VERY,VERY HOT READS, I Would Read The News In This Thread This Thead Is To post Any Thing Ye Want About The News,,NEWS WAS MOVED,READ MY FIRST POST..CHEERS
p2p news / p2pnet: Big Tobacco's Philip Morris USA says it'll stop supplying cigarettes to, "illegal Internet and mail order dealers" as part of an agreement with attorneys general for 37 states and territories.
Its, "voluntarily agreed to end shipments of any of its products to customers, Indian tribes and enterprises that the states deem illegal, says New York AG Eliot Spitzer, quoted by the Associated Press.
For "voluntarily" read "had no choice but to".
There's a lot of similarity between Big Tobacco and Big Music.
Neither gives a damn about their customers, they both lie through their teeth and keep on doing so even when they've been proved to be lying, they both use law-slingers Shook, Hardy, Bacon, to defend their indefensible positions, and each has teams of expert truth adjustment specialists to con the media.
Most First Nation tribes say they're sovereign states and therefore, North American tobacco taxes are none of their concern.
Levies on cigarettes and other tobacco products vary wildly state to state and, in Canada, province to province.
This opened a window for a number of First Nations in the US and Canada who were, and still are, selling tax-free smokes. And many of them used the new income to improve the appalling conditions on their reservations .
Philip Morris, together with the other companies such as RJR Reynolds, were often accused of cross-border, inter-provincial and state smuggling, and of supplying cheap cigarettes to First Nations, knowing full well they'd be sold sans taxes directly from the reserves, and under-the-counter off them.
When the Net became popular, a number of tribes launched web sites featuring low-priced smokes.
Now, "The action is the third prong of the states' efforts to curb the sale of cigarettes to minors over the Internet and by mail order, often to avoid substantial state sales taxes," says the Associated Press." In March, major credit card companies agreed to stop processing payments from Internet retailers. Months ago, shippers DHL and UPS Inc. agreed to stop shipping packages from the vendors."
Spitzer is leading attorneys from 33 states, three territories and the District of Columbia, says AP, which has Philip Morris spokeswoman Denise Keane saying, "Our voluntary agreement ... sets a framework for continued information sharing with law enforcement and support of their efforts to eliminate illegal sales of Philip Morris USA products".
This is akin to Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI claiming they have customers' best interests at heart.
"The attorneys general consider all Internet cigarette sales to be illegal because they violate one or more state or federal laws aimed at stopping sales to underage smokers and collecting sales taxes," says AP.
"They said many of the sales through foreign Web sites also violate federal smuggling, cigarette labeling, money laundering and contraband laws."
Also See:
Associated Press - Philip Morris to stop supplying dealers, January 26, 2006
http://p2pnet.net/story/7739
Elektra v. Barker is not the latest issue of Daredevil: The Man Without Fear!, but rather one of the RIAA's ongoing court proceedings, wherein the record companies seek damages from a Denise Barker. The case started out as a John Doe, until Verizon?faced with a subpoena, not a court order?released the name of the customer associated with an IP address through which the indefatiguable sleuths at Elektra's disposal had found 611 songs shared, some of which surely violated their copyright.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of a lack of evidence that any songs were actually shared; the fact that the RIAA invesigation turned up a list of available files is not sufficient to prove that any files changed virtual hands. On Tuesday, the RIAA lawyer team filed opposition papers against the motion for dismissal, and that's where the real fun begins. You see, according to the RIAA (PDF), copyright is breached the moment content is made available through any medium, and there's no need to prove anything happened beyond the listing:
The Ninth Circuit in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) also found that "making available" constituted copyright infringement. In Napster, the court evaluated the situation where an individual made copyrighted sound recordings available for distribution on a peer-to-peer program, but did not submit evidence of actual distribution. The court held that "Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights." Id. at 1014. This same analysis was also applied in Matlow v. Solomon, No. Civ. 04-6109, 2005 WL 309976 (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2005). In Matlow, the defendant "offered for sale unauthorized copies of [plaintiff's] photographs by listing them on the eBay internet auction web site." Id. at *1. Without proof of actual distribution, the court held that "it appears undisputed that defendant violated the copyright act." Id.
The cited case law appears to give the argument solid support, but only until you do your homework. Take, for example, the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case they refer to as a precedent for deeming a list of downloadable files equal to actual distribution. After Napster went bankrupt, the case changed its name to UMG Recordings Inc. et. al. v. Bertelsmann AG Inc. et. al. and continued to the next level of the judicial system, where US District Judge Marilyn Patel dismissed the case (PDF):
... it is apparent that plaintiffs' "indexing" theory falls well short of meeting the requirements for establishing direct copyright infringement. Rather than requiring proof of the actual dissemination of a copyrighted work or an offer to distribute that workfor the purpose of its further distribution or public performance, plaintiffs' theory is premised on the assumption that any offer to distribute a copyrighted work violates section 106(3). This is not sufficient to satisfy plaintiffs' burden of proving that Napster or its users directly infringed their copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, as they must do if they are to hold defendants secondarily liable for that infringement. Accordingly, the court holds that defendants are entitled to summary judgement on this issue.
The executive summary: your copyright is only breached if you actually sell, lend out, or give away unauthorized copies of protected content, and you need to prove that it happened, rather than point at a list of downloadable files and guess that it did. Maybe the RIAA lawyers missed that stage of their precious support case because of the name change; maybe they chose to ignore it in the hopes that District Judge Kenneth Karas and his staff won't catch on. Whatever the case, the RIAA seems to have moved into full desperation mode, crying for stronger DRM everywhere, bullying teenagers into perjury, and turning the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head. All the while, they spin record dollar sales as declining CD shipments, and blame it all on piracy.
As a direct result of piracy over the P2P networks, Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain devastating financial losses. [...] Plaintiffs' losses from online music piracy have resulted in layoffs of thousands of employees in the music industry.
The last time the RIAA released actual sales data was for the the first half of 2005, and that release bemoaned a 6.5 percent drop in physical CD shipments, clearly due to piracy. Fast-forward a bit to the full-year stats calculated from SoundScan data, and that 6.5 percent drop is covered by the 7.3 percent market share of legal downloads. The real issue here is that the recording industry is losing the tight control they once had over where and how you could buy music, and they don't want to lose the double-dipping revenue streams they currently enjoy.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060126-6057.html
If you're into reading legal proceedings verbatim, here's a doozy for you. It gets even better if you like to see RIAA lawyers dragging themselves, rather than their chosen targets, through the dirt. Let's get a feel for what's going on here:
In Motown v. Nelson, pending in federal court in Port Huron, Michigan (Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division), the defendants -- Mr. and Mrs. Nelson -- have made a motion for attorneys fees against the RIAA attorneys, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927 for unreasonable and vexatious litigation and improperly interfering and/or obtaining false testimony from a prospective witness.
Got all that? Good. For the rest of us, here's what it means. The RIAA sued the Nelsons, who in turn are basically asking for the case to be dismissed and their legal fees reimbursed, because the RIAA lawyers got the testimonies they wanted from some witnesses through coercion and/or extortion.
The transcript of the deposition that followed this motion gives us a glimpse into exactly how far the recording industry is willing to go to justify their crusade against file sharing. It's also very long, so I'll just give you a taste here:
Q. What other areas do you feel that Mr. Krichbaum put words in your mouth?
A. I don't remember any specifically. Just trying to get me to say that Angie and Jim or I had ripped the music off.
[...]
Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he get you to say something that wasn't true?
A. From the statement I read, yes.
Ms. Granado went on to testify that Mr. Krichbaum had urged her to provide false and inaccurate testimony with regard to the entire portion of her original testimony implicating the Nelsons.
Q. Did he tell you why he needed you to stick with your original false story?
A. Because he said he didn't have a case unless I did.
Q. So, he told you that he didn't have a case unless you stuck with the original false story?
A. Yes.
This is a 15-year-old girl, telling the story of how lawyers of a major industry group told her she had to commit perjury, just so they could win their case. Some might call that racketeering, and it's most certainly a highly illegal way to win a court case. The deposition strongly suggests that the RIAA knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, and that they were perfectly happy to do anything in their power to win anyway. Funny how rather than open their own wallets to settle, they prefer breaking the law themselves. (Cue Radiohead's Karma Police. On second thought, don't. I'll get sued for not paying license fees.)
In response, counsel for Mr. Nelson then asked Plaintiffs' representative to provide a factual and legal basis for its position. Plaintiffs' representative responded that 'It didn't matter, someone is going to be responsible and someone is going to have to pay.' Plaintiffs' representative further threatened that unless Mr. Nelson paid $4,000.00 immediately, his client authorized him to conduct extensive discovery which would only increase the amount that he would eventually owe.
Nice. We've known all along that it's all thud and blunder, a wave of scare tactics meant to force the small folks to settle in the face of bigwig lawyers dropping of intimidating subpoenas. Sometimes they're obviously just guessing, and all they're doing is forcing the actual file sharers further underground where they're harder to find, which leads to the next round of lawsuits hitting an even lower ratio of bad guys to innocent people. They're way out of feet in which to shoot themselves, and if albums sales drop a little, maybe it's because they're scaring away their own customers. Or, more likely, they're simply proving time and time again at this is an industry that doesn't deserve our business.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051230-5871.html
WASHINGTON -- Music shipments of all physical formats to retail and other outlets declined by 5.8 percent in the first half of 2005, while a growing legal digital marketplace helped to offset the overall decline, according to data released today by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
While the area of legal digital downloads showed some progress, the music industry continues to be impacted by illegal online downloading, rampant unauthorized CD burning and traditional counterfeiting of physical products. These various forms of piracy are the primary culprits for a 6.5 percent decline in CD shipments from record companies to various distribution channels.
Even as the overall market declined, legal digital sales of singles grew 154 percent in the first six months of 2005, compared to January ? June of 2004. In the first half of 2005, 148.7 million digital singles were downloaded, compared to 58.6 million in the first half of 2004; 5.1 million full-length albums were downloaded from legal online music sites in 2005, compared to 1.5 million full-length albums downloaded in the first half of 2004. The total estimated retail value of digital singles and albums sold in the first half of 2005 was $198 million, compared with $73 million for the first half of 2004 (estimate derived using current prices of $0.99 and $9.99, respectively).
Despite important and effective strides by the music community to begin to slow the effects of piracy, it remains an ongoing threat to the legitimate sale of music online and in record stores. Analysis by the NPD Group reveals that "burned CDs" accounted for 29 percent of music obtained by listeners in 2004. The NPD study showed that among households with Internet access that are burning CDs, 17 percent of those are burning more than 10 CDs per month. According to Nielsen SoundScan, record store sales of the Top 200 albums, the most frequently illegally burned and downloaded, declined from 102.8 million units to 93 million units, when comparing the first half of 2005 versus the first half of 2004.
When shipments of all physical products are combined with sales of digital downloads, the total unit count for the first half of the year is 343.9 million, which represents a 2.4 percent decline (counting both digital and physical singles as 1/12th of an album).
The growth and potential of the emerging digital marketplace is also reflected in new RIAA surveys and analysis. According to a June 2005 survey by Public Opinion Strategies (POS), on behalf of the RIAA, twice as many adults (ages 18 ? 54) have paid to download music as compared to a similar survey last year ? 13 percent in 2005 versus 6 percent in June 2004. Additionally, according to that same survey, the percentage of adults who have paid to download music legally is now higher than the number of adults who have downloaded music from an illegal peer-to-peer network ? 13 percent have paid to download while 12 percent say they have downloaded illegally from a peer-to-peer site.
?Even as we continue to transform ourselves and transition to the digital marketplace, the music community is still suffering enormously from the impact of various forms of music theft,? said Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. ?One of the stories we need to repeatedly tell in the coming months is that illegal downloading and burning continue to compromise the industry?s ability to invest in the new bands of tomorrow.?
?We are encouraged by the growth of the digital music marketplace,? added Bainwol. ?Music labels are working closely with their technology partners to offer fans an incredible, high-quality experience ? from download to subscription to legal peer-to-peer sites. And by handing down the unanimous Grokster decision, the Supreme Court has done its part to help level the playing field for all legitimate players. The debate about right and wrong has been settled.?
The RIAA?s CEO also said that the music companies have worked diligently over the last several years to respond to consumers? demands by offering high-value music experiences. Fans? passion for music, as well as the importance that it plays in their lives, is as high as ever. According to a survey conducted for the RIAA by Taylor Research, 91 percent of adults polled said that listening to music is important in their daily lives.
In addition to an unprecedented array of digital ways to access music ? download services, subscription services, nascent legal peer-to-peer services, cell phone ring tones and ring tunes, and Internet and satellite radio ? music companies are working closely with retailers and others to develop exciting high-value offerings in physical formats. DualDisc, an innovative new product that combines music, film and video on a single, two-sided disc, shipped more than 7 million units in the first half of 2005, including two consecutive No. 1 albums earlier in the year.
?In a relatively short amount of time, this industry has revolutionized itself and the way it does business,? Bainwol said. ?We are responding to consumers, working with our partners in various technology industries, and delivering some of the best music ever to our fans.?
A copy of the report can be found here.
#####
The 2005 statistics are supplied by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP to the RIAA and are broken down by U.S. music shipments from record companies to retail outlets, and all U.S. music shipments from record companies (including retail shipments and direct-to-consumer sales and special markets). Dollar values are based on suggested retail list price for the record companies' shipments.
http://www.riaa.com/News/newsletter/100305.asp
* 19:00 26 January 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Debora MacKenzie
The infectious prions that cause Chronic Wasting Disease, an infection similar to BSE that afflicts North American deer and elk have been found in the parts of the animals that people eat. No one knows if CWD can jump to humans, but if it does hunters in affected areas might be at risk.
CWD was first diagnosed as a spongiform encephalopathy in captive deer and elk in Colorado in the 1970s, and in wild deer and elk in the region in the 1980s. But in the 1990s it spread widely within the elk farming industry, jumped to wild deer, and now affects two provinces of Canada and 13 US states.
Like the related sheep disease scrapie ? though unlike BSE ? CWD spreads from animal to animal, says Glenn Telling of the University of Kentucky at Lexington, US. Deer housed with infected animals, or fed infected brain experimentally, contract the disease.
Because of this there are fears that the CWD prion might be distributed widely in the deer?s tissues ? as scrapie is in sheep. Efforts to find the infectious prion in the muscle of infected animals, by seeing whether antibodies to the prion could find any and bind on, have previously failed.
But Telling?s lab has now shown that diseased prions can reside in muscle of deer infected with CWD, by using transgenic mice.
Transgenic mice
The team replaced the gene for the normal mouse version of the prion protein with the normal gene from deer, so the mice made the normal, healthy deer protein. They then injected the mouse brains with tissue from infected deer. Twelve to 18 months later, the mice developed encephalopathy.
Tissues from both the infected deers' brains and thigh muscle caused disease. Muscle took slightly longer to cause disease than brain tissue, showing it had slightly less prion.
?We don?t know that it is transmitted in the wild by animals eating muscle from infected animals,? cautions Telling. ?We now have to see where else the prion might be,? including saliva and even excrement, using more transgenic mice.
Brain warnings
?Because we tested deer that were already ill,? he told New Scientist, ?we don?t know what the distribution of prion is in animals that are still incubating the disease.? Hunters have been warned by wildlife agencies not to kill and eat obviously ill animals, but an animal not yet showing signs of the disease might still carry the abnormal prion, albeit less of it.
It is also unknown whether people can catch encephalopathy by eating CWD-infected meat, as they can from eating BSE-tainted meat. Anecdotal reports that hunters develop the human prion disease CJD in unusual numbers have never been confirmed. State officials have issued warnings to hunters not to eat brain or spinal cord ? the tissues most affected.
?If I were a hunter I would be cautious about eating deer in areas affected,? says Telling. But he notes that not much testing of wildlife has been done, and it is not clear how prevalent the infection is.
Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1122864)
Printable version Email to a friend RSS Feed
p2p news / p2pnet: Activists Aid Woman in Music Piracy Case, says ABC News. Internet activists help get lawyer for woman accused of piracy, says the Boston Herald. Activists aid woman in music piracy case, says Business Week, Activists Aid Woman in Music Piracy Case, says Forbes and on the other side of the world, Internet activists help get lawyer for woman accused of piracy, says the Malaysia Star.
And they're all talking about you and your efforts to help new York mother Patti Santangelo single-handedly take on the Big Four record label cartel's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). There's a whole raft more of similar headlines on Google, Yahoo, and so on. But you get the point.
You've been contributing to the Fight Goliath campaign and thanks to you, as I write this, $6,378.88 has so far been poured into the kitty. And it's allowed Patti to retain lawyer Jordan Glass to help her.
Because there's no way on earth she can take on the likes of Shook, Hard Bacon by herself.
Most of the headlines refer to Jim Fitzgerald's Associated Press national report, or re-hashes of it.
Yesterday, I heard from him in an email saying Patti was in court. When he asked her how she was now able to afford a lawyer, she credited you ? all the people not only in North America, but from around the world who've donated dollars, lira, pounds ??.
Most of the stories, such as the one in Forbes, were based on Fitzgerald's story and among the questions he asked was, "What kind of people are the donors?"
"Ordinary kids, musicians, students, moms, dads, writers, waiters, programmers, bus drivers, artists," we said. Another was, "Can you tell me why you started raising money for her case?"
We're, "trying to help Patti take on what's become the common enemy - the corporate music industry, with its bottomless pockets and legions of lawyers," we said.
So ? pat yourselves on the back : ) But remember: tyis is the start, not the finish. And if you're wondering, read Alex H's thoughts.
For now, keep it going. Make a donation - doesn't matter how much or how little - through the button below, and/or by adding one to your web site. Get the code here.
If you don't like PayPal, you can send your contribution by snail mail to the address below:
Patricia Santangelo
c/o Ray Beckerman
Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP
99 Park Ave (16th Fl)
New York, NY 10016
And here's a list of the sites which are sponsoring Fight Goliath buttons:
7 plead guilty for allowing one to upload an unreleased film
Posted by Seán Byrne on 27 January 2006 - 00:05 - Source: BBC News - Entertainment
At first, it seems like making a copy of a movie to give to a friend may pose no harm. Well, Albert Valente likely thought the same when he took a copy of George Lucas' Final Star Wars movie from a Los Angeles post-production facility and made copies of it to pass to 6 Star Wars fans he knew. At the time, the movie was not even in the cinema yet. Unfortunately, one of his fans who received a copy, Mr Dimaano passed it on to a work colleague, who in turn made it available over the Internet.
In the US, it is federal crime to illegally distribute a movie online before its DVD release. While it is not clear how these people were caught, they admitted to piracy charges and the 6 men and one woman all pleaded guilty to criminal conduct as a result of allowing the 8th person to get a copy of the movie and make it available over the Internet. Sentencing is due to take place on April 12th in which each will face a penalty of up to a $100,000 fine and one year jail term.
The MPAA announced that they are glad to see these thieves brought to justice, in which Hollywood claims that piracy costs the movie industry $3.5 billion each year. Thanks to both heystoopid and sidz who used our news submit to let us know about the following news:
Seven Star Wars fans have admitted copying Revenge of the Sith a week before its cinema release.
They admitted piracy charges after copying and passing a DVD copy of the movie among them last May.
The six US men and one woman also pleaded guilty to criminal conduct in allowing an eighth person to obtain the film and upload it onto the internet.
They each face a maximum penalty of a $100,000 (Ł56,000) fine and one year in jail when sentenced on 12 April.
As the movie came from a post-protection facility, chances are that it is not watermarked to a given individual as opposed to the screeners that get sent out for reviewers. So in the case, it gives an indication that the movie industry is keeping a good eye on the first sightings of a new unreleased movie and quickly close in on the culprits once anything is spotted. Unfortunately just like a virus, by the time they catch the culprit, the movie they released will have become widely available by that stage.
heystoopid added: Oh well, I knew star wars fans could be obsessive, but I love the claim "Hollywood studios said movie piracy cost the film industry $3.5bn (Ł1.95bn) per year." , which is offered, without formal proof! Now RIAA, makes very but larger value for music piracy world wide as well! For me this would indicate, for given the total value of world wide sales of this media, that the pirates would need to maintain some very large factories and retail sales outlets, with a very strong presence in every pub and sunday market in the land selling the pirated media by the multiple car bootfull, just to reach the $ value claimed. But don't you love, the modern news media corporations, repeating verbatim, the fictitious propaganda and extraordinary claims, from all the music and video companies, without formal proof! But alas, how strange we don't hear from the powers to be, about regular busts and raids made on these factories? Oh well, let the cynics among us, remain alive and well!
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13000
Pre-production Blu-ray PC Disc Burner review at CT Magazine
Posted by Dan Bell on 26 January 2006 - 18:53 - Source: i4U
DaemonSyn used our news submit to tell us I4U is reporting that the German site CT magazine got their hands on a pre-production Samsung Blu-ray Burner for PCs and published a review.
The Samsung SH-B022 features a 2x BD Disc writing speed. A 25GB BD disc took 43:40min. to burn. The review about this Samsung Blu-ray drive is pretty positive. The final version will also support double layer BD discs with 50GB capacity. What is also still missing in the SH-B022 is the AACS copy protection, which is still not finalized.
The Samsung Blu-ray burner is supposed to sell for around $500 in April. To use it to playback HD movies on your PC you need apparently at least a 3Ghz CPU and a 128MB Graphics-Card that supports that support copy protection interfaces HDMI, DVI or HDCP.
More details in this report on Heise (German).
Judge: Google cache kosher when it comes to copyright
1/26/2006 10:45:55 PM, by Nate Anderson
Let's say, just for fun, that you lived in Nevada in 2004. Let's also say that you were a lawyer, a lawyer who wanted to make a lot of money?but without working too hard. How might you have gone about it? Well, perhaps you sat down at a computer for three days in January and typed up 51 pieces of what can only be called "text" (neither poetry nor prose quite seems to fit and "string of letters" seems a little harsh). You gave them titles like "Good Burritos" and created stanzas that would make T.S. Eliot weep:
There's this burrito joint that's not too far from here,
and they make a pretty good burrito.
It's also a very inexpensive burrito, as their
cadillac [sic] entre [sic] is the most expensive at $4.10.
And for that, you get a whole lot of food.
A burrito as big as your head, even.
Then, because you're a lawyer and you've really thought this through, you created a web site and posted all 51 works there. Then you registered for copyright on every work and waited for Google to index the site. Once that happened, you searched for your own material, found it, then clicked on the "Cached" link to display a copy stored on Google's servers. Why would this make you a truckload of money? Because you then sued Google for violating your "exclusive rights to reproduce copies and distribute copies of those works."
We sincerely wish this were a joke, but it was instead the actual plan of one Blake Field, a Nevada lawyer. Those of us at the Orbiting HQ with any remaining innocence immediately lost it upon hearing the sordid tale, which wins the award for Most Cynical Use of the Legal System in the new millenium. We were cheered to find, though, that a solid judicial beatdown was administered to Mr. Field by the Honorable Robert C. Jones, US District Court Judge.
Actually, the story above does not even do full justice to the bizarre facts of the case. Mr. Field puposely created a robots.txt file that allowed robots to index the site, and he failed to use the "no-archive" meta-tag even though he was familiar with it. He made no effort to contact Google about removing the cached version of his site from their servers. Then he sued them for US$2.5 million dollars in statutory damages?on works he had all but crapped out over a couple of days and had no intention of publishing.
Unsurprisingly, the judge took a dim view of such matters, and ruled in favor of Google on every count. But despite the asinine nature of the lawsuit, it does raise interesting questions about copyright regarding Google's cache. The judge ruled that Google could not be held guilty of "direct infringement" because such infringement requires "a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines occasioned by others not sufficient." Because Google's indexing is automated and the purpose of the indexing is not generally to infringe upon copyright, the judge ruled that they could not be held liable. He also claimed that Field had granted an "implied license" to Google by publishing his material and then specifically allowing the Googlebot to crawl the site. Third, Field is "estopped" from making his copyright claim because he actively induced Google to use his material and made no attempt to contact them once they had done so. Finally, the judge also ruled that Google's cache represented a "fair use" of Field's copyrighted work, and complied with all four parts of the "fair use" test enshrined in copyright law. (For more information, check out the entire decision. It's only 25 pages and a good read.)
Obviously, a case like this has implications for Google's battle with publishers over its Google Print program. Though the issues are not exactly the same, Google could mount a similar defense against charges from the publishing industry that its plan to show snippets of copyrighted books would infringe on their rights. Google would make money through the program, of course, but that alone does not prevent the company from exercising the same fair use rights as anyone else (see p. 16 of the decision for more on this). It will no doubt take many more cases to sort out all of the copyright issues bound up with search technology, but this most recent case sends a clear message that Google and its cache are standing on solid legal ground.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060126-6063.html
By Fuad Abazovic: Friday 27 January 2006, 16:55
THE UPGRADE market remains very strong. Just fancy that, journos are only talking about PCIe variations of motherboards and cards while over 55 per cent of the channel market is still AGP.
That?s why Nvidia and ATI are working hard to bring their new AGP based cards out. ATI has X1300 PRO and X1600 PRO out while Nvidia has many SKUs including the very successful Geforce 6600 vanilla and GT and the soon to come 7800 GS AGP. I smell a 7300 AGP in the offing soon, as well.
System integrators and OEMs have completely moved to PCIe based cards only and that is why every new PC that you buy will have one of these cards. It is almost impossible to buy a new PC with AGP card inside.
AGP is still here to stay, as it took ages before we got rid of PCI cards, and you can still buy them in the stores. Nvidia and ATI stopped making their fastest cards for AGP as it does not make much financial sense. People who will spend $650 for a graphic card can upgrade a motherboard as well. Actually most of them did it ages ago. µ
By Mario Rodrigues: Friday 27 January 2006, 15:07
ONE OF our regular use inkjet printers had run out of ink and another was close to empty. Some months back OEM cartridges for our HP Officejet were bought, which cost around sixty dollars.
Now that both our regular use printers needed to be serviced at the same time, and an older machine needed ink as well, $164 for new cartridges and shipping couldn?t be justified - OEM cartridges direct from manufacturers. There had to be an alternative solution that would save us some dough.
Enter the universal inkjet refill kit from Computer Business Works Inc. The about page on the company?s Web site says the following: "Computer Business Works, Inc. was established in 1996 to develop and manufacture inkjet and laser toner cartridge refill kits and compatible cartridge replacements. We are the largest producer of inkjet and laser printer refill kits in the United States. Based in southern California, CBW, Inc. has a total annual volume of $75 million at retail. We manufacture and ship our products from our warehouse, which encompasses over 44,000 square feet and employs over 300 people."
"Our products are carried by a number of large American chains, including CompUSA, Walmart, Fry?s, and Sam?s Club. The Universal Inkjet Refill Kit has been shown in several prestigious mail order catalogues and featured on infomercials on QVC and the Home Shopping Network. We have individual distributors in the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as our website, and we are dedicated to supplying quality inkjet ink and toner to individuals, businesses, and educational institutions."
CBW?s black and colour refill kits bought from Fry?s Electronics were $16.23 ($14.99) and $21.64 ($19.99) respectively. So total cost inclusive of sales tax was just under $38, which was a lot more palatable than the OEM cost of cartridges.
The HP Officejet 710 printer that was close to empty was our home printer. The Epson Stylus Scan 2500 machine that was out of ink was used for our business copying. The Canon BJ10 SX printer that needed ink as well had gone dry months before. Could it be revived?
As the Canon printer prints in black only and is over a decade old why use it? One reason is print quality. For an inkjet printer it?s pretty good - Canon claimed output quality of a laser printer. The HP Officejet couldn?t match it for quality but it prints in colour just fine. The HP machine has a tendency to bleed when it prints or copies text. So if the Canon cartridge can be saved the plan will be to use that machine for text documents.
In my experience this bleeding is nothing new. My first PC printer was a HP Deskjet 340. Its ability to print in colour was the reason it was purchased, even though my printing needs then were mainly black. But because of poor text quality, which was due to bleeding, exchanging the colour HP machine for the black only Canon printer we have today wasn?t a difficult decision.
Another printer we use to use was a Compaq IJ600, which was a rebadged Lexmark product. Compaq claimed: Experience outstanding print quality at home. That was certainly true as the black print quality surpassed that of the Canon and the colour quality for an inkjet printer was very good indeed. So you can imagine my disappointment when that printer gave up the ghost.
Manufacturer claims
CBW?s about page also says: "Quality? All of our superior inkjet and toner refill kits and compatible cartridges are made with calibrated inks and an advanced filtering system to ensure quality equal to or better than the original equipment manufacturer. Our ink exceeds all industry standards for particulates and is photograde, archival (acid-free), and colourfast. The colours are vibrant, not dull, with a defective rate of well under 1%: performance second to none."
The manufacturer claims compatibility with all inkjet printers and plain paper inkjet fax machines. The company then lists the printer manufacturers it supports: Canon, HP, Lexmark, Compaq, Dell, Xerox, Epson, Sharp, and Brother. I?ll be testing that claim against the Canon, HP, and Epson machines we use for our home and business printing.
Incongruously, the company does say in its instruction booklet that it currently doesn?t support the following Epson cartridges: T5431 to T5438 (eight cartridges) and T5441 to T5447 (seven cartridges), as they require speciality inks that currently aren?t available
The refill numbers
CBW claims that its colour and black refill kits reviewed ?refill up to 6 times?. That number can be met if both black and colour cartridges hold 16 ml of ink - based on 96 ml total ink for both colour and black kits.
The HP Officejet 710 colour cartridge holds 22.8 ml of ink (7.6 ml per colour chamber) and its black counterpart 40 ml. That?s 4.2 refills for the colour cartridge and 2.4 for its black brother. The Canon BJ10 SX cartridge holds approximately 27 ml of ink, so that?s just over 3.5 refills.
The Epson Stylus Scan 2500 print head is separate from the Epson S series cartridges. So the Epson cartridges only hold ink. To avoid the print head from drying up, Epson designed the printer so that when it registered out of ink to the user usable ink still remained in the cartridge.
The usable ink that remains caused Epson America a legal problem in 2003. Epson had to defend a lawsuit, as Epson printer owners didn?t like throwing away inkjet cartridges that still had usable ink inside. I don?t know what the outcome of that case was but I would have sided with the manufacturer.
The average amount of ink injected into the chambers of the Epson Stylus Scan 2500 colour cartridge was around 7.5 ml (22.5 ml total). The Epson colour cartridge holds 35 ml of ink (11.7 ml per colour chamber). So on average 4.2 ml of ink (35.9%) was still in the chambers prior to ink refilling. The black cartridge was the same. Even though the black Epson cartridge holds 24 ml of ink only 16 ml was injected, which meant a third hadn?t been used.
If the Stylus Scan?s ink cartridge refill figures were based on what they held it?s clear they wouldn?t be accurate. To be more accurate the ink refill figures will be based on the amount of ink injected into the cartridges - 16 ml for black and 22.5 ml for colour (7.5 ml per chamber). So the Stylus Scan?s refill figures are 6 for the black cartridge (96/16) and 4.3 for its colour counterpart (96/22.5).
It should be clear that there are big savings to be made if the inkjet cartridge refill kits deliver.
What are the potential savings?
As an example of the potential cost savings, if Epson?s ink cartridge life figures for the Stylus Scan 2500 are used -- black cartridge: 900 pages of text (ISO/IEC 10561 letter pattern), 634 pages of graphics (5% coverage); colour cartridge: 300 pages (15% coverage) -- the cost differences can be calculated - assuming CBW?s ink has the same life figures as the Epson product. The savings would still be significant even if they were worse.
Cost of OEM black and colour Epson cartridges with shipping for the Stylus Scan 2500 was $29.95 each. Cost of CBW ink per refill for the same printer was cost of inkjet refill kit divided by the number of refills. So for black: $16.23/6 = $2.71 per refill. For colour: $21.64/4.3 = $5.03 per refill. So buying OEM black and colour Epson cartridges are respectively 11.1 ($29.95/$2.71) and almost 6 times ($29.95/$5.03) more expensive than refilling used cartridges with CBW?s ink.
Cost of printing per page
Cost of Epson Stylus Scan 2500 black inkjet cartridge ($29.95) divided by 900 pages of text output and 634 pages of graphics output respectively costs 3.3 and 4.7 cents per page. That?s around 30 and 50 cents for every ten sheets printed, which is no small change.
Cost of CBW black ink per refill ($2.71) divided by 900 pages of text output and 634 pages of graphics output is respectively 0.3 and 0.4 cents per page. At under half a cent per page for both types of output that?s a very significant saving.
Cost of Epson Stylus Scan 2500 colour inkjet cartridge ($29.95) divided by 300 pages of colour output is 10 cents per page. Cost of CBW colour ink per refill ($5.03) divided by 300 pages of colour output is 1.7 cents per page. That makes printing in colour with a OEM colour cartridge 5.9 times more expensive.
Don?t forget the cost of paper. If a ream (500 sheets) costs $5 that?s a penny to be added to the cost numbers above.
Getting down to business
Both CBW?s black and colour refill kits reviewed contain 96 ml of ink and 25 ml of cartridge and print head wash. The colour kit?s ink is equally split between magenta, cyan, and yellow - 32 ml each.
The refill kit instruction booklet is concise - the same one covers both kits. Inkjet cartridge pictures - in colour where necessary - are arrowed to show exactly where the refill holes are, which aids the refill process. Seven sides of paper at the end of the instruction booklet are reserved for writing down notes, which is a nice touch. There is an accompanying CD-ROM as well, which includes refill instructions, instructional videos, FAQs, and free high resolution photographs.
The tools and materials provided in the kit were sufficient to get started. Some of my own tools and materials were used as well.
After the refill process CBW?s ink was used in a real world home and business environment, which pretty much meant daily printer use - so this wasn?t a normal lab test. The two month test period was from the first refill of the Epson and Canon cartridges until they had been successfully refilled a second time. The problems with the HP cartridges will be discussed shortly.
It can be a cake walk
The Canon BJ10 SX printer cartridge was the easiest to refill. An Xacto knife easily removed the reusable plug. As the cartridge had been dry for months two ml of cartridge and print head wash was injected before the ink. Reinserting the plug wasn?t a problem.
The Epson Stylus Scan 2500 black and colour cartridges were not hard to refill. The output ink delivery holes were covered in transparent tape that wasn?t taken off when the cartridges were reinstalled. That was done to not only prevent ink from leaking but also to tell the printer that refilled cartridges had been installed - the breaking of the transparent tape seal resets the printer to full ink status.
The supplied syringe was then pushed through the label of the Epson cartridges to inject the necessary ink. Transparent tape was used again to seal the refill holes. Since the instruction booklet said the cartridges might have to be left in the printer for up to 24 hours before running any output, the ink was left to do its job overnight.
But it?s not all plain sailing
The HP Officejet cartridges were the hardest to refill. A breather hole on the bottom of the black cartridge was sealed air tight with electrical tape. That was done to prevent ink from leaking when the cartridge was refilled. A hole was then made in the plastic cover so ink could be injected. The tools supplied did that job just fine. The black cartridge was then injected with 2 ml of cartridge and print head wash that was left for two minutes and then drained. The cartridge was then refilled with ink.
Sealing the hole made in the black cartridge cover was a problem I had to solve. The instruction booklet said use the supplied plug or electrical tape to ensure the hole was airtight. Both suggestions were tried but the desired result wasn?t obtained. To fix that problem a one inch square cable tie pad was cut to size and its very sticky backing sealed the hole in question. Unfortunately, the time it took to find that solution caused ink to leak, so hands and fingers got dirty.
Removing the HP colour cartridge cover was challenging. The cover does eventually come off but patience is required. A thin metal blade was used to take the cover off. The cover was then taped in place after the cartridge had been replenished.
For both the colour and black HP cartridges further patience is required. After the cartridges have been filled with ink they have to be stood upright. For the black cartridge only, air was injected using the supplied syringe. Both cartridges then leaked ink until the internal pressures of both cartridges normalized. That took some time so plenty of paper towel was to hand.
Post refill print problems
When a page was printed immediately after the refill process the Canon cartridge went dry before the page finished. However, the same page fully printed when the printer was left overnight.
After the Epson printer was switched on and a copy was made of a price list, the table borders of the copy had smeared. Cleaning the print head fixed that problem immediately. But when the printer was used the following day the smearing problem continued. Cleaning the print head again fixed that problem. After several days of printer use the smearing problem stopped.
When the Officejet colour cartridge was reinstalled a wrong colour cartridge error message was given. Googling found some suggestions to fix that problem but none of them worked. The only solution left was to buy a new colour cartridge. To save some money a remanufactured Innojet cartridge was purchased. That saved over eight dollars and fixed the error problem.
When a black price list was printed in best quality mode two tables in the printed document had horizontal separator lines missing - that didn?t occur in normal mode. A self test page was printed to see what the Officejet problem was. White gaps in the diagonal pattern of either cartridge are indicative of defective nozzles. The black cartridge had that problem. The remanufactured Innojet colour cartridge also had white gaps along the magenta and cyan diagonals. So that explained the missing horizontal separator lines in best mode and also made plain why the colour quality of the Innojet remanufactured cartridge was poor. The print heads were cleaned several times but to no avail.
There was an annoying problem with the black Officejet cartridge. After turning on the printer, a message on the printer?s LCD panel said remove and reinstall the black cartridge. Doing what was requested got the printer to work. Unfortunately, after about the fifth time of doing that it no longer fixed that problem; a new black cartridge would have to be purchased.
In defence of the Officejet cartridges they were the hardest to refill. Consequently, they were handled, installed, and removed more often then their Canon and Epson counterparts. Also, having the electrical contacts and print head exposed on the cartridge itself made those parts easier to damage. So the extra handling probably contributed to the problems that I experienced. knowing now how to refill those cartridges, I don?t think I?d experience those problems a second time around.
Post refill print quality
The Canon machine degraded, which was very noticeable in high quality print mode. The economy mode output wasn?t as bad. The cause was defective print nozzles, which was verified by missing horizontal lines when the Canon check pattern test page was printed.
Even with the degradation, economy mode text output was more than acceptable for our home printing needs. Also, printing in economy mode doubles the life of the ink, which saves more money, so for us this degradation is not a major problem.
The instruction booklet said soak the print head in cartridge and print head wash, which was tried. But that didn?t make a difference. So the moral of the Canon cartridge story: don?t leave an empty inkjet cartridge unfilled for months - refill immediately.
Connecting the Epson machine to a PC revealed that the printer had been busy. After about three weeks of heavy use the black ink level was 50% depleted and colour was down by 38%. It was an opportune time to test print quality when printing from a PC as the third party ink was now fully in the system.
A colour flyer and a black letter and price list were printed. The black print output was very good indeed. The colour quality easily bettered the Officejet - when referenced to OEM cartridge/ink output.
The plan post the refill process was to use the Canon and HP machines to print our master black and colour copies and do the volume copying on the Epson printer. Seeing what the Epson machine is capable of doing and the ease of refilling its cartridges, I?m now rethinking our printing and copying strategy.
The acid test: photo printing
So called photo printers use more than the four colours that are used in the majority of printers in use today. The Epson Stylus Scan 2500 is one of those old school printers; so could it handle photographs? The Stylus Scan?s promo material states ?photo quality printing?. But with third party ink was it up to the job? The answer was an absolute yes. Indeed, the picture quality is so good that my wife is already planning which pictures are going to go where within our home.
The paper used for the photo printing tests was Kodak?s 4x6? and 8.5x11? ultima high gloss photo paper - yes, Kodak?s best photo paper, which is ideal for framing and displaying.
The camera used almost matched the photo paper. The Kodak DX6490 EasyShare digital camera only has 4 megapixel picture resolution. That means the camera is not capable of capturing a picture that would print in full fidelity using 8.5x11? letter size photo paper - a ?quality? five megapixel camera wouldn?t have that problem.
It is possible to print a letter size picture from a 4 megapixel source but picture quality is noticeably degraded close up; further away it doesn?t look too bad. So was money wasted? No. With the right software it?s possible to print multiple pictures within a letter size page without degraded quality. So two 5x7? pictures would print on 8.5x11? letter size photo paper just fine.
Photo paper is another cost consideration. Sixty sheets of 4x6? Kodak ultima photo paper costs $15.14 ($13.99) inclusive of sales tax, which is 25 cents per page. Kodak letter size ultima photo paper costs $11.90 ($10.99) with sales tax, so the 15 sheets supplied cost 79 cents each.
CBW also sells six colour photo printer ink. The two additional colours besides the four standard ones (black, magenta, yellow, and cyan) are light cyan and light magenta.
Post test printer checks
Connecting the Epson machine to a PC made it possible to run some printer checks. One utility program checked the nozzles for blockages and another tested print head alignment. No nozzles were blocked and the print head didn?t need alignment. So CBW?s ink was doing its job after three weeks of heavy printer use.
Post second refill events
When the black Epson cartridge was reinserted after the ink filling process the printer didn?t begin charging the ink delivery system, even though the black cartridge had reset the black ink level to full ink status. The printer was switched off and on again. When a black copy was made the output was very poor. The printer was then left overnight so ink could flow to the print head. Another copy was made but the output was still the same. An attempt was made to clean the print head, but at that moment the colour ink ran out so the cleaning process couldn?t be completed. After the colour ink had been replenished a test page showed some black nozzles weren?t printing - the colour nozzles were fine. Cleaning the nozzles several times still didn?t fix that problem, but the printer worked fine the following day with no problem nozzles.
What should have been done when the printer didn?t charge the ink delivery system was to have immediately cleaned the print head and then left the printer overnight so ink could flow to the print head.
It?s interesting to note that the Epson smearing problem didn?t occur this time around.
To see if the CBW ink colour was still vibrant, a photograph that was printed on the Epson machine after the first refill was printed again and compared. My wife and I could not detect any difference. So for us the colour quality was still the same.
The Canon cartridge wasn?t allowed to run dry. It was refilled with 10 ml of ink but dripped from the print head post refilling. Like the HP cartridges the dripping eventually stops.
The Canon output quality post the refill process was no different then before. But four days later it changed. The output now looks like a dot matrix printer, which means text output is still acceptable - high quality mode is now more readable than economy mode output. Additional nozzle failure looks to be the cause.
Lessons learned
Don?t let an inkjet cartridge run dry.
It pays to be patient. Let time and the laws of gravity do its work.
If a cartridge drips post the refill process don?t let that ink go to waste - collect and use again. Of course, that can?t be done if the cartridge is multi-colour.
Avoid running additional charging and cleaning cycles by refilling both cartridges at the same time. The Epson printer cleaning cycles that were done post the second refill depleted the black ink level to 62.5% and colour to 75%.
Store ink bottles upright. One black bottle leaked ink from the cap after it had been opened.
Fully read the instruction booklet and the FAQs on the CD-ROM; they?re full of useful information
Watch out for the cost of ink
Future refill expenditures should only involve ink and if necessary cartridge and print head wash. As CBW ink can be purchased individually, and if required in larger volume, one would expect the cost per ml to be cheaper than the kits. But that isn?t always the case. Let?s take a closer look at the cost of ink.
Buying from Fry?s
Below is the cost of ink per ml for the black and colour refill kits reviewed, which is cost of kit divided by the volume of ink.
Black refill kit: $16.23/96 ml = 16.9 cents/ml
Colour refill kit: $21.64/96 ml = 22.5 cents/ml
Let?s now look at the cost of 60 ml bottled ink - black $9.99 and colour $10.99 before sales tax.
Black 60 ml ink: $10.81/60 ml = 18.0 cents/ml
Colour 60 ml ink: $11.90/60 ml = 19.8 cents/ml
Sixty ml bottled ink can look good value as the purchase price of individual bottles is lower than the kits. In this case the colour kit reviewed was 13.6% more per ml than coloured 60 ml bottled ink. But black 60 ml bottled ink cost per ml was 6.5% more than its kit counterpart.
It should be kept in mind that the kits reviewed came with 25 ml of cartridge and print head wash. If bottled ink and cartridge and print head wash were purchased together, the cartridge wash would have to be added to the cost of ink per ml. So let?s run the bottled ink numbers again with the additional $5.49 cost of one 60 ml bottle of cartridge and print head wash - smallest bottle size available (CBW?s Web price, not available from Fry?s).
Black 60 ml ink: $16.30/60 ml = 27.2 cents/ml
Colour 60 ml ink: $17.39/60 = 29.0 cents/ml
Colour 60 ml ink (3 off): $41.19/180 ml = 22.9 cents/ml
The cost per ml of ink can go up markedly when cartridge and print head wash is bought with bottled ink. Black 60 ml ink is now 61% more per ml than its kit counterpart.
When buying three 60 ml bottles of coloured ink and one 60 ml bottle of cartridge and print head wash, even though the total ink is almost twice as much as the colour kit reviewed, the cost per ml was not only 1.8% more, those consumables cost almost twice as much to purchase. So the kits are the better deal if cartridge and print head wash is a requirement.
Don?t pay double for ink
Consumable purchasers should expect to see cheaper across the board prices for ink and refill kits when buying direct from CBW?s Web site. But no; it can cost substantially more. Let?s see what CBW charged for the same black and colour refill kits reviewed - the prices below include the $5.75 Fedex ground shipping.
Black refill kit: $25.74/96 ml = 26.8 cents/ml
Colour refill kit: $30.70/96 ml = 32.0 cents/ml
Cost of black and colour refill kits are respectively 59% and 42% more expensive than Fry?s. When buying both kits the percentage numbers do come down as the $5.75 shipping covers them both. Let?s look at some eye-popping prices.
Black 60 ml ink: $18.74/60 ml = 31.2 cents/ml
Colour 60 ml ink: $24.74/60 ml = 41.2 cents/ml
Colour 60 ml ink (3 off): $62.72/180 ml = 34.8 cents/ml
Individual 60 ml coloured ink is the highlight of this group. They cost over twice as much as the same bottles from Fry?s. Buying three 60 ml bottles of coloured ink does drop the extra cost as the $5.75 shipping covers them all. Black 60 ml ink isn?t far behind though being 73% more expensive. Also note that the cost per ml of black 60 ml and colour 60 ml ink (3 off) is more than the kits above, and that?s without cartridge and print head wash.
New yellow ink was bought as magenta ink was accidentally injected into the yellow ink bottle of the colour kit reviewed. You guessed right; I didn?t pay double for ink from CBW.
Ironically, CBW says on the packaging of the 60 ml yellow ink that was bought from Fry?s: ?Now that you have the knowledge and components to refill your inkjet and bubblejet cartridges you can take advantage of this 60 ml. size yellow refill ink.? Buying 60 ml ink from CBW clearly isn?t advantageous. Let?s look at some more CBW deals.
Four colour starter kit: $42.70/160 ml = 26.7 cents/ml
Four colour package: $61.72/240 ml = 25.7 cents/ml
When the cost per ml of ink is consolidated for the refill kits reviewed (16.9 + 22.5 = 39.4/2 = 19.7 cents/ml), the cost superiority over the four colour starter kit (magenta, yellow, cyan, and black) can be calculated: 26.7-19.7 = 7 cents/ml less or 36% more per ml than the refill kits reviewed. If the same calculation is done to the four colour package product (magenta, yellow, cyan, and black), that?s 6 cents/ml less or 30% more per ml than the refill kits reviewed. The four colour package product doesn?t come with cartridge and print head wash. If that was needed the cost per ml of that ink would be higher.
Can buying in bulk save the day?
Surely there must be some savings to be made when ink is purchased in bulk. Let?s check those CBW Web prices - purchases over $100 ships for free.
Black 250 ml ink: $50.74/250 ml = 20.3 cents/ml
Colour 250 ml ink: $75.74/250 ml = 30.3 cents/ml
Colour 250 ml ink (3 off): $209.97/750 ml = 28.0 cents/ml
Black 950 ml ink: $105.70/950 ml = 11.1 cents/ml
Colour 950 ml ink: $139.95/950 ml = 14.7 cents/ml
Colour 950 ml ink (3 off): $419.85/2850 ml = 14.7 cents/ml
Black gallon ink: $165/3785.4 ml = 4.4 cents/ml
Colour gallon ink: $195/3785.4 ml = 5.2 cents/ml
Colour gallon ink (3 off): $585/11356.2 ml = 5.2 cents/ml
Amazingly, 250 ml bottled ink cost per ml is more than the kits reviewed - 20% more for black and 24% more for colour. Those percentage numbers go higher when cartridge and print head wash is added. The 950 ml and gallon bottled ink at last show some real savings, but if you?re a home or small business user who can justify the cost?
What all of this should tell consumable purchasers is that the cost of ink is variable. If consumers don?t check the value of the ink they?re buying they may save money on the one hand, because new inkjet cartridges don?t have to be purchased, only to throw it away on the other because the cost of ink wasn?t investigated.
Managing printer costs
When it?s possible to pay over double for ink it really does pay to shop around. For the needs of our home and business we were lucky enough to have bought the kits that best suited our needs. As we have a need for cartridge and print head wash our future consumable expenditures will be for the same kits reviewed.
If you?re in the market for a printer and you anticipate your ink costs will be high, and if you also plan to use third party ink then it?s a good idea to do some research on the ease or difficulty of refilling cartridges of a printer you may buy. It?s also essential to verify support, especially if it?s one of those latest technology photo printers.
CBW?s FAQ page says a cartridge can typically be refilled three to ten times. Apparently, the longevity of a cartridge is determined by the electronics which control the printer jets. Resistors on the cartridge itself are said to overheat when ink runs out, so limiting the life of the cartridge. As previously mentioned, the print head of our Epson printer is separate from the cartridges, so they only hold ink. Because of that, I would expect the life expectancy of an ink only cartridge to be greater than what CBW is saying. If true, that would certainly be a deciding factor for me if I was in the market for a printer.
Unforeseen costs can also arise. For example, some inkjet cartridges have a chip built into them that has to be reset; once done the refilled cartridge can be used again. CBW?s Web site sells two types of chip resetters for Epson cartridges; one costs $9.99 and the other $54.95. A chip resetting device wasn?t needed for our Epson printer as the cartridges are chipless.
Volume ink users may be interested in a product that CBW recently launched. Called the Universal Continuous Ink System, it?s essentially a high capacity ink reservoir connected to a supported printer. CBW says it?s the same as using 5 to 8 ink cartridges per colour, so that would give volume ink users a pretty long breather between four or six colour fill ups.
Unfortunately, there isn?t universal printer support, which makes the product name a lemon. Currently, only two printer manufacturers are supported - Canon and Epson. Canon has two printers supported: the iP3000 and the iP4000. For Epson, the printer support is a lot better: 1270/1280/1290 and C63/C64/C65/C66 and R200/R210/R300/R310/RX500/RX510/RX600.
The cartridges of our Epson printer have already been refilled a second time. Now if only CBW made a truly universal continuous ink system kit for our printer; I?d only have to fill the ink reservoir once a year.
Did the refill kits deliver and was it worth the effort?
For the Epson and Canon printers yes. For the HP Officejet the jury is still out. There will be another opportunity to repeat the refill process as the Officejet cartridges will be replaced with genuine HP devices.
Did we save money?
As the Officejet cartridges will be replaced with genuine HP items, which cost just under $62 if bought from HP, our initial savings weren?t as high as originally hoped. As $102 didn?t have to be spent on new cartridges for the Epson and Canon printers, and $38 was spent on the refill kits instead, $64 was still saved. But the real savings are made over the long term.
Ink use for the Epson printer indicates that refilling both cartridges would occur once every two months or six times a year. The kits reviewed wouldn?t cover ink use over that period but four of them would - two black, two colour. Based on current use, one 60 ml bottle of black CBW ink would supply the Canon printer for a year.
If four of those kits were bought for the Epson machine they would yield 12 refills for the black cartridge and 8.5 for its colour counterpart. That?s 20 OEM cartridges, which would cost $599. The cost of those refill kits is almost $76, so that?s $523 that wouldn?t have to be spent. Black 60 ml ink for the Canon printer costs $10.81 from Fry?s, which would save $115 over the cost of OEM cartridges - $126 for three OEM cartridges.
Are we satisfied customers? Most definitely. If four refill kits and one 60 ml bottle of black ink was purchased instead of OEM cartridges, just like those above, the total savings would be $649 - assuming CBW?s ink has the same life figures as the OEM product.
If the Epson printer cartridge refill ink cost is used (colour: $5.03; black: $2.71) and the 60 ml black ink cost for the Canon printer as well ($10.14 - based on the 16.9 cents/ml kit cost), the weekly ink cost for both printers is $1.09 per week. So that?s one expense I no longer worry about. Also, when a PC and printer has been set up for the kids, I won?t have to keep reminding them to go easy on the ink.
Be a little green and help your local school
Don?t trash your empty cartridges if you don?t plan to use third party ink. My local kid?s school, and I guess others as well, will take them off your hands for recycling, for which they get a fee.
CBW will buy used, virgin cartridges - meaning original OEM cartridges that haven?t been refilled. Looking at what CBW will buy them for (50 cents to $3), I would just donate them to your local school. CBW also buys toner cartridges as well (50 cents to $12).
What those who may be contemplating going down the ink refill road need to bear in mind is that this article only covered the CBW refill kits reviewed. Googling inkjet ink will bring up many companies that wish to sell you their products. So be aware. Do your homework before you buy. µ
By Wendy M. Grossman: Friday 27 January 2006, 14:40
LAST WEEK'S net.wars got a lot of email. Because it was intended as a work in progress ? a set of ideas for what rightsholders and technology companies should be allowed to do with digital rights management ? it seems worth going through some of the email ? and the blog discussion ? and adding to the provisions we proposed.
One provision I'm not going to adopt is the categorical insistence of one reader that all digital rights management is always wrong and should never be allowed. I certainly dislike a lot of what's being tried right now in the consumer market with DRM, but that doesn't mean that down the echoing corridors of time there will never be a good use for it. My thinking on this is still fuzzy, but there are things that are supposed to expire, such as pharmaceuticals, or bus schedules, and every business (and every family) has material they want to keep private. We are only at the beginning of the grand electronic experiment, and who knows what technology we experience today as hostile will tomorrow be our friend?
One reader proposed that DRM (in which we'll include copy protection) should not be allowed to limit the functionality of the machine it's installed on. It transpires that some computer games come with copy protection that prevents debugging tools from operating; other types have been known to cause system instability or block some functions. Now, you could argue that a developer debugging software should not be using the same machine to play games, but leaving that aside, the reader has a point. You can certainly see the game manufacturer's reasoning: if these tools work, they can bypass the copy protection. But you could compare it to buying a copy of a novel and finding that its presence makes your office photocopier malfunction.
One of the blog posters pointed at several articles written by Ed Felten, the Princeton professor who hit the headlines some years back when the record companies tried to block him from publishing the results of his research into DRM. Felten, as always, has made some interesting points. First, that it was inevitable that DRM has become spyware, because exactly like spyware DRM is software that users don't want to install or keep on their computers. Second, a note from as long ago as 2002 to the effect that people ? such as the politician in Washington, DC, who effectively declared war on the general-purpose computer (while simultaneously using one) ? do not understand that there is no such thing as an almost general-purpose computer. Which of course carries with it the implication that any DRM software you are forced to install (because do you really know any computer user who is eager to buy and install DRM?) of necessity limits your computer's functioning. I might call it robbery, since the act of installing a single CD of music can fundamentally change the nature of the computer you paid for. But this is the world they want. It is clearly not a proportional exchange.
Returning to our wish list of rights, one thing I left out entirely last week is the problem of content, media, and devices. Increasingly, as we load up with computers, laptops, MP3 players, and other gizmos, and all of those converge with mobile phones and digital cameras, we want to be able to transfer whatever bit of content we're currently obsessess with to any device we happen to feel like playing it on at that moment. Conversely, where in the past we had no problem with the fact that we only had one copy of things ? books, LPs ? if there's one thing the digital world has taught us it's the importance of backups. We want to make safety copies. And one practice common some parts of the software business ? providing a licensed user with a replacement copy of the media at a reasonable charge ? has never taken hold in the entertainment business, where they've made billions from format changes. Curiously, price is one thing no reader has mentioned.
Giving up those billions when, say, DVD gives way to HD-DVD or Blu-ray (or some other high-definition successor) is not anything the entertainment industry remotely wants to do, any more than it wants to surrender control over the other functions just described. As discussed here last March, the Digital Video Broadcasting Forum's view of our media future is household-wide content management in a trusted environment (trusted by them, not so much us).
The fundamental problem, I think, is that we're still trying to adapt law and practice that evolved for the physical world to the digital world, and both sides use the physical world as justification for their proposals. We tend to argue in digital media we should have the rights we had with physical items; they tend to argue that they should be able to impose on digital media the limitations inherent in physical objects. We want freedom to copy, share, and access. They want the permanent jukebox, where we pay for every use or access.
As Harry said to Sally, "Somewhere between 15 seconds and all night, there's your problem." µ
Wendy M. Grossman?s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. She has an intermittent blog. Readers are welcome to post there or to send email, but please turn off HTML.
p2p news views / p2pnet: The members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel would dearly love the world at large to believe individual music industry groups are grappling nobly with millions of criminal p2p file sharers, including young children, who are "devastating" them by thieving music.
However, file sharing is far more of a world-wide protest than it is an attempt to deprive the labels of what's rightfully theirs. Every man, woman and child who uses the p2p networks would happily pay a reasonable price for their downloads. And indeed, millions do, through the independent sites.
The vast majority of ex-consumers are just not willing to pay $1 and up for a lossy, low-fi digital file.
The supposedly individual efforts by the many and various Sony BMG, Warner Music, EMI and Vivendi Universal units are simply all part of one massive, highly orchestrated scheme meant to to turn the clock back to the good old days when they had total and complete control over you and what you bought.
Thanks to the Net, those days are gone for ever and the Big Four's current business model under which they're trying to legal the world into buying grossly over-priced 'product' is just an example of how incredibly stupid they are and how badly they're misreading consumer reactions to their sue 'em all marketing effort.
Because, thanks to the Net, Marshal Mcluhan's vision of a Global Village, an interconnected worldwide society, is now a reality.
We know the RIAA, CRIAA, MPAA, BSA, IFPI, BPI and all the other 'A's and 'I's are wholly owned by a small group of hard core of music, movie and software corporations and that an attack on someone in France or Sweden is the same as an attack on someone in Canada and the US.
p2pnet is Canadian. It's based on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. But it's organized the Fight Goliath campaign for Patti Santangelo, an American mother of five who by herself has taken on the Big Four and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
And another Canadian entity, privately owned record label and artist management company Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver on the BC mainland and which manages some of North America?s biggest artists such as Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, has also gone up against the RIAA.
Below is Nettwerk's press release, and under it, a word or 10 from music industry commentator Bob Lefsetz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nettwerk Music Grouop takes on the RIAA
In August 2005, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a complaint against David Greubel for alleged file sharing. Greubel is accused of having 600 suspected music files on the family computer. The RIAA is targeting nine specific songs, including ?Sk8er Boi? by Arista artist, Avril Lavigne, a Nettwerk management client.
The RIAA has demanded Greubel pay a $9,000 stipulated judgment as a penalty, though it will accept $4,500 should Greubel pay the amount within a specific period of time.
?Suing music fans is not the solution, it?s the problem,? stated Terry McBride, C.E.O of Nettwerk Music Group.
Nettwerk became involved in the battle against the RIAA after 15 year-old Elisa Greubel contacted MC Lars, also a Nettwerk management client, to say that she identified with ?Download This Song,? a track from the artist?s latest release. In an e-mail to the artist?s web-site, she wrote, ?My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line ?they sue little kids downloading hit songs?, basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous.?
Chicago-based Mudd Law Offices will take on the legal battle. Charles Lee Mudd Jr. has represented individuals subpoenaed and sued by the RIAA since the suits began in late summer 2003.
Mudd stated, "In an effort to combat the continued injustice of the RIAA?s consumer lawsuits, attorneys, musicians and artist managers have joined forces to defend the interests of David Greubel and his family in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Together, these parties hope to demonstrate the injustice and impropriety of the RIAA Litigation Initiative.? Joining the litigation team will be Scott Lundhagen, an associate with Mudd Law Offices, and as local counsel, John G. Browning of Browning & Fleishman, P.C., Dallas, Texas.
The RIAA has issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to various Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These ISPs include commercial, academic, and private providers of internet service.
"Since 2003 the RIAA has continually misused the court and legal system, engaging in misguided litigation tactics for the purpose of extorting settlement amounts from everyday people ? parents, students, doctors, and general consumers of music,? Mudd stated. ?In doing so, the RIAA has misapplied existing copyright law and improperly employed its protections not as a shield, but as a sword. Many of the individuals targeted by the RIAA are not the ?thieves? the RIAA has made them out to be. Moreover, individual defendants typically do not have the resources to mount a full-fledged defensive campaign to demonstrate the injustice of the RIAA?s actions. Today we are fortunate that principled artists and a management company, Nettwerk Music Group, have joined the effort to deter the RIAA from aggressive tactics ? tactics that have failed to accomplish even the RIAA's goals."
Nettwerk Music Group has agreed to pay the total expense of all legal fees as well as any fines should the family lose the case against the RIAA.
?Litigation is not ?artist development.? Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love,? insists McBride. ?The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists? best interests.?
?My family owes a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Terry McBride and his company and artists they
represent,? said Greubel. ?Further, every music fan, every citizen owes him gratitude for his courage to stand up and say, ?This is not right!? Anyone who has been involved in the legal system knows the feeling of being forced into a position they do not believe in, simply because they did not have the resources to have their day in court. Mr. McBride has stood up, and again said, ?This is not right!? Thank God for people like him.?
The RIAA defines itself as ?the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry? and its mission statement includes, ?to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members? creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies.?
Emily Provansal
Nettwerk Music Group
Emilyp@nettwerk.com
Charles Lee Mudd Jr.
Mudd Law Offices
cmudd@muddlawoffices.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here's what Bob Lefsetz has to say.
Terry McBride is not stupid.
In fact, he's one of the smartest and shrewdest operators in the business. You can argue with his methods, stating he burns his artists out in the process of breaking them. But really, don't you have to give props to someone who turned the Barenaked Ladies, the world's least sexy and least charismatic rock group, into an arena act?
If Terry McBride and his Nettwerk operation were located south of the border, the "New York Times" would have done a story on them, Terry would be a national hero, not quite as impressive and lionized as Steve Jobs, but respected and viewed as a role model by the younger generation.
Nettwerk manages such international superstars as Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne and Dido. Along with middle tier acts like the aforementioned Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41 and Jars of Clay. And DEVELOPING acts like Brand New. Isn't this JUST the kind of guy who should be lining up behind Mitch Bainwol and the RIAA? I mean Terry McBride is IN BED with the major labels. Doesn't Nettwerk function as the A&R for Sony BMG in Canada now??
But Terry McBride is drawing the line. Because Terry McBride knows it's about fans, and careers, and what the RIAA is doing is eviscerating both.
We've been waiting for this war between the managers and the labels FOREVER! We've been waiting for a backlash against Metallica versus Napster. And now we have it.
Metallica wasn't wholly wrong. The original Napster put forth the notion that what it was doing was legal. Hogwash. Anyone with a Bar Card knew better (and isn't it funny that Napster was run by lawyers...) We needed a lawsuit to establish that the copyrightholders had rights, that you needed a LICENSE to utilize their material. But those of us who actually used Napster, who were ecstatic over the advantages of such a service, advantages which ultimately resulted in the worldwide phenomenon of the iPod, were under the illusion that once the major labels got their rights reinforced, established, laid down, they'd go forth AND license.
Turned out nothing could be further from the truth.
The major label cartel, which never used Napster, which bans P2P software on all its computers, putting its head in the sand like an ostrich, not wanting to see the future, is hurting Terry McBride's business. And he doesn't LIKE IT!
He tried to be a good soldier. But his responsibility is to his acts, not his corporate brethren, and what he sees is his acts' fans being PENALIZED for their fandom. Hell, it's HARD ENOUGH to break an act, you don't want the people paying attention SCARED AWAY!
But that's what the major labels are doing. Sales show it. And the iTunes Music Store is more of a ruse than a replacement business.
Terry McBride turns out to be a real rock and roller. Not a namby-pamby who's changing his lyrics for Wal-Mart and doing whatever his label says to pump up sales of his record. In rock and roll, it's what you STAND FOR that's important. (Very different from hip-hop. Where the FRUITS of the labor are the most important thing...the bitches and ho's, the ice and the iron.)
Terry's been trying new things. Not that they get much press in the States, but he's innovative in a way that the major labels are not. He's TRYING! And the labels are getting in his way.
So Terry drew a line in the sand.
That fiasco in the French legislature? Where penalties for traders turned into a proposed law for licensing trading? That was just the beginning.
This is a good story. It's kind of like the Mob going to the mattresses. People LOVE IT when families fight.
The family is now in a fight. There's now a crack in the RIAA facade. The one that says the only way out is to sue traders, and that they're doing this SUCCESSFULLY, i.e., they're reducing P2P trades.
This was an issue waiting to flare up. While the RIAA maneuvered behind the scenes, the public consciousness moved on. Which the RIAA thought was good for them. Of course, this is untrue. Since, in the heyday of Napster, when EVERYBODY was talking about music and trading same, CD sales were at their ABSOLUTE HIGHEST! But, despite it not being a topic of everyday conversation, people were still trading, more than ever. It was an underground movement. Waiting for an ignition point.
Houston, we've got ignition.
Terry McBride, a true music business insider, one with JUICE, has now raised the question... Is the RIAA's strategy RIGHT?
But it's more than that.
Is the RIAA's strategy JUST? Is it GOOD for music? Good for ACTS? Good for FANS?
Terry McBride thinks not.
And he's not alone. He's got the public on his side.
As for the rest of the wimpy managers and acts... When will they see that the major labels ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE! That they're in the business of careers, and the more people who possess their music, by acquiring it cheaply via licensed P2P, the better it is FOR THEM?
It appears a hundred year war.
But it's worth fighting. For make no mistake, mass distribution of music via the Net, so EVERYBODY is a music consumer, has music on his hard drive, is not only good for music, it's good for the MUSIC BUSINESS!
Bob Lefsetz - The Lefsetz Letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile, as we say in another story, the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel spare no expense in their bitter war against the 'consumers' whom, they claim, are thieves and criminals who "illegally" download music without paying for it.
This isn't, however, a criminal matter, efforts by the cartel's RIAA to elevate it to that level notwithstanding. It's a civil one. And what's at issue isn't if someone's broken a law ? it's whether or not he or she has infringed a copyright, which is a very long way from "criminal" or "illegal".
But this time the Big Four aren't merely beating up on defenceless men, women and children who have no hope of matching their bottomless legal and financial resources.
Now the labels have You and the World Wide Web to contend with.
p2p news / p2pnet: The Big Four record label cartel's UK unit, the BPI, is patting itself on the back.
Two unnamed men, a father of two from Brighton in Sussex and a man from King's Lynn in Norfolk are, "are liable for illegally distributing music over the internet using peer-to-peer filesharing programmes," says the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) in a statement.
The statement is, however, another example of a standard Big Four misinformation puff piece. There's no such offence as illegally distributing music onlined using p2p software and the men are liable for simple copyright infringement, if anything.
But, the cases were the first of their kind to be heard in Britain and, "could have implications for dozens of people who have refused to settle their cases," says The Independent.
The BPI's King's Lynn victim said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but his argument was rejected and he's been ordered to pay Ł5,000, with (about $8,840) total costs are estimated at Ł13,500 (about $23,869) with damages expected to make the ultimate bill even more.
The other man, a father of two and postman from Brighton, said he didn't know he was sharing and hadn't been looking for financial gain, says the story.
But the judge ruled, "Ignorance is not a defence," ordering the man to pay Ł1,500 (about $2,652) pending final determination of costs and damages.
(Thanks, Brighton Chris)
Also See:
The Independent - Landmark case spells doom for internet music swappers, January 27, 2006
Landmark case spells doom for internet music swappers
By Sherna Noah, PA
Published: 27 January 2006
By Sherna Noah, PA
Published: 27 January 2006
The record industry has won a landmark court case resulting in bills of thousands of pounds for individuals caught illegally swapping music on the internet.
Civil court proceedings were announced against the music fans in August last year.
Five individuals have been accused of between them making 8,906 songs available to millions of people around the globe.
Today's announcement follows High Court action against two of the five who refused to settle with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK's record industry's trade association.
The cases, in which both men were ordered to stop filesharing illegally, are the first of their kind to be heard in the British courts. The other three civil cases are pending.
The cases could have implications for dozens of people who have refused to settle their cases.
The men, who have not been named, were illegally distributing music over the internet using peer-to-peer filesharing programmes.
The BPI issued proceedings last August against the man from King's Lynn in Norfolk after he failed to reach a settlement.
His defence, that the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, was rejected by the High Court and summary judgment was granted to the BPI without the need for a trial.
He has been ordered to make an immediate payment of Ł5,000, but total costs are estimated at Ł13,500 and damages are expected to take the bill even higher.
The other man, a father of two and postman from Brighton, sought to defend the case against him on the grounds that he was unaware that what he was doing was illegal and did not seek to gain financially.
His case was also thrown out of court, with Judge Justice Lawrence Collins declaring: "Ignorance is not a defence."
The defendant was ordered to make an immediate payment of Ł1,500, pending final determination of costs and damages.
The BPI has settled the majority of the 139 legal cases it has launched against individual filesharers since October 2004, with some paying up to Ł6,500 to avoid a court case.
The BPI announced in October 2004 that 28 music fans would become the first people in Britain to be sued by the record industry for illegal file-sharing.
In March last year, it launched a fresh wave of action and announced that 23 of the initial tranche of people had agreed settlements of an average Ł2,000.
It is currently seeking settlements in a further 51 cases launched last December.
The filesharers, from the length and breadth of the UK, have been given a deadline of January 31 to settle cases and avoid court action.
The BPI says the illegal filesharing has contributed to the decline in sales of British singles, with the market more than halved since 1999.
BPI chairman Peter Jamieson said: "The courts have spoken and their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised filesharing is against the law.
"We have long said that unauthorised filesharing is damaging the music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who invest in them.
"Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that unauthorised filesharing is illegal."
BPI general counsel Roz Groome said: "We have been very patient litigators. We have given these people every opportunity to settle.
"Only when they refused to settle did we take them to court, which has now found in our favour. These rulings are a massive step forward in the music industry's bid to fight illegal filesharing.
"We would warn anyone else tempted to illegally upload and download music to cease immediately. The legal penalties can be significant."
The record industry has won a landmark court case resulting in bills of thousands of pounds for individuals caught illegally swapping music on the internet.
Civil court proceedings were announced against the music fans in August last year.
Five individuals have been accused of between them making 8,906 songs available to millions of people around the globe.
Today's announcement follows High Court action against two of the five who refused to settle with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK's record industry's trade association.
The cases, in which both men were ordered to stop filesharing illegally, are the first of their kind to be heard in the British courts. The other three civil cases are pending.
The cases could have implications for dozens of people who have refused to settle their cases.
The men, who have not been named, were illegally distributing music over the internet using peer-to-peer filesharing programmes.
The BPI issued proceedings last August against the man from King's Lynn in Norfolk after he failed to reach a settlement.
His defence, that the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, was rejected by the High Court and summary judgment was granted to the BPI without the need for a trial.
He has been ordered to make an immediate payment of Ł5,000, but total costs are estimated at Ł13,500 and damages are expected to take the bill even higher.
The other man, a father of two and postman from Brighton, sought to defend the case against him on the grounds that he was unaware that what he was doing was illegal and did not seek to gain financially.
His case was also thrown out of court, with Judge Justice Lawrence Collins declaring: "Ignorance is not a defence."
The defendant was ordered to make an immediate payment of Ł1,500, pending final determination of costs and damages.
The BPI has settled the majority of the 139 legal cases it has launched against individual filesharers since October 2004, with some paying up to Ł6,500 to avoid a court case.
The BPI announced in October 2004 that 28 music fans would become the first people in Britain to be sued by the record industry for illegal file-sharing.
In March last year, it launched a fresh wave of action and announced that 23 of the initial tranche of people had agreed settlements of an average Ł2,000.
It is currently seeking settlements in a further 51 cases launched last December.
The filesharers, from the length and breadth of the UK, have been given a deadline of January 31 to settle cases and avoid court action.
The BPI says the illegal filesharing has contributed to the decline in sales of British singles, with the market more than halved since 1999.
BPI chairman Peter Jamieson said: "The courts have spoken and their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised filesharing is against the law.
"We have long said that unauthorised filesharing is damaging the music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who invest in them.
"Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that unauthorised filesharing is illegal."
BPI general counsel Roz Groome said: "We have been very patient litigators. We have given these people every opportunity to settle.
"Only when they refused to settle did we take them to court, which has now found in our favour. These rulings are a massive step forward in the music industry's bid to fight illegal filesharing.
p2p news / p2pnet: The Big Four record labels were the first to deliberately decide trying to criminalize and denigrate the people upon whom they depend for their existence is good business practice.
Using their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), they're trying, and failing, to terrorise their customers into buying product by threatening them with specious lawsuits.
While Jack Valenti ruled the RIAA's opposite number in the movie industry, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), the studios largely refrained from employing the same brain-dead tactic.
But now Dan 'Jedi' Glickman is in charge and the MPAA has sunk to the same lower-than-whale-excreta level as the RIAA.
In its latest triumph, it's dragooned a 13-year-old Wisconsin child into publicly apologizing for downloading four movies. And if that were not bad enough, the boy, Ben Rangel, also has to "warn" others, "not to swap movies and music illegally," says the Racine Report.
He, "appeared Wednesday before more than 100 seventh- and eight-grade students at Maple Dale School in this northern Milwaukee suburb," says the story.
What did he say to them?
"Sooner or later, my grandpa got in a lot of trouble, and it was because of me. .... I am here to say it wasn't worth it."
The MPAA had filed against grandfather Fred Lawrence, 67, who, "initially ignored a letter offering to settle the matter out of court".
Offering to settle the matter out of court. It all seems gentlemanly, almost helpful, doesn't it? But these cynical MPAA 'settlement' offers are exactly the same as the RIAA's - totally self-serving and extortionate.
"Rangel, who was then 12, admitted downloading 'The Incredibles,' 'I, Robot,' 'The Grudge' and 'The Forgotten' over a peer-to-peer electronic file-sharing network in December 2004, not knowing it was illegal," says the Racine Report, adding:
"His appearance at the school was part of an out-of-court settlement Lawrence reached with the film studios last month that included paying them an undisclosed amount.
"Rangel was joined at the school by MPAA representatives and Parry Aftab, executive director of Wired Kids, an organization devoted to educating children about online legal and safety issues."
By an amazing coincidence, Wired Kids recently awarded the MPAA a prize for its school 'education' efforts.
Glickman must be feeling especially proud of himself.
Also See:
terrorise their customers - Patti Santangelo fights on, January 27, 2006
Racine Report - Racine teen apologizes for downloading movies, January 26, 2006
extortionate - File sharing, p2p criminals, March 12, 2005
'education' efforts - MPAA wins Wired Kids award, May 26, 2005
Quote:The Big Four record labels were the first to deliberately decide trying to criminalize and denigrate the people upon whom they depend for their existence is good business practice.
To quote Catherine Tate;
Quote:The Dirty, Evil, Robbin' Bastards
Reading that story of the MPAA purposely suing a yough girl makes me sick to my stomach.
p2p news / p2pnet: Chairman Bill believes Google's cooperation with Communist China is acceptable, and has said so in public.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are under attack for giving aid and comfort to China which has, arguably, one of harshest and most brutal citizen repression and on- and offline censorship regimes in the world.
"Writing on Times Online today, Irene Khan, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, said that Google had 'reinforced the trend in the IT industry of kowtowing to Chinese demands of censorship'," says the Times, going on:
"She said: 'Last year, Yahoo provided the Chinese with details leading to the arrest and sentencing of a journalist; Microsoft has barred a blog critical of the government and launched a portal blocking the use of words such as 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Now Google has weeded out websites that China does not like'."
Reporters Without Borders says China's 'Great Firewall', "a sophisticated filter used to block sites," is largely powered by technology supplied by American hardware companies, the Times points out. he country also turned Wikepedia off, recently.
But, "I do think information flow is happening in China," the Times has Microsoft's Bill Gates saying at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and, "even by existing there contributions to a national dialogue have taken place. There?s no doubt in my mind that?s been a huge plus."
Gates is not, however, alone in thinking trade with China is OK. Bill Thompson agrees, but his perspective is different. He said recently, "if we in the West, with our liberal political culture and our attempts to build open societies, do not engage with China then we lose the opportunity to influence them and convince them of the benefits that this brings
"In fact Yahoo! and MSN both censor search results, and when MSN closed down Zhao Jing's blog and Yahoo! handed over the account details of a Chinese blogger to the authorities it made few waves outside the technology pages. Google already operates in China with the government's consent, and is even a part-owner of biggest native search engine, Baidu.
"So in many ways the launch of a Chinese-based index is a much less significant development than it seems from the tone of the coverage it is getting."
Meanwhile, Gates, "also highlighted the attractions of China as a market," says the Times. "The country is set to become the biggest user of broadband in the world. Mr Gates said that 'no one will catch up [except] maybe India in 50 years'.
"He added that despite the disparity between China?s urban and rural areas, the country was on track toward reducing poverty, a move that would mean more people would be able to afford broadband internet access."
According to the entertainment and software cartels, China is right at the top of the list when it comes to counterfeits and duplications.
But that doesn't worry Gates.
"Software piracy is a problem that will likely be solved over time, because as Chinese-made technology evolves, the country?s respect for intellectual property rights will improve, he added," says the story, which also has him saying, "We are always upset that they aren?t paying us for our products, but we?re not going to pick up and go home."
Certainly not. And nor is this attitude new for Gates.
Talking to students at the University of Washington's business school in 1998, he said:
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
"They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
The next decade is here, and then some.
Also See:
Times - BBC p2p file sharing farce, January 25, 2006
Wikepedia - China blocks Wikipedia, October 21, 2005
opportunity to influence - Google's China Wall, January 27, 2006
sort of addicted - Bill Gates' China sales trip, July 2, 2004
rootkit1Researchers at BlackHat are arguing that we're not far from seeing malware attacking the BIOS. Of course, they say it's about rootkits because that's the hot, scary term right now. The basic idea of putting malware into the BIOS, which means storing part of it in the non-volatile RAM, would be to make it survive even a complete reimaging of the system. I assume that's the idea because in order to write to the NVRAM the system would have to be utterly compromised already.
____________________________________________________________________
Is BIOS The Next Target of Rootkits?
Researchers at BlackHat are arguing that we're not far from seeing malware attacking the BIOS. Of course, they say it's about rootkits because that's the hot, scary term right now. The basic idea of putting malware into the BIOS, which means storing part of it in the non-volatile RAM, would be to make it survive even a complete reimaging of the system. I assume that's the idea because in order to write to the NVRAM the system would have to be utterly compromised already.
I'd normally be inclined to respect what Greg Hoglund, author of the leading book on rootkits has to say on this, but I'm pretty sure he's understating the difficulty of implementing it on any reasonable basis. Hoglund asserts that ACPI makes it easy to write such attacks, but it's my distinct impression that the interface for writing NVRAM is chipset-specific, not abstracted by ACPI. Even the locations in RAM that you'd want to write to change from chipset to chipset. Writing a BIOS attack that isn't specific to a small subset of the systems it might encounter would be a serious engineering feat.
Someone tell me if I'm wrong. I glanced through the ACPI spec and didn't see anything. On the other hand, a friend who knows BIOS programming as well as anyone tells me he thinks it's completely impractical. I should also point out that a reader (a former CompSci professor at MIT) pushed this BIOS malware concept on me about a year ago and I dismissed it for the same reasons I'm skeptical now.
Perhaps a better way to attack a BIOS is through EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) which moves at least parts of BIOS onto disk-based files. But these files might be part of a system image, so even that's not so useful an attack.
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer/archive/2006/01/27/40036.aspx
US CERT: Understanding Hidden Threats, Rootkits and Botnets
security2The main problem with both rootkits and botnets is that they are hidden. Although botnets are not hidden the same way rootkits are, they may be undetected unless you are specifically looking for certain activity. If a rootkit has been installed, you may not be aware that your computer has been compromised, and traditional anti-virus software may not be able to detect the malicious programs. Attackers are also creating more sophisticated programs that update themselves so that they are even harder to detect.
Attackers can use rootkits and botnets to access and modify personal information, attack other computers, and commit other crimes, all while remaining undetected. By using multiple computers, attackers increase the range and impact of their crimes. Because each computer in a botnet can be programmed to execute the same command, an attacker can have each of them scanning multiple computers for vulnerabilities, monitoring online activity, or collecting the information entered in online forms
______________________________________________________________________
Understanding Hidden Threats: Rootkits and Botnets
Attackers are continually finding new ways to access computer systems. The use of hidden methods such as rootkits and botnets has increased, and you may be a victim without even realizing it.
What are rootkits and botnets?
A rootkit is a piece of software that can be installed and hidden on your computer without your knowledge. It may be included in a larger software package or installed by an attacker who has been able to take advantage of a vulnerability on your computer or has convinced you to download it (see Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information). Rootkits are not necessarily malicious, but they may hide malicious activities. Attackers may be able to access information, monitor your actions, modify programs, or perform other functions on your computer without being detected.
Botnet is a term derived from the idea of bot networks. In its most basic form, a bot is simply an automated computer program, or robot. In the context of botnets, bots refer to computers that are able to be controlled by one, or many, outside sources. An attacker usually gains control by infecting the computers with a virus or other malicious code that gives the attacker access. Your computer may be part of a botnet even though it appears to be operating normally. Botnets are often used to conduct a range of activities, from distributing spam and viruses to conducting denial-of-service attacks (see Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks for more information).
Why are they considered threats?
The main problem with both rootkits and botnets is that they are hidden. Although botnets are not hidden the same way rootkits are, they may be undetected unless you are specifically looking for certain activity. If a rootkit has been installed, you may not be aware that your computer has been compromised, and traditional anti-virus software may not be able to detect the malicious programs. Attackers are also creating more sophisticated programs that update themselves so that they are even harder to detect.
Attackers can use rootkits and botnets to access and modify personal information, attack other computers, and commit other crimes, all while remaining undetected. By using multiple computers, attackers increase the range and impact of their crimes. Because each computer in a botnet can be programmed to execute the same command, an attacker can have each of them scanning multiple computers for vulnerabilities, monitoring online activity, or collecting the information entered in online forms.
What can you do to protect yourself?
If you practice good security habits, you may reduce the risk that your computer will be compromised:
* Use and maintain anti-virus software - Anti-virus software recognizes and protects your computer against most known viruses, so you may be able to detect and remove the virus before it can do any damage (see Understanding Anti-Virus Software for more information). Because attackers are continually writing new viruses, it is important to keep your definitions up to date. Some anti-virus vendors also offer anti-rootkit software.
* Install a firewall - Firewalls may be able to prevent some types of infection by blocking malicious traffic before it can enter your computer and limiting the traffic you send (see Understanding Firewalls for more information). Some operating systems actually include a firewall, but you need to make sure it is enabled.
* Use good passwords - Select passwords that will be difficult for attackers to guess, and use different passwords for different programs and devices (see Choosing and Protecting Passwords for more information). Do not choose options that allow your computer to remember your passwords.
* Keep software up to date - Install software patches so that attackers can't take advantage of known problems or vulnerabilities (see Understanding Patches for more information). Many operating systems offer automatic updates. If this option is available, you should enable it.
* Follow good security practices - Take appropriate precautions when using email and web browsers to reduce the risk that your actions will trigger an infection (see other US-CERT security tips for more information).
Unfortunately, if there is a rootkit on your computer or an attacker is using your computer in a botnet, you may not know it. Even if you do discover that you are a victim, it is difficult for the average user to effectively recover. The attacker may have modified files on your computer, so simply removing the malicious files may not solve the problem. If you believe that you are a victim, consider contacting a trained system administrator.
As an alternative, some vendors are developing products and tools that may remove a rootkit from your computer. If the software cannot locate and remove the infection, you may need to reinstall your operating system, usually with a system restore disk that is often supplied with a new computer. Note that reinstalling or restoring the operating system typically erases all of your files and any additional software that you have installed on your computer.
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST06-001.html
Microsoft Tricks Hacker Into Jail
ms Nobody was ever arrested for leaking the secret source code for parts of the Windows operating system in 2004, but a hacker who sold a copy online afterward was sentenced to two years in federal prison Friday.
Fri Jan27 2006 8:38pm EST by shanmuga
______________________________________________________________________
By Kevin Poulsen | Also by this reporter
13:22 PM Jan, 27, 2006 EST
Nobody was ever arrested for leaking the secret source code for parts of the Windows operating system in 2004, but a hacker who sold a copy online afterward was sentenced to two years in federal prison Friday.
William "IllWill" Genovese, 29, will serve three years of supervised release following his prison term, during which he'll be subject to electronic monitoring through special software installed on his computer, under the terms handed down by federal Judge William Pauley in New York. He remains free on bail, and is scheduled to report to prison March 14.
Genovese ran a popular hacking-oriented community website called IllMob.org in February 2004 when two 200-MB files containing incomplete portions of the source code for the Windows 2000 and Windows NT operating systems hit the internet, flooding dodgy websites and peer-to-peer networks like some hard-core geek version of the Paris Hilton video.
Like many others, Genovese downloaded a copy. Unlike others, he posted a note to his website offering it for sale.
According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code. The investigator then returned and arranged a second $20 transaction for an FBI agent, which led to Genovese's indictment under the U.S. Economic Espionage Act, which makes it a felony to sell a company's stolen trade secrets. After consulting with his public defender, Genovese pleaded guilty last August.
Genovese would have had a viable defense had he gone to trial, because the documents were widely available on peer-to-peer networks at the time of the sale, said Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor.
"This guy didn't participate in the misappropriation, and probably didn't conspire with anybody to misappropriate it," said Rasch, a vice president at security company Solutionary. "Once it's posted online, it's just not secret anymore. At some point it becomes public information."
But Genovese's public posting, coupled with his long rap sheet, made him an obvious target for prosecution. Government court filings show the Connecticut man has an extensive record of mostly petty crimes, beginning with a 1996 conviction for criminal trespass for spray painting a bridge, followed by a rash of thefts from motor vehicles and a burglary conviction. In 1999 he was convicted of "breaching the peace" by assaulting the mother of his child, according to court records.
At the time of the source-code sale, Genovese was on probation for computer trespass and eavesdropping after breaking into some private computers and installing keystroke-logging software.
"Basically, everything I do, I do ass-backwards," Genovese said in an instant-messaging interview ahead of Friday's sentencing. "I like drawing, so I spray paint. I like music, so I took some radios of kids I hated in high school. I like computers, so I hack."
Microsoft also asked for an "appropriate amount" of financial restitution, which the government estimated at $70,000. The judge declined.
The company has long maintained that the source code to Windows and other products are its crown jewels, and that making the code public could cause serious harm by stripping it of trade-secret status, and allowing competitors to duplicate the functionality of Microsoft software.
The company has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products -- though, so far, intruders are doing fine without the source.
Microsoft had no immediate comment on the case.
Genovese said Thursday that he shut down IllMob.org temporarily this week after Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Southwell cited it in his request that Genovese receive a 30-month sentence -- the maximum under federal sentencing guidelines.
In addition to providing free hacking tools, the website has played host to candid photos stolen from celebrity cell phones and Sidekicks. And Limp Bizkit lead singer Fred Durst recently blamed IllMob for stealing and releasing his sex video last year.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70106-0.html?tw=rss.technology
p2p news / p2pnet: Canada's Nettwerk Music is getting a lot of well-deserved ink and multo bytes for taking on the Big Four record label cartel's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
As Bob Lefset says, "Nettwerk manages such international superstars as Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne and Dido. Along with middle tier acts like the aforementioned Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41 and Jars of Clay. And DEVELOPING acts like Brand New.
"Isn't this JUST the kind of guy who should be lining up behind Mitch Bainwol and the RIAA? I mean Terry McBride is IN BED with the major labels. Doesn't Nettwerk function as the A&R for Sony BMG in Canada now?"
He is indeed and the most important aspect of this story is, as Nettwerk itself clearly says, it became involved in the battle against the RIAA, "after 15 year-old Elisa Greubel contacted MC Lars, also a Nettwerk management client, to say that she identified with 'Download This Song,' a track from the artist?s latest release.
"In an e-mail to the artist?s web-site, she wrote, 'My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line ?they sue little kids downloading hit songs?, basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous.?
The RIAA has, "continually misused the court and legal system, engaging in misguided litigation tactics for the purpose of extorting settlement amounts from everyday people ? parents, students, doctors, and general consumers of music,? says lawyer Charles Lee Mudd, whom Nettwork has retained to help the 15-year-old.
?In doing so, the RIAA has misapplied existing copyright law and improperly employed its protections not as a shield, but as a sword. Many of the individuals targeted by the RIAA are not the 'thieves' the RIAA has made them out to be.
"Moreover, individual defendants typically do not have the resources to mount a full-fledged defensive campaign to demonstrate the injustice of the RIAA?s actions."
You can ask Patti Santangelo about that.
Meanwhile, what's the real message in this tale? If you want action, go to the people who really do care about what happens to music lovers.
The performers themselves.
You can ask MC Lars about that ----- which we're in the process of doing.
The other message is:
Just because a large, multi-national music companyworks directly with the members of the Big Four record label cartel (EMI, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG), it doesn't automatically means it's infected with the Big Four's warped morals.
Also See:
IN BED - Nettwerk Music fights the RIAA, January 27, 2006
ask Patti Santangelo - Patti Santangelo fights on, January 27, 2006
p2p news views / p2pnet: The members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel would dearly love the world at large to believe individual music industry groups are grappling nobly with millions of criminal p2p file sharers, including young children, who are "devastating" them by thieving music.
However, file sharing is far more of a world-wide protest than it is an attempt to deprive the labels of what's rightfully theirs. Every man, woman and child who uses the p2p networks would happily pay a reasonable price for their downloads. And indeed, millions do, through the independent sites.
The vast majority of ex-consumers are just not willing to pay $1 and up for a lossy, low-fi digital file.
The supposedly individual efforts by the many and various Sony BMG, Warner Music, EMI and Vivendi Universal units are simply all part of one massive, highly orchestrated scheme meant to to turn the clock back to the good old days when they had total and complete control over you and what you bought.
Thanks to the Net, those days are gone for ever and the Big Four's current business model under which they're trying to legal the world into buying grossly over-priced 'product' is just an example of how incredibly stupid they are and how badly they're misreading consumer reactions to their sue 'em all marketing effort.
Because, thanks to the Net, Marshal Mcluhan's vision of a Global Village, an interconnected worldwide society, is now a reality.
We know the RIAA, CRIAA, MPAA, BSA, IFPI, BPI and all the other 'A's and 'I's are wholly owned by a small group of hard core of music, movie and software corporations and that an attack on someone in France or Sweden is the same as an attack on someone in Canada and the US.
p2pnet is Canadian. It's based on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. But it's organized the Fight Goliath campaign for Patti Santangelo, an American mother of five who by herself has taken on the Big Four and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
And another Canadian entity, privately owned record label and artist management company Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver on the BC mainland and which manages some of North America?s biggest artists such as Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, has also gone up against the RIAA.
Below is Nettwerk's press release, and under it, a word or 10 from music industry commentator Bob Lefsetz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nettwerk Music Grouop takes on the RIAA
In August 2005, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a complaint against David Greubel for alleged file sharing. Greubel is accused of having 600 suspected music files on the family computer. The RIAA is targeting nine specific songs, including ?Sk8er Boi? by Arista artist, Avril Lavigne, a Nettwerk management client.
The RIAA has demanded Greubel pay a $9,000 stipulated judgment as a penalty, though it will accept $4,500 should Greubel pay the amount within a specific period of time.
?Suing music fans is not the solution, it?s the problem,? stated Terry McBride, C.E.O of Nettwerk Music Group.
Nettwerk became involved in the battle against the RIAA after 15 year-old Elisa Greubel contacted MC Lars, also a Nettwerk management client, to say that she identified with ?Download This Song,? a track from the artist?s latest release. In an e-mail to the artist?s web-site, she wrote, ?My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line ?they sue little kids downloading hit songs?, basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous.?
Chicago-based Mudd Law Offices will take on the legal battle. Charles Lee Mudd Jr. has represented individuals subpoenaed and sued by the RIAA since the suits began in late summer 2003.
Mudd stated, "In an effort to combat the continued injustice of the RIAA?s consumer lawsuits, attorneys, musicians and artist managers have joined forces to defend the interests of David Greubel and his family in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Together, these parties hope to demonstrate the injustice and impropriety of the RIAA Litigation Initiative.? Joining the litigation team will be Scott Lundhagen, an associate with Mudd Law Offices, and as local counsel, John G. Browning of Browning & Fleishman, P.C., Dallas, Texas.
The RIAA has issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to various Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These ISPs include commercial, academic, and private providers of internet service.
"Since 2003 the RIAA has continually misused the court and legal system, engaging in misguided litigation tactics for the purpose of extorting settlement amounts from everyday people ? parents, students, doctors, and general consumers of music,? Mudd stated. ?In doing so, the RIAA has misapplied existing copyright law and improperly employed its protections not as a shield, but as a sword. Many of the individuals targeted by the RIAA are not the ?thieves? the RIAA has made them out to be. Moreover, individual defendants typically do not have the resources to mount a full-fledged defensive campaign to demonstrate the injustice of the RIAA?s actions. Today we are fortunate that principled artists and a management company, Nettwerk Music Group, have joined the effort to deter the RIAA from aggressive tactics ? tactics that have failed to accomplish even the RIAA's goals."
Nettwerk Music Group has agreed to pay the total expense of all legal fees as well as any fines should the family lose the case against the RIAA.
?Litigation is not ?artist development.? Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love,? insists McBride. ?The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists? best interests.?
?My family owes a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Terry McBride and his company and artists they
represent,? said Greubel. ?Further, every music fan, every citizen owes him gratitude for his courage to stand up and say, ?This is not right!? Anyone who has been involved in the legal system knows the feeling of being forced into a position they do not believe in, simply because they did not have the resources to have their day in court. Mr. McBride has stood up, and again said, ?This is not right!? Thank God for people like him.?
The RIAA defines itself as ?the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry? and its mission statement includes, ?to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members? creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies.?
Emily Provansal
Nettwerk Music Group
Emilyp@nettwerk.com
Charles Lee Mudd Jr.
Mudd Law Offices
cmudd@muddlawoffices.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here's what Bob Lefsetz has to say.
Terry McBride is not stupid.
In fact, he's one of the smartest and shrewdest operators in the business. You can argue with his methods, stating he burns his artists out in the process of breaking them. But really, don't you have to give props to someone who turned the Barenaked Ladies, the world's least sexy and least charismatic rock group, into an arena act?
If Terry McBride and his Nettwerk operation were located south of the border, the "New York Times" would have done a story on them, Terry would be a national hero, not quite as impressive and lionized as Steve Jobs, but respected and viewed as a role model by the younger generation.
Nettwerk manages such international superstars as Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne and Dido. Along with middle tier acts like the aforementioned Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41 and Jars of Clay. And DEVELOPING acts like Brand New. Isn't this JUST the kind of guy who should be lining up behind Mitch Bainwol and the RIAA? I mean Terry McBride is IN BED with the major labels. Doesn't Nettwerk function as the A&R for Sony BMG in Canada now??
But Terry McBride is drawing the line. Because Terry McBride knows it's about fans, and careers, and what the RIAA is doing is eviscerating both.
We've been waiting for this war between the managers and the labels FOREVER! We've been waiting for a backlash against Metallica versus Napster. And now we have it.
Metallica wasn't wholly wrong. The original Napster put forth the notion that what it was doing was legal. Hogwash. Anyone with a Bar Card knew better (and isn't it funny that Napster was run by lawyers...) We needed a lawsuit to establish that the copyrightholders had rights, that you needed a LICENSE to utilize their material. But those of us who actually used Napster, who were ecstatic over the advantages of such a service, advantages which ultimately resulted in the worldwide phenomenon of the iPod, were under the illusion that once the major labels got their rights reinforced, established, laid down, they'd go forth AND license.
Turned out nothing could be further from the truth.
The major label cartel, which never used Napster, which bans P2P software on all its computers, putting its head in the sand like an ostrich, not wanting to see the future, is hurting Terry McBride's business. And he doesn't LIKE IT!
He tried to be a good soldier. But his responsibility is to his acts, not his corporate brethren, and what he sees is his acts' fans being PENALIZED for their fandom. Hell, it's HARD ENOUGH to break an act, you don't want the people paying attention SCARED AWAY!
But that's what the major labels are doing. Sales show it. And the iTunes Music Store is more of a ruse than a replacement business.
Terry McBride turns out to be a real rock and roller. Not a namby-pamby who's changing his lyrics for Wal-Mart and doing whatever his label says to pump up sales of his record. In rock and roll, it's what you STAND FOR that's important. (Very different from hip-hop. Where the FRUITS of the labor are the most important thing...the bitches and ho's, the ice and the iron.)
Terry's been trying new things. Not that they get much press in the States, but he's innovative in a way that the major labels are not. He's TRYING! And the labels are getting in his way.
So Terry drew a line in the sand.
That fiasco in the French legislature? Where penalties for traders turned into a proposed law for licensing trading? That was just the beginning.
This is a good story. It's kind of like the Mob going to the mattresses. People LOVE IT when families fight.
The family is now in a fight. There's now a crack in the RIAA facade. The one that says the only way out is to sue traders, and that they're doing this SUCCESSFULLY, i.e., they're reducing P2P trades.
This was an issue waiting to flare up. While the RIAA maneuvered behind the scenes, the public consciousness moved on. Which the RIAA thought was good for them. Of course, this is untrue. Since, in the heyday of Napster, when EVERYBODY was talking about music and trading same, CD sales were at their ABSOLUTE HIGHEST! But, despite it not being a topic of everyday conversation, people were still trading, more than ever. It was an underground movement. Waiting for an ignition point.
Houston, we've got ignition.
Terry McBride, a true music business insider, one with JUICE, has now raised the question... Is the RIAA's strategy RIGHT?
But it's more than that.
Is the RIAA's strategy JUST? Is it GOOD for music? Good for ACTS? Good for FANS?
Terry McBride thinks not.
And he's not alone. He's got the public on his side.
As for the rest of the wimpy managers and acts... When will they see that the major labels ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE! That they're in the business of careers, and the more people who possess their music, by acquiring it cheaply via licensed P2P, the better it is FOR THEM?
It appears a hundred year war.
But it's worth fighting. For make no mistake, mass distribution of music via the Net, so EVERYBODY is a music consumer, has music on his hard drive, is not only good for music, it's good for the MUSIC BUSINESS!
Bob Lefsetz - The Lefsetz Letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile, as we say in another story, the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel spare no expense in their bitter war against the 'consumers' whom, they claim, are thieves and criminals who "illegally" download music without paying for it.
This isn't, however, a criminal matter, efforts by the cartel's RIAA to elevate it to that level notwithstanding. It's a civil one. And what's at issue isn't if someone's broken a law ? it's whether or not he or she has infringed a copyright, which is a very long way from "criminal" or "illegal".
But this time the Big Four aren't merely beating up on defenceless men, women and children who have no hope of matching their bottomless legal and financial resources.
Now the labels have You and the World Wide Web to contend with.
p2p news special / p2pnet: Professor Ed Felten (left) and Alex Halderman are working on an academic paper, 'Lessons from the Sony CD DRM Episode' which will, "analyze several not-yet-discussed aspects of the XCP and MediaMax CD copy protection technologies, and will try to put the Sony CD episode in context and draw lessons for the future," they say on Felten's blog.
They're posting drafts of a few sections because they, "hope the postings will be interesting in themselves, and we hope your comments will help us improve the paper.
But the sections are part of the draft and shouldn't be formally quoted or cited, they emphasise, saying the final, complete version will be posted on Felten's Freedom to Tinker blog.
For how, below are the three sections published so far, in order of appearance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CD DRM: Threat Models and Business Models
Freedom to Tinker - January 24, 2006
[Excerpt from a section early in the paper where we are still setting the scene before the main technical discussion begins]
Before analyzing the security of any system, we need to ask what the system is trying to accomplish: what its threat model is. In the case of CD DRM, the system?s goals are purely economic, and the technical goals of the system exist only to protect or enable the business models of the record label and the DRM vendor. Accordingly, any discussion of threat models must begin and end by talking about business models.
It is important to note that the record label and the DRM vendor are separate entities whose goals and incentives are not always aligned. Indeed, we will see that incentive differences between the label and the DRM vendor can be an important factor in understanding the design and deployment of CD DRM systems.
Record Label Goals
The record label would like to prevent music from the CD from becoming generally available on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, but this goal is clearly infeasible. If even one user succeeds in ripping an unprotected copy of the music and putting that copy onto P2P networks, then the music will be generally available. Clearly no CD DRM system can be nearly strong enough to stop this from happening; and as we will see below, real systems do not even try to achieve the kind of comprehensive coverage of all major computing platforms that we would needed as a prerequisite for stopping P2P sharing of protected music. We conclude that the goal of CD DRM systems cannot be to prevent P2P file sharing.
The record label?s goal must therefore be to stop many users from making disc-to-disc copies or from engaging in other forms of local copying or use of the music. By preventing local copying, the record company might be able to sell more copies of the music. For example, if Alice cannot make a copy of a CD to give to Bob, Bob might buy another copy from the record label.
By controlling other local uses, the record company might be able to charge extra fee for those uses. For example, if the record label can stop Alice from downloading music from a CD into her iPod, the label might be able to charge Alice an extra fee for iPod downloads. Charging extra for iPod downloads creates a new revenue stream for the label, but it also reduces the value to users of the original CD and therefore reduces the revenue that the label can extract from CD sales. Whether the new revenue stream outweighs the loss of CD revenue depends on detailed assumptions about customer preferences, which may not be easy for the label to determine in practice. For our purposes, it suffices to say that the label wants to establish control over the uses made by at least some users, because that control will tend generally to increase the label?s profit.
We note also that the record company?s profit-maximizing strategy in this regard is largely independent of the contours of copyright law. Whether the label would find it more profitable to control a use, as opposed to bundling it with the CD purchase, is a separate question from whether the law gives the label the right to file lawsuits relating to that use. Attempting to enforce copyright law exactly as written is almost certainly not the record label?s profit-maximizing strategy.
Monetizing the Platform
Even beyond its effect on controlling copying and use of content, CD DRM can generate revenue for the record label because it installs and runs software on users? computers. The label can monetize this installed platform in various ways. For example, the DRM software comes with a special music-player application which is used to listen to the protected disc. This application can display advertisements or other promotional material that creates value for the label. Alternatively, the platform can gather information about the user?s music listening habits, and that information can be exploited for some business purpose. If these tactics are taken too far, the DRM software can become spyware. Even if these tactics are pursued more moderately, users may still object; but the record company may use these tactics anyway if it believes the benefits to it outweigh the costs.
DRM Vendor Goals
The DRM vendor?s primary goal, obviously, is to provide value to the record label, in order to maximize the price that the vendor can charge the label for using the DRM technology. If this were the only factor, then the incentives of the vendor and the label would be perfectly aligned and there would be no need to consider the vendor?s incentives separately.
However, there are at least two ways in which the DRM vendor?s incentives diverge from the record label?s. First, the vendor has a much larger tolerance for risk than the label does. The label is a large, established business with a valuable brand name. The vendor (at least in the cases at issue here) is a start-up company struggling to establish itself. The label has much more to lose than the vendor does if something goes horribly wrong. Accordingly, we can expect the vendor to be much more willing to accept security risks than the label is.
The second incentive difference is that the vendor can monetize the installed platform in ways that are not available to the record label. For example, once the vendor?s software is installed on a user?s system, the software can control copying and use of other labels? CDs. Having a larger installed base makes the vendor?s product more
attractive to other labels. Because the vendor gets this extra benefit from installing the software, the vendor has an incentive to be more aggressive about pushing the software onto users? computers than the label would be.
In short, the vendor?s incentives diverge from the label?s incentives in ways that make the vendor more likely to (a) cut corners and accept security and reliability risks, and (b) push its software onto more user?s computers, even in some cases where the label would prefer to do otherwise. If the label knew everything about how the vendor?s technology worked, then this would not be an issue ? the label would simply insist that the vendor protect its interests. But if some aspects of the vendor?s design are withheld from the label as proprietary, or if the label is not extremely diligent in monitoring the vendor?s design choices ? both of which are likely in practice ? then the vendor will sometimes act against the label?s interests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CD DRM: Attacks on Disc Recognition
Freedom to Tinker - January 26, 2006
[Excerpt is from the middle of the paper where we?re wading through details about the copy protection systems and the techniques they use to recognize protected CDs.]
The active protection mechanisms introduced earlier selectively regulate access to raw CD audio, blocking access to the audio tracks on albums protected with a particular scheme while allowing access to all other titles. To accomplish this, the schemes install a background process that interposes itself between applications and the original CD driver. In MediaMax, this process is a kernel-mode driver called sbcphid.sys. XCP uses a pair of filter drivers attached to the CD-ROM and IDE devices called crater.sys and cor.sys. In both schemes, the active protection drivers examine each disc that is inserted into the computer to see whether access to it should be restricted. If the disc is recognized as copy protected, the drivers monitor for attempts to read the audio tracks, as would occur during a playback, rip, or disc copy operation, and corrupt the audio returned by the drive to degrade the listening experience. MediaMax introduces a large amount of random jitter, making the ripped audio sound like it has come from a badly scratched or damaged CD; XCP replaces the audio with random noise.
Each scheme?s active protection software interferes with attempts to rip or copy any disc that is protected by the same scheme, not merely the disc from which the software was installed. This requires some mechanism for identifying discs that are to be protected. This section discusses the security requirements for such a recognition system, describes the design and limitations of the actual recognition mechanism employed by the MediaMax scheme, and presents an improved design that better satisfies the requirements.
Recognition Requirements
Any disc recognition system must involve detecting some identifying feature on discs protected by a particular scheme. Ideally, such a feature would satisfy these requirements:
1. Uniqueness. The feature should identify protected discs without accidentally triggering the copy protection on unprotected titles.
2. Detectability. It should be possible for the active protection drivers running on client systems to reliably and quickly detect the feature in protected discs. In practice, this limits the amount of audio that can be read from the disc before deciding whether to apply protection.
3. Indelibility. The feature should be difficult to remove without substantially degrading the quality of the audio; that is, it should be difficult to make a copy of the copy protected disc that does not itself trigger the protection.
4. Unforgeability. It should be difficult to apply the feature to an unprotected album without the cooperation of the protection vendor, even if the adversary has access to protected discs.
This last requirement stems from the business strategies of the copy protection vendors. As discussed in earlier, many of these vendors are pursuing a platform building strategy. The biggest obstacle to the success of an active protection system is getting the protection software installed on client machines. Once installed, the software can regulate access to all discs protected by the scheme, even if the user learns to disable autorun or refuse future CD DRM installation requests. Thus each completed installation increases the effectiveness of the protection platform and heightens its value to the protection vendor and its music label clients.
Being widely installed adds value to these copy protection systems, but it also exposes them to a new class of attacks. The protection companies earn revenue from record labels who license their schemes, typically paying some fee per title or per copy. This revenue stream may be threatened if disc publishers can mark their discs as protected without paying.
There are advantages and disadvantages for the person placing the unauthorized marks. Copyright would prohibit rogue publishers from distributing an installer for the active protection software, though they might depend on the existing installed base from licensed titles. They would also be prevented from employing the components of the protection software that allow users to access restricted copies of the music; however, they could create their own software to provide this capability if they desired. On the other hand, free riding publishers would not be restricted to marking their disc for only one scheme. By identifying their discs as copy protected with multiple schemes, they could invoke multiple layers of security and provide stronger protection than is available with any single technique, all without paying. (It is possible that protection producers could have legal remedies against such free riders, such as through a patented identification feature, but we are unaware of any patents that cover the identification features known to be in use. Even if some kind of legal remedy is available, it?s worth designing the mark to prevent the problem too, at least if the cost of doing so is low.) Preventing free riding by publishers requires some kind of disc authentication mechanism to control access to installed active protection software?a meta-copy protection technique.
How MediaMax Recognizes Protected Discs
To find out how the disc recognition mechanisms employed by CD DRM systems stack up the ideal requirements, we examined the recognition system built into MediaMax CD-3 and MM-5 systems. The MediaMax system drew our attention because MediaMax?s creators have touted their advanced disc identification capabilities, including the ability to identify individual tracks within a compilation as protected, and well as their platform-building strategy. (The XCP scheme appears to use a less sophisticated disc recognition system based on a marker stored in the data track of protected discs. We may talk more about it later.)
We determined how MediaMax identifies protected albums by tracing the commands sent to the CD drive with and without the active protection software running. These experiments took place on a Windows XP virtual machine running on top of a Fedora Linux host system, which we modified by patching the kernel IDE-SCSI device to log all drive activity.
With this setup we observed that the MediaMax software executes a disc recognition procedure immediately upon the insertion of a CD. The MediaMax driver reads two sectors of audio data at a specific offset from the beginning of audio tracks?approximately 365 and 366 frames in (a CD frame is 1/75 second). On unprotected discs, the software scans through every track in this way, but on MediaMax-protected albums, it stops after the first three tracks, apparently having detected an identifying feature. The software decides whether or not to block read access to the audio solely on the basis of information in this region, so we inferred that the identifying mechanism takes the form of an inaudible watermark embedded in this part of the audio stream. (By locating the watermark nearly five seconds after the start of the track, MediaMax reduces the likelihood that it will occur in a very quiet passage, where it might be more audible, and makes it more difficult to crop out.)
Locating the watermark amid megabytes of audio might have been difficult, but we had the advantage of a virtual Rosetta Stone. The actual Rosetta Stone is a 1500 lb. granite slab unearthed by French archaeologists in Rosetta, Egypt, in 1799. A single Ptolemaic decree is written on the stone in three scripts: ancient hieroglyphics, demotic (simplified) hieroglyphics, and Greek. Comparing these inscriptions provided the key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphic texts. Our Rosetta Stone was a single album, Velvet Revolver?s Contraband (BMG, 2004), released in three different versions: a U.S. release protected by MediaMax, a European release protected by a passive scheme developed by Macrovision, and a Japanese release with no copy protection. We decoded the MediaMax watermark by examining the differences between the audio on these three discs. Binary comparison revealed no differences between the releases from Europe and Japan; however, the MediaMax-protected U.S. release differed slightly from the other two in certain parts of the recording. By carefully analyzing these differences?and repeatedly attempting to create new watermarked discs using the MediaMax active protection software as an oracle?we were able to deduce the structure of the watermark.
The MediaMax watermark is embedded into the audio of each track in 30 clusters. Each cluster is made up of 288 marked 16-bit audio samples followed by 104 unaltered samples. Three mark clusters exactly fit into one 2352-byte CD audio frame. The watermark is centered at approximately frame 365 of the track; though the detection routine in the software only reads two frames, the mark extends several frames to either side of the designated read target to allow for imprecise seeking in the audio portion of the disc (a typical shortcoming of inexpensive CD drives). The MediaMax driver detects the watermark if at least one mark cluster is present in the region read by the detector.
A sequence of 288 bits we call the raw watermark is embedded into the 288 marked audio samples of each mark cluster. A single bit of the raw watermark is embedded into an unmarked audio sample by setting one of the three least significant bits to the new bit value (as shown in bold) and then patching up the two other bits, according to this table:
(This design seems to be intended to lessen the audible distortion caused by by setting one of the bits to the watermark value. The change in the other two bits reduces the magnitude of the difference from the original audio sample, but it also introduces a highly uneven distribution in the three LSBs that makes the watermark easier to detect or remove.)
The position of the embedded bit in each sample follows a fixed sequence for every mark cluster. Each of the 288 bits is embedded in the first-, second-, or third-least-significant bit position of the sample according to this sequence:
The 288-bit raw watermark is detected by the active protection software only when it has certain properties, as shown in the sequence below. In the 288-bit sequence, 96 positions have fixed bit values, either 0 or 1. The trailing 32 positions have arbitrary values (as indicated by _), and can be used to store a 32-bit disc-specific value. The other 192 positions are divided into 32 groups of linked values (denoted a-z and alpha-zeta). In each group, three positions share the same value and three share the complement value. This allows the scheme to encode a second 32-bit value, though in actual discs it appears to be a different random value in each of the 30 mark clusters.
Attacks on the MediaMax Watermark
The MediaMax watermark fails to satisfy the indelibility and unforgeability requirements of an ideal disc recognition system. Far from being indelible, the mark is surprisingly brittle. Most advanced designs for robust audio watermarks manipulate the audio in the frequency domain and attempt to resist removal by lossy compression, multiple conversions between digital and analog formats, and other common transformation. In contrast, the MediaMax watermark is applied in the time domain and is rendered undetectable by even minor changes to the file. An adversary without any knowledge of the watermark?s design could remove it by converting the tracks to a lossy format like MP3 and then burning them back to a CD, which can be accomplished easily with standard consumer applications. This would result in some minor loss of fidelity, but a more sophisticated adversary could prevent the mark from being detected with almost no degradation by flipping the least significant of one carefully chosen sample from each of the 30 watermark clusters, thereby preventing the mark from exhibiting the pattern required by the detector.
The MediaMax watermark also fails to satisfy the unforgeability requirement. The mark?s only defense against forgery is its complicated, unpublished design, but as is often the case this security by obscurity has proved tedious rather than impossible to defeat. As it turns out, an adversary needs only limited knowledge of the watermark?its location within a protected track and its confinement to the three LSBs of each sample?to forge it with minimal loss of fidelity. Such an attacker could transplant the three LSBs of each sample within the watermarked region of a protected track to the corresponding sample from an unprotected one. Transplanting these bits would cause distortion more audible that that caused by embedding the watermark since the copied bits are likely to differ by a greater amount from the original sample values; however, the damage to the audio quality would be limited since the marked region is only 0.4 seconds in duration. A more sophisticated adversary could apply a watermark to an unprotected track by deducing the full details of the structure of the watermark, as we did; she could then embed the mark in an arbitrary audio file just as well a licensed disc producer.
Secure Disc Recognition
Having shown that the MediaMax watermark fails to provide either strong resistance to removal or strong resistance to forgery, we ask whether it is possible to securely accomplish either or both of these goals.
As far as indelibility is concerned, watermarking schemes have a poor history of resisting removal. This is especially true against an adversary who has oracle access to the watermark detector, as was the case with a previous application of watermarks to audio copy protection, SDMI, and with CD DRM systems. Making marks that are both indelible and unforgeable is likely much more difficult. There seems to be tension between marks that are difficult to remove and ones that are hard to forge. Enforcing both requirements creates two ways to fool the detector?by rendering the mark invisible and by making it appear forged. If, as in CD DRM, either situation leads to the same result (no protection), the attacker?s power is multiplied.
In contrast, a mark strongly robust to forgery is simple to create based on digital signatures if we aren?t concerned with its being easy to remove. A very simple scheme works as follows:
* To sign an audio track, the licensed publisher reads a fixed portion L1 of the audio data (say, the first ten seconds), then computes a cryptographic hash of L1 and signs it using a public key signature algorithm to derive the signature SL1 := SignKS(Hash(L1)). SL1 is then stored at a second location in the track by setting the LSB of each sample in the region to the corresponding bit in the signature. A 320-bit DSA signature could be embedded in this way using approximately the same space as one mark cluster of the MediaMax watermark.
* The publisher keeps the signing key KS secret, and builds the corresponding verification key KV into the client software. When presented with a CD, the software checks for a valid signature. First it reads the audio from the signed area of the track and hashes it, and it locates and extracts the signature stored in the LSBs in the second mark location. Next, it verifies the signature on the hash using KV. If the signature is correct, the watermark is valid and genuine; otherwise, forgery or data corruption is indicated.
Forging such a mark would require defeating the digital signature scheme or splicing both L1 and SL1 from a legitimately marked album. We set L1 to be several seconds of audio to make such splicing less appealing.
Clearly this watermark is highly vulnerable to removal. If even a single bit of the hashed region is changed, the mark will not be recognized as valid. Yet the watermark MediaMax actually uses is also vulnerable to corruption by a single bit too while being far less resistant to forgery. Robustness to removal, while desirable in principle, is of limited value in real CD DRM applications. Removal of the watermark is unlikely to be the weakest link protecting the audio, and while the gains from creating a more indelible watermark are slight, the loss to free riders from an easily forgeable mark is potentially much larger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CD DRM: Compatibility and Software Updates
Freedom to Tinker - January 28, 2006
[This part will be (in the final paper) the last part of the technical core of the paper. Readers of the final paper will have seen the rest of our technical analysis by this point. Blog readers haven?t seen it all yet - stay tuned.]
Compared to other media on which software is distributed, compact discs have a very long life. Many compact discs will still be inserted into computers and other players twenty years or more after they are first bought. If a particular version of (say) active protection software is burned onto a new CD, that software version may well try to install and run itself decades after it was first developed.
The same is not true of conventional software, even when it ships on a CD-ROM. Very few if any of today?s Windows XP CDs will be inserted into computers in 2026; but CDs containing today?s CD DRM software will be. Accordingly, CD DRM software faces a much more serious issue of compatibility with future systems.
The future compatibility problem has two distinct aspects: safety, or how to avoid incompatibilities that cause crashes or malfunction of other software, and efficacy, or how to ensure that the desired anti-copying features remain effective.
Protecting Safety by Deactivating Old Software
Safety is the easier attribute to protect, and in most respects the more important. One way to protect safety is to design the DRM software so that it is likely to be inert and harmless on future systems. Both XCP and MediaMax do this by relying on the Windows Autorun feature, which is unlikely to be supported in future Windows versions for security reasons. If, say, the upcoming Windows Vista does not support Autorun (or supports it but disables it by default), then XCP and MediaMax will have no effect on Vista systems. Perhaps the use of Autorun by XCP and MediaMax was a deliberate design decision to ensure safety; but we suspect that it was a side-effect of a design choice that was expedient for other reasons.
Another way to protect safety is to build a sunset date into the software, and to program the software to be as inert as possible once the sunset date is reached. Building in a sunset after (say) three years would protect against many safety problems; and it would have little effect on the record label?s business model, as we would expect nearly all revenue from monetizing new uses of the music to have been extracted within the first three years after the disc is pressed. If a customer is ever going to pay for iPod downloading, she is likely to do so within the first three years after the CD is pressed.
Updating the Software
Like any software vendor, a DRM vendor can issue new verions of its products. A new version can be shipped on newly pressed CDs, but existing CDs cannot be modified retroactively.
Instead, the vendor can offer updates, which can be delivered either by download or on new CDs. Downloads can occur immediately, but only on machines that are connected to the Internet. CD delivery can potentially reach more machines, but is slower and less certain.
Either mode of distribution can be used straightforwardly if the user wants to cooperate. Users will generally cooperate with updates that only provide safety on new systems, or that otherwise increase the software?s value to the user. But updates that merely retain the efficacy of the software?s usage restriction mechanisms will not be welcomed by users.
Users have many ways to block the downloading or installation of updates. They can write-protect the software?s code, so that it cannot be updated. They can configure the system to block network connections to the vendor?s servers. They can use standard security tools, such as personal firewalls, to stop the downloads. System security tools are often well suited for such a task, being programmed to block unwanted network connections, downloads, and code installation. If a current security tool does not block updates of CD DRM software, the tool vendor has an incentive to make future versions do so.
A DRM vendor who wants to offer efficacy-related updates, recognizing that users will not want those updates, has two options. The vendor can offer updates and hope that many users will not bother to block them. From the record label?s standpoint, prolonging the system?s efficacy for some users is better than nothing. Alternatively, the vendor can try to force users to accept updates.
Forcing Updates
If a user can block updates of the DRM software on his machine, the vendor?s best strategy for forcing an update is somehow to convince the user that the update is in his best interest. This can be done by making a non-updated system painful to use.
If we rule out dangerous and almost certainly illegal approaches such as logic bombs that destroy a noncompliant user?s files or hold his computer hostage, the vendor?s best option is to make the DRM software block all access to protected CDs until the user updates the software. The software might check periodically with some server on the Internet, which would produce some kind of cryptographic assertion saying which versions are allowed to continue operating without an update, as of some date time. If the software on the user?s system noticed that no recent certificate existed that allowed its own version to keep operating, it would go into a locked down mode that blocked all
access to protected discs but allowed software updates. The user would then have to update to a new version in order to get access to his protected CDs.
This approach could force updates on some users and thereby prolong the efficacy of the DRM for those users. However, it also has several drawbacks. If the computer is not connected to the Internet, the software will eventually lock down the user?s music because it cannot see any certificates that allow it to continue. (The software could continue working if it can?t see the Internet, but that would allow users to block updates indefinitely by configuring their systems to stop the DRM software from making network connections.) A bug in the software could cause it to lock itself down irreversibly, perhaps by accident. The software could lock itself down if the vendor?s Internet site is shut down, for example if the vendor goes bankrupt.
Locking down the music, or forcing a restrictive software update, can also be counterproductive, by giving the user a reason to defeat or remove the DRM software. (Users could also defeat the timeout mechanism by misleading the DRM software about the date and time, but we expect that most users with the inclination to do that would choose instead to remove the DRM software altogether.) The software is more likely to remain on the user?s system if it does not behave annoyingly. Automatic update can reduce the DRM system?s efficacy if it just drives users to remove the DRM software. From the user?s standpoint, every software update is a security risk, because it might carry hostile or buggy code.
Given the difficulties associated with forced updates, and the user backlash it likely would have triggered, we are not surprised that neither XCP nor MediaMax chose to use forced updates.
p2p news / p2pnet: France is fast becoming a central battle ground for the right of people to enjoy music without the cynical, bottom-line inspired constraints the music industry is trying so desperately to impose.
It was the first country to propose the legalization of p2p downloading and now a French court has told Warner Music not use DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) on the Phil Collins' Testify CD, says Aziz Ridouan on the the Association of Audionautes site.
"This decision is not definitive but it was supported by the famous French Consumer Association 'UFC-Que Choisir' who will not hesitate to defend it in front of the Court of Appeal, if necessary," says Ridouan, going on:
"It upholds the previous 2005 April 15th decision from the Versailles Court of Appeals about a CD from the French singer Alain Souchon, and the 2005 April 22nd decision from the Paris Court of Appeals about a DVD from the French producer Alain Sarde.
"This decision further upholds various decisions recently issued by French Courts absolving Internet Users of charges after having downloaded music from the Internet:
* Rodez Tribunal Correctionnel, 2004 October 13th : absolved of charges
* Chateauroux Tribunal de Grande Instance, 2004 December 15th : no damages
* Montpellier Cour d?Appel, 2005 March 10th : absolved of charges
* Meaux Tribunal Correctionnel, 2005 April 21st : downloading qualified as private copying, 70 cents / title for uploading
* Le Havre Tribunal Grande Instance, 2005 September 20th : same thing but 20 cents / title for uploading
* Créteil Tribunal de Grande Instance, 2005 November 2nd : absolved of charges for downloading as well as uploading using eMule
* Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, 2005 December 8th : same thing but using Kazaa
"Finally the decision also upholds the two amendments voted on December 22nd to authorize Internet Content Downloading."
The French Parliament is slated to address the issue again on February 8, says the post.
Meanwhile, minister of culture Renaud Donnedieu De Vabres, has proposed a system of 'graduated reprisal' under which Net users would be monitored by "Culture Industry Agents," and would be, "automatically required to pay fines of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,190) if accused of downloading copyrighted content," says the Audionautes.net.
"Furthermore, there would be no opportunity to consult lawyers or challenge the accusations prior to being fined."
"Despite this growing body of case law, the French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin will nevertheless defend the project of his Culture Minister. First, he will propose to overturn the two amendments. Then, he plans on proposing a weaker version of the 'graduated reprisal' called the 'graduated response,' whereby any fines for downloading copyrighted material would be capped at 150 euros."
Graduated response. Isn't that a phrase traditionally used by the military?
"French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin will nevertheless defend the project of his Culture Minister," says the story.
The Association of Audionautes were scheduled to meet with de Villepin, but we haven't heard what the results were.
But, "It will be interesting to see if other French consumers file individual suits relying on this decision," adds Ridouan.
"Class actions do not exist under French Law, but a massive movement of Consumers is possible. The UFC-Que Choisir was already able to create one such concerning overpriced cell phone calls."
(Thanks, Jak)
Also See:
legalization of p2p - Brokeback Mountain banned in China, January 28, 2006
Association of Audionautes - P2p file sharing is legal, says France, December 22, 2006
p2p comment / p2pnet: We have grown up to expect an orderly world, and, much though it has to commend it, the internet is disrupting that order in downright uncivilized ways. Regularly I hear talk that the old structures are being overturned forever, and it fills me with sadness and dismay; but it may not be too late.
Take the iTunes Music Store and its worthy competitors. The growing success of these systems in returning us to a world of paying for what we want to listen to has proved that the stabilizing influence of money is not yet a thing of the past. It is, of course, right and proper that those upon whom the livelihoods of musicians depend should be remunerated for the vital work they do: holding meetings, repackaging compilations and suing copyright infringers. Nobody could disagree with that. But there's an overriding reason for sustaining the rule of the dollar, which shouldn't be forgotten: the balance of power between the haves and the have-nots.
Since the French Revolution, those with access to society's wealth have taken succour from the knowledge that their position - no longer ordained by God, as in the barbaric days of feudalism - now stems from their intrinsic worth as citizens of an equal and free civilization. Their superior position is their human-given right.
One measure of this all-important justification of all-out power is the depth to which we may immerse ourselves in culture. From frequent visits to Andrew Lloyd-Webber&'s excellent musicals to an extensive collection of Dire Straits DVD-Audio disks (not to mention the hardware necessary to really appreciate its nuances), the full swath of mankind's creative output has always been the playground of those with the most important positions: bankers, politicians, generals, advertising executives, televisions stars, lottery winners, etc.
Those with less vital occupations - heath workers, for example; farmers, even - have naturally found their access to culture properly restricted by lack of funds.
The rise of peer-to-peer technology seemingly put paid to that. First it was Napster and its successors, which effectively removed all natural constraints on the quantity and variety of music that could be heard by the lowliest worker, even unemployed person!, provided they had access to the internet. (Some US States have commendably, if belatedly, moved to partially reinstate that particular barrier - which was being flattened by free access programmes in several cities - by banning the proliferation of such networks. A move others have been painfully slow to emulate.)
Now that Bittorrent has done the same for movies, we may wonder how long it will be before other cherished institutions of privilege - healthy eating, housing, warm winter clothes - are undermined and ultimately, heaven forbid!, shared out with a similar disregard for the proper order of things.
So I applaud iTunes in pioneering the paying model for online music, and for leading the way with video too. And while I don't contest claims that, with DRM, obscure formats and lack of choice, the offerings from Apple's and its competitors' sites are inferior to what can be had for free elsewhere, I see it as a healthy sign that the cultural connoisseur, with more money that sense, is still very much alive.
Chris Ovenden - Brighton, England
[Ovenden is a self-confessed technology freak who says he always ends up writing about culture, or who is perhaps a culture nut continually drawn towards the hi-tech, he plays guitar, makes websites and teaches. Editorships of various on- and offline publications lurk in his past, "and possibly his future".
