September 11th, 2008

Posted by Zack Whittaker

Music is a huge part of our lives, not just students, but it does have a major effect on how we interact, integrate propecia prostate and collaborate. Music can be seen as a work enhancer, a relationship matcher, a commonality between groups or connections – most just see it as something to compliment a mood.

I wanted to explore the two different angles to this: DRM protection or no-DRM protection, and the ability to actually download and/or gain music from an online source. I’ll start with a little background.

DRM is two sided. It stands for “Digital Restrictions Management“, which essentially allows those who legally purchase media from t’Internet like music, videos and software, to use them for themselves and nobody else. Sounds fair, but when you get into the nitty-gritty of it, it means you can’t share a really great song with a friend; you can’t transfer your music or media onto different devices such as portable devices some of the time, and if your computer buggers up, you can’t get the music back.

On the other side of it, it’s a digital padlock which your computer only has the key for. It means regardless of what happens, the end user will/could end up losing out more than those who provide the media – the record producers, the film directors and writers.

For Mac users it’s quite easy, because iTunes is already integrated into your computer. For Windows users, you’ve got Windows Media Player (unless you have the “N” version because of those bureaucratic tossers in Brussels), but with all this legal crap thrown at us, we’re not free to do what we really want to do. I’m just going to take a random selection of legal download service examples.

Which is best to use – the legal way, or the illegal way? Will I now get fired for this post? Or will the lawyers phone me in the middle of the night screaming at me? All very possible.

iTunes: a good platform which allows you to buy, search, play, modify and download music to your iPhone, iPod or any other iDevice they might have. Works great on Mac’s, but not so great on Windows. When using it on Windows, it downloads and installs a whole load of other potentially damaging stuff, can/does cause crashing on some systems and when QuickTime is installed, can overwrite your file type applications so you’ll find your default media application isn’t automatically used anymore.

Not only that, if you download files which are DRM’d, you’ll be able to transfer them to your iDevice but really lucky if you can get them working ion any other device, computer or music application.

Napster: after being shut down years ago for being an illegal peer-to-peer service, it’s now a legitimate online music retailer. You pay around $20 a month which lets you download anything you want and as much as you want, or around $30 if you want to be able to download music with a more lenient DRM licence, allowing you to transfer to other devices.

It doesn’t work with Mac’s or iPods; serves you right for being so arrogant and using a crap computer with an equally stupid music player which works with one service only – it’s own. The DRM blows its own brains out when you stop paying for the service, so you have to keep paying to keep playing.

Nokia “Comes with Music”: it’s about time the world’s biggest mobile phone maker jumped on board the online music store bandwagon. It seems to be a “free music service” but it’s not; the key is in fact part of the name. You buy certain phones like the Nokia 5310 (and even that’s not available in all countries) and the subscription is included with the price of the phone, allowing you to download music for a whole year.

After that, it’ll probably cost you to renew the subscription, and even then, you’re downloading DRM files again. You’ll be able to download and playback on the phone, and that’s it. You won’t be able to share it and you won’t be able to back it up, but at least once your subscription expires, you’ll still be able to play the music files – so not all is lost.

Download illegally: it won’t cost you anything, the music tracks are DRM free, but there’s not a guaranteed chance you’ll find what you want. On the other hand, the entire world wide web, all the peer-to-peer networks and BitTorrent networks are all much bigger than the entire collection of downloadable media from all of the above mentioned services.

You run a slight risk of getting caught, fined and thrown in prison, but provided you don’t distribute them back on a massive scale, the chances are you’ll be fine. If you really feel guilty about “stealing” money from those big, rich, important record producers and the spoilt, obnoxious and arrogant music star, put a penny or a couple of cents into a charity box at the local superstore.

I don’t condone illegal activity, to the point where I’ll discourage serious crimes and suchlike. But downloading music should be more open and simple, cost much less and have much lower restrictions. Under the DMCA, you can’t even lend your little sister a CD of yours to listen to or to copy. It’s bloody ridiculous and annoys the hell out of me, but this is how the world works I’m afraid.

Unfortunately, and the CNET lawyers really won’t like this much, downloading music illegally, as in without buying it, actually gives you the most freedom over your music. Copy it, share it, move it, play it, edit it, convert it, or upload it again – you can barely do any, definitely not all, of these things with DRM’d music.

Or… just work out how to remove the DRM from legally downloaded music. It’s still illegal, if not more illegal, but at least you’re buying the damn thing.

July 29th, 2008

'Important. If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected'

By John Oates

Published Thursday 3rd July 2008

The BPI has written to 800 Virgin Media customers warning them to stop sharing music files or risk losing their broadband connection.

The letters came in an envelope marked: "Important. If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected." But Virgin told Radio 1's Newsbeat that the phrase was a mistake and the letters were part of an education campaign. Virgin said it was not making any kind of accusation and that it was possible someone other than the account holder was involved.

When the Virgin campaign was revealed last month the company assured us that the letters were not part of a "three strikes" process. The BPI has pushed ISPs to warn users three times for copyright infringement before cutting off their broadband.

The individuals were identified by the BPI which, as we exclusively revealed , is working on a similar scheme with BT. The BPI letter sent on by BT warns of further action including "litigation and suspension by BT your internet connection".

At least one Virgin customer who received a letter in June told Newsbeat he was certain it was not him or his flatmates who were responsible for downloading the Amy Winehouse song. He said it was possible that someone had used the flat's wireless network.

Will McGree said: "The campaign is doomed to fail. Virgin will lose a lot of customers over this because people don't like to be accused of stealing music over their morning coffee.

"It made me feel betrayed. I was under the impression that I paid a broadband company to keep my internet propecia 10 years connection protected."

The BPI has been busy lobbying the government for stronger laws against file sharing. But the government seems to be resisting the pressure and is instead pushing the music industry and ISPs to get talking to find a licensed, and paid for, form of file sharing.

Although BT and Virgin are supporting the BPI's approach others, notably Carphone Warehouse, are refusing to co-operate.

A survey last month found 63 per cent of internet users were downloading unlicensed music.

David Meyer ZDNet.co.uk

Published: 11 Apr 2008 12:45 BST

People should not be criminalised for the file-sharing of copyrighted material if they are not profiting from doing so, the European Parliament has recommended.

On Thursday the parliament voted through two reports on the cultural industries. Both contained amendments that were directly related to the ongoing argument between the content industry and internet service provider (ISPs). In this conflict, the ISPs are claiming that they should not have to disconnect those users who are persistent filesharers, but the content industry is calling for a "three strikes and you're out" rule in order to protect intellectual property.

The argument encompasses not only the prospect of users being "banned" from internet use, but also the deep packet inspection techniques that would have to be employed in order to catch them.

One of the reports urged the European Commission and member states to avoid allowing measures that are in conflict with civil liberties, human rights and the principle of proportionality. The other, which passed with a much thinner majority, specifically called for the Commission to "rethink the issue of intellectual property in order to assure solutions that are equitable for both big and small actors and strike a balance between the respect of intellectual property and the access to cultural events and content".

"[The European Parliament] underlines that on the battle against digital piracy, the solution should not be to criminalise consumers who do not intend to make profit out of their actions," a parliamentary statement read.

A spokesperson for the parliament told ZDNet.co.uk on Friday that, while the reports were recommendations and not legally binding, they summed up "what the mood is now" in Europe. "People downloading from sites — often they don't know that it's not legal, so they shouldn't [be criminalised] romania viagra if they're not trying to make a profit out of it," the spokesperson said, adding that people or companies who were trying to make a profit from the filesharing of copyrighted material should be criminalised.

However, another recommendation in the report called on the Commission to "do what is necessary to enforce and protect literary and artistic property rights, especially in the digital environment".

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) was quick to react on Thursday, saying that the European Parliament's recommendations on filesharing were "badly drafted [and] rushed through".

"If the aim of the report is to protect creative content, including in the online environment, we should be looking at all options available in the fight against copyright theft," said IFPI executive vice president Frances Moore. "Instead, this amendment suggested discarding certain options before there is even a proper debate."

However, IFPI has welcomed the news from France that filesharers of copyrighted material there may soon be thrown off the internet. The organisation called the French move "the single most important initiative to help win the war on online piracy that we have seen so far".

A spokesperson for the UK ISP Association was not available for comment at the time of writing.

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff  |  April 4, 2008

Boston University students have won what one lawyer hailed as a "David and Goliath" victory after challenging one of the recording industry's most aggressive tactics: lawsuits targeting people who illegally download music.

US District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled this week that the university cannot turn over the names of students to several major record companies that sued for the information until she can do a more in-depth review. The ruling, for the moment, quashes the companies' efforts to hold the students liable for copyright infringement, which could have resulted in thousands of dollars in fines. Lawyers who supported the students said the decision would make it harder for record companies to win some 20,000 similar cases they have brought nationwide.

"This is definitely a step in the right direction," said Raymond Sayeg, a Boston lawyer who represented one of the four BU students who challenged the record companies. "The court has recognized the right of privacy of the students."

Sayeg compared the victory to that of David over the giant Goliath in the Bible.

"You have on the one hand maybe 30 to 40 of the largest record companies in the country, and they're singling out students at institutions of higher education. So it's a real mismatch."

The decision adds a layer of protection for the thousands of people, many of them students, sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief in support of the BU students.

"It does not mean the end of the issue," von Lohmann said. "It is not going to slow down the RIAA litigation machine, and they'll continue to sue hundreds a month all over the country. But the judge said they have more work to do if they want to prove these cases."

Undaunted, the record company organization said it would press ahead with the lawsuit.

"It's important to note that the decision is not final," said Jonathan Lamy, the organization's senior vice president of communications. "The court has put forth a specific process to address its concerns before the relevant information is transferred to us. We're confident that the court will ultimately allow us to obtain the [names], as have courts across the country in similar cases."

File-sharing exploded in popularity in the late 1990s with the advent of Napster, which allowed people to swap songs from one computer to another. A series of lawsuits by record companies killed the service in 2001 but spawned a host of imitators, such natural viagra alternative as Kazaa and Limewire. In 2003 the recording industry began to attack those services – by going after their users. The industry filed 35,000 lawsuits to stop illegal music downloading through the programs, which it blamed for billions of dollars in lost sales.

Only one of the cases has gone to trial, perhaps because defendants are cognizant that they could be ordered to pay up to $150,000 per illegally downloaded song. Most of the cases have ended in settlements of $3,000 to $4,000. Federal law forbids downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright owner, although there are some limited exceptions for some educational and research uses.

"We try and settle these cases in an amount that communicates a real concern for breaking the law, and at the same time we try to be fair and reasonable," Lamy said.

Sayeg said he fields calls daily from parents whose college-age children have been sued by record companies.

"Typically what I get is a frantic call from a parent saying, 'Oh, my God, we can barely afford tuition, and now we're told we've got to pay three, four grand,' " Sayeg said.

But students are not concerned about lawsuits when they are in search of the latest song by Jay-Z.

"I think students, not just at BU, all over the place, download music through file-sharing websites," said Adil Alexander Yunis, 22, the president of the BU Student Union. Students know it is illegal, he said, but they're looking to get quick access to music.

"And that's a way to do it," Yunis said. "And the fact that they're not paying for it is why they're doing it."

The barrage of recording industry lawsuits has succeeded in scaring only a few students into downloading music legally or watching music videos on YouTube, Yunis said.

"I don't think it's put a large dent in illegal file sharing," he said, "but I think it's made students more wary."

In the case of the BU students, who are not named in the suit, the Recording Industry Association of America hired a company called MediaSentry, Inc., to scan for anyone downloading files through LimeWire and Ares. The company came up with a list of electronic addresses, which it said had been used to download tunes from Ludacris, Usher, Eminem, and other recording artists. The company linked the addresses to BU's server, and the record industry organization went to court to try to force BU to release the names of the people who used the addresses. BU responded by sending letters to students informing them of the request. The students then hired lawyers to quash the request, alleging it violated their right to privacy.

Both sides filed a raft of arguments, delving into the technical minutiae of online file sharing.

On Monday Gertner issued a 54-page ruling forbidding BU from turning over the names until it shows her its Internet service agreement with students so that she can review what privacy protections, if any, it affords. She also ordered the university to show her the names of any students who might have been using the electronic addresses, so that she can make sure only the ones who were potentially downloading music are implicated in the suit.

The students' lawyers had raised concerns that multiple students could have been using the same electronic address, if, for example, they shared the same Internet connection.

BU spokesman Colin Riley said the university was not formally named in the lawsuit and has not taken a position on the students' claims. He said BU will turn over any information the court requests.

Legal observers said Gertner's ruling, which was longer and more detailed than most on the subject, will help people fight recording industry lawsuits.

"She's acknowledging that there are important First Amendment issues at stake, and there are privacy interests at stake, and the recording industry is far from proving there is copyright infringement," said Wendy Seltzer, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com