarter were nearly $100 million, one wonders if the haul from this strategy is worth the public image problems that it’s deepening. Then again, public image hasn’t been something that appears to concern the RIAA, but with music sales on the decline, perhaps they ought to be taking this more seriously.

A student who received a pre-litigation letter told Ars that he refused to engage their offer because they offer zero proof of what is alleged. “It’s like receiving blackmail. ‘We know what you did, pay us’ is the message, but they don’t really know me or what I have done,” he wrote. The student wishes to remain anonymous.

He knows that students who ignore the pre-litigation letters are just asking the RIAA to pursue them more, but he hopes that when the RIAA is actually faced with having to produce evidence that they’ll simply come up short. The current approach by the RIAA is to simply tell students that each song shared is a $750 violation, so one’s fine is often calculated based on the number of songs the RIAA says that they’ve shared. Yet the RIAA offers no proof of their claims, while sometimes trying to make students feel like they’re getting a deal.

Despite the low response, the RIAA believes that the program is going well, and they have sent another 405 pre-litigation letters to students at 23 universities. “This is not our preferred course, but we hope that students will understand the consequences of stealing music and that our partners in the college community will appreciate the proactive role they can play,” said Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, in a statement.

According to the Associated Press, one student received a letter demanding $590,000 in payment. Such letters are apparently only sent to egregious file sharers, for the average settlement rarely tops $5,000. After all, the RIAA wants to offer a good deal, you see.