Net Neutrality (and 'the people') Loses... Comcast (and 'the Corporations') Wins

A Blow To Net Neutrality: FCC Loses Appeal to Comcast
by Mike Melanson of ReadWriteWeb.com

In a battle that's been ongoing since the fall of 2007, Comcast just won the latest round against the Federal Communications Commission. A federal appeals court announced its decision this morning to grant ComCast a petition for review, vacating the order by the FCC, which imposed a "net neutrality" on the nation's largest cable company.

The decision appears to focus on the FCC's legal authority to enforce net neutrality and not on the legality of net neutrality itself.

The case began when "several subscribers to Comcast's high-speed Internet service discovered that the company was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications," the decision reads. Comcast argued that its move to block p2p file-sharing was "necessary to manage scarce network capacity", but the FCC found differently, ruling that the company had "significantly impeded consumers' ability to access the content and use the applications of their choice".

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Court: FCC had no right to sanction Comcast for P2P blocking
By Nate Anderson of arstechnica.com

The FCC's decision to sanction Comcast for its 2007 P2P blocking was overruled today by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The question before the court was whether the FCC had the legal authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practice." According to a three-judge panel, "the Commission has failed to make that showing" and the FCC's order against Comcast is tossed.

When the complaints against Comcast first surfaced, they noted that the company was violating the FCC's "Internet Policy Statement" drafted in 2005. That statement provided "four freedoms" to Internet users, including freedom from traffic discrimination apart from reasonable network management. The FCC decided that Comcast's actions had not been "reasonable network management," but Comcast took to the agency to court, arguing that the FCC had no right to regulate its network management practices at all.

The Internet Policy Statement was not a rule; instead, it was a set of guidelines, and even the statement admitted that the principles weren't legally enforceable. To sanction Comcast, the FCC relied on its "ancillary" jurisdiction to implement the authority that Congress gave it—but was this kind of network management ruling really within the FCC's remit?

The court held that it wasn't, that Congress had never given the agency the authority necessary to do this, and that the entire proceeding was illegitimate. The FCC's "Order" against Comcast is therefore vacated; Comcast wins.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Could Comcast Derail the National Broadband Plan?
By Ed Oswald of PCWorld.com


President Obama has made broadband a key part of his telecommunications agenda. To get there, he has tasked the Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility to make changes to Internet regulations and promote his "National Broadband Plan," an ambitious effort to reform the industry and expand broadband access across the country.

There's an elephant in the room however, and its name is Comcast. The telecommunications company is challenging the FCC's authority on Internet regulation in court, and if successful it could seriously inhibit the agency's efforts to move its plans forward. Comcast's beef goes back to 2008, when the FCC censured the company for its bandwidth-throttling efforts against BitTorrent and others.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

FCC loses Comcast's court challenge, a major setback for agency on Internet policies
via WashingtonPost.com

Comcast on Tuesday won its federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission in a ruling that undermines the agency's ability to regulate Internet service providers just as it unrolls a sweeping broadband agenda.

The decision also sparks pressing questions on how the agency will respond, with public interest groups advocating that the FCC attempt to move those services into a regulatory regime clearly under the agency's control.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 3-0 decision, ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to require Comcast, the nation's biggest broadband services provider, to treat all Internet traffic equally on its network.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Comcast Can Block BitTorrent Again, Court Rules
by Ernesto of TorrentFreak.com


In 2008 Comcast was ordered to stop slowing down BitTorrent users by preventing them to share files with others. In addition, the company had to disclose all “network management” practices.

The whole Comcast debacle ignited a discussion about Net Neutrality and eventually led to the FCC’s national broadband plan which was released last month. Today, the Court of Appeals overruled FCC’s decision in the Comcast case, with three judges stating that the commission doesn’t have the authority to require IPSs to keep their network neutral.

After appealing FCC’s decision in favor of BitTorrent users, Comcast has finally got the verdict (pdf) it wanted. Although it seems unlikely that the ISP will pick up its old habit of preventing BitTorrent users to seed files, it could in theory do so.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

5 Ways to Capitalize on James Cameron's "Avatar" in Virtual Worlds

Ever since James Cameron's "Avatar" hit the theaters, metaverse users have been finding ways to incorporate his movie into virtual worlds.  As I mentioned yesterday, many are jumping on the boat and turning blue to ride the "Avatar" coat-tails.  It seems that all you need to do is turn whatever you were selling into the color blue, and you've got yourself a Genuine Authentic Official Pandora-Na'Vi-Avatar thingamabob.

Massively wrote a great follow-up on this hoopla called "The Sea Monkey experience of Avatars"

"Virtual environments can be beautiful, can exhibit grace, and can be immersive and fascinating and useful in all sorts of different ways ... but if you've got the 'Avatar blues', it's like buying Sea Monkeys and getting Artemia salina × nyos.

We don't expect actual user-retention in any virtual environment to rise significantly in the wake of this. We expect that the number of retained Pandora-piners will be about the same percentage as retention for pretty much any other general demographic. Sea Monkeys can be pretty awesome, make no mistake. They just might not be what you really want.

In the meantime, there's a lot of designers across several virtual environments who are making a lot of money copying skins, designs and settings from the film."

Here is my list of 5 ways you can try to make a buttload of cash by riding the blue glowing wave of "Avatar" and it's popularity.

1) Turn the crap you were selling into the color blue (and make it glow!).

That's right... any content you were selling before can now be official Na'vi "Avatar" content by changing it to the color blue, making it glow, and by changing the title of the object.   Look, I did it here:

What was once a wood box called "Object" is now

an Official "Avatar" glowing blue prim called:

"Pandora's Box" ... on sale now....

(If you would like the x-rated version, 

these Na'vi prims are also for sale at Zindra, 

coincidentally also named "Pandora's Box")

2) Change the avatar skins you were selling to the color blue.

If you were a skin designer or avatar designer, all you have to do is add blue versions to your product line... and of course, call those skins "Na'vi"

Hot "Avatar" tail.... mmm...

In case the designers out there are wondering, the code for Na'vi skin is

H: 203  |  S: 63  |  B: 69  |  R: 66  |  G:  134  |  B:  177

3) Create a Na'vi role-player group. Then create a role-player test in order to gain exclusive entry.

Similar to the Bloodlines business model:  Create a role-player group, something like Na'vi of Second Life or Pandora Roleplay. Then, in order for avatars to become official members of the Na'vi role-player clan, they will have to shop and purchase the Na'vi avatars, and Pandora pixels in order to gain exclusive access into the group.

"I just need to buy 10 more spirits from the Sacred Tree of Souls, 

then I know they'll let me in."

4) Redesign the spaceship you were selling to look like the mercenary helicopters from the movie.

Remember that rocket ship or helicopter you once made?  Well strap on two large ceiling fans to the side, and now you have a human mercenary ship from the movie ready to be sold.

 

5) Advertise on your website (and make sure the ad has a picture of a blue avatar in it).

Finally, of course.... keep plugging! Advertise the blue.  Ride the blue wave.  Anything that is blue and says "avatar" on it is a gold mine in clicks

---

Although this blog post is meant to be tongue-and-cheek, I am also trying to point out that the creativity and imagination within a virtual world, and within people's minds, can be limitless. The new "Avatar" designs appearing in Second Life are quite detailed and expertly crafted. For example, "Pandora - Na'vi ' Planet Avatar" on the Pegase sim did a great job.

However, Second Life is practically limitless.  Second Life has been around for 6 years!!  Anything can be created, and usually, anything and everything IS created....  but, don't sell yourself short by jumping on the "Avatar" Na'vi bandwagon.  "Avatar" is James Cameron's brain-child.  Why copy it?  Why not create a world of your own using Second Life (or Open Sim, or any virtual world platform) to explore your own creative, artistic, and imaginative ideas?  Sure, the movie "Avatar" is hot right now, but it's only one of many options.  Use your own brain power to create, and not to copy and sell.

All the Rules of the Music Business Have Changed - A World of Megabeats and Megabytes (NYTimes)

A World of Megabeats and Megabytes

By JON PARELES

MY 21st century started in 1998, when I got a new toy. It was the Diamond Rio PMP300, a flimsy plastic gadget the size of a cigarette pack. PMP stood for Portable Music Player. It had a headphone jack, and it played a recently invented digital file format: MPEG-1 Audio Layer Three, or MP3.

The Rio’s 32 megabytes of storage held a dozen songs at passable fidelity. Its sound was clearly inferior to a portable CD player; its capacity was comparable to a cassette or two. But the beauty of it was that it didn’t need any CD or cassette inserted, just digital files — copies of songs — loaded from a computer, to be changed at whim. They might come from albums people owned or borrowed; they might come, even back then, from strangers online. The Recording Industry Association of America sued to have the PMP300 taken off the market and failed — the prelude to a decade of lawsuits trying to corral online music.

It was already too late. For those who were willing to be geeky — learning new software, slowly downloading via dial-up — music had forever escaped its plastic containers to travel the Web. The old distribution system was on its way to becoming irrelevant.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

...Because songs are small chunks of information that many people want, music was the canary in the digital coal mine, presaging what would happen to other art forms as Internet connections spread and sped up. For the old recording business everything went wrong. Sales of CDs have dropped by nearly half since 2000, while digital sales of individual songs haven’t come close to compensating. Movies and television (and journalism too) are now scrambling not to become the next victims of an omnivorous but tight-fisted Internet.

By now, in 2010, we’re all geeks, conversant with file formats and software players. Our cellphone/camera/music player/Web browser gadgets fit in a pocket, with their little LCD screens beckoning. Their tiny memory chips hold collections of music equivalent to backpacks full of CDs. The 2000s were the broadband decade, the disintermediation decade, the file-sharing decade, the digital recording (and image) decade, the iPod decade, the long-tail decade, the blog decade, the user-generated decade, the on-demand decade, the all-access decade. Inaugurating the new millennium, the Internet swallowed culture whole and delivered it back — cheaper, faster and smaller — to everyone who can get online.

For artists of all kinds (with musicians on the front lines) a 21st-century habitat of possibilities and pressures is taking shape — one that demands skills their predecessors forgot or never needed. The art they make can be created, as well as disseminated, faster and more cheaply. But it will also face exponentially more rivals for attention, and many more temptations toward superficiality and sellouts.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

...Ease of consumption is paralleled by ease of production. The computer is the definitive 21st-century studio, now that do-it-yourself musicians can record professional-sounding tracks onto a laptop in a bedroom. The ubiquitous software ProTools offers endless overdubbing and can put errant musicians back on the beat or tune them up, though it’s not always an improvement when dull robot precision replaces individual quirks.

The cut-and-mix, mashup procedures of hip-hop and disc-jockey culture have only accelerated. Beats from old vinyl discs were foundations of hip-hop back in the 1970s. Now no one needs to track down the physical disc because some aggregator or collector has probably put it online...

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

...And without being able to depend on album sales, musicians’ job descriptions changed. Increasingly it was up to the performers — not their struggling major label if they had one, not the radio stations that had long treated them as disposable — to get themselves noticed. That could mean making silly novelty videos for YouTube, or it could involve what was once considered selling out: placing a song in a commercial, where people could hear it repeatedly (and then track it down online).
Instead of waiting for royalties to trickle in from sales, musicians were happy to get paid upfront for licensing their music to advertisers and to TV and movie soundtracks. A distracted listener was better than none at all.

In the 2010s musicians can look forward to working harder for smaller payoffs. They’re resuming — if they ever really left it behind — their age-old role as troubadours, touring more frequently to make up for disappearing album sales. (Big stars with expiring contracts went independent instead of renewing their major-label commitments, or set up so-called “360 deals” that depend as much on touring and merchandising as on selling albums.)

There are newer demands on them as well: interacting with fans who never had to accept the top-down, broadcast model of the old music business and have come to expect the individualized tone of the Internet. To perform offstage musicians now hone social-networking skills: mastering the blog post, the semi-candid photo, the not too overtly promotional self-promotion, the guarded personal revelation, the clever Tweet. Those with true star ambitions will also have to manage the meta-careers that a little bit of fame now entails, knowing that any time they show their face in public, it can turn up on a photo blog, any interview can be cross-referenced forever, any live performances or television moment might show up on YouTube. The smart ones, like Lady Gaga, already have their costume changes planned.

Musicians and their managers will also be improvising their own routes amid a wilderness of marketing and career strategies...

...One emblematic album for the 2000s was Danger Mouse’s “Grey Album” in 2004, which backed up a cappella raps from Jay-Z’s “Black Album” with finely micro-sliced samples from “The Beatles,” a k a the White Album. All of its sounds, in other words, were recycled; the musicality was in the cleverness of the cut and paste. There was no permission from the Beatles and no official commercial release. The album simply escaped onto the Internet, where it can still be grabbed, earning nothing but good will for the musicians, but ready to play any time.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE 

ACTA - The Internet Illuminati Planning a New World Order?!

Via BoingBoing
by Cory Doctorow
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

• * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
  
• * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
  
• * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
  
• * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

via Michael Geist
The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotations continue in a few hours as Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of talks. The governments have posted the meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly focuses on the issue of Internet enforcement. The United States has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via EFF.org
Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA
Commentary by Gwen Hinze
 
Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week’s closed negotiations will focus on “enforcement in the digital environment.” Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via Huffington Post
Transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

The letter below reports the views of several groups and individuals concerning the lack of transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This is something that is so obvious, it should not require comment, on a policy that is completely indefensible.

The. U.S. and 39 or more countries are negotiating a new global agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and everything so far is secret from the general public. The main topics are civil and criminal rules, such as injunctions, damages and third party liability from infringements, searches of Internet transactions, border measures affecting the import or export of various consumer goods from medicines to cell phones, and a host of other issues. All 40+ countries in the negotiation have access to the proposed text. And, there are processes for just about any corporate lobbyist with ties to the Administration to see proposed texts, if they sign tough legally binding non-disclosure agreements. So why is it secret from the public?

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via GamePolitics
Letter to Obama Seeks ACTA Transparency

As the 6th round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations get underway in Seoul, Korea, a dispatch has been sent to President Obama expressing concern over the “lack of transparency and openness” surrounding the initiative.

The letter notes that “Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in deep secrecy.”

While a curious mix of entities have been allowed to see ACTA documents, after signing a non-disclosure agreement, the letter states that “there were no opportunities for academic experts or the general public to review the documents,” adding that “very few” public interest or consumer groups were included as well.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

-----

Via Freakbits
Obama Petitioned to Reveal Secret Anti-Piracy Agreement

ACTA is a mysterious thing that no-one is really certain about. That lack of certainty is because of the lack of transparency around the negotiations. KEI wants that changed, and with an open letter-cum-petition, is calling on President Obama to stand up to his election promises, and make ACTA public.

There has been a lot of controversy over the ACTA treaty. Mostly over the the scope of the treaty (which could see iPod searches at borders for illegally downloaded music) but there has also been a fuss over the way the negotiations have been conducted. Negotiations have been conducted in secret over the past two years, and the Executive Office of the President (Office of t he US Trade Representative) has denied Freedom of Information (FOI) requests earlier this year from FEI, citing Executive Order 12958 – referring to Classified National Security Information. In January, just before the Bush Administration left office, they made similar claims to EFF FOI requests.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE]

Stealing Music: Is It Wrong Or Isn’t It?

Stealing Music: Is It Wrong Or Isn’t It?

by Michael Arrington on March 31, 2009

"...But over the last few years the line has blurred to the point where there really isn’t any line any more. We can listen to free, on demand streaming music at MySpace Music and lots of other sites. It’s ok to do it at MySpace, but it’s wrong to do it at Project Playlist, just because the right contracts aren’t in place? Just a couple of years ago anyone listening to free streaming music anywhere on the Internet was violating copyright and subject to being labeled unethical. Today, its no problem. And you don’t even have to listen to audio ads..."

read more | digg story

Above is an excerpt. Be sure to read his full article and opinion.

RIAA, MPAA Copyright Warnings: Facts and Fiction

RIAA, MPAA Copyright Warnings: Facts and Fiction

Written by Ernesto on March 28, 2009

This week several scary stories surfaced about how the MPAA and RIAA are negotiating with ISPs on how to deal with copyright infringers. Even though it was often presented as news, those who look deeper will realize that this is nothing new at all, just the same old threats dressed up in a new jacket.

It’s has been a good week for the entertainment industry lobbyists. Hundreds of news outlets wrote in detail about how the RIAA and MPAA are negotiating with Internet service providers to warn alleged copyright infringers. No one seemed to notice that this isn’t really news as they’ve been working together for years, with ISPs passing on warnings to their customers on behalf of the studios.
It all started with rumors about two US ISPs, Comcast and AT&T, who were said to be doing a three-strikes deal with the RIAA. It soon became known that this rumor was completely fabricated, but not before hundreds of other news oulets reproduced the story. At the end of the week it turned out that there was no news at all.
Yes, the RIAA, MPAA and other outfits do plan to send copyright infringement warnings to ISPs, but they’ve been doing so for at least half a decade. Every other month these Hollywood lobbyists pitch their anti-piracy efforts to the public, and that’s exactly what they are paid for. This doesn’t mean, however, that something is about to change.
The anti-piracy outfits are happy with all the free publicity of course, that is exactly what they are after. Their purpose is to scare people. In this post we hope to clear up some of the misunderstandings, as we show that the scary stories published this week have no substance at all.

Copyright infringement warnings?

For years, content owners such as record labels or movie studios have been sending copyright infringement notices to ISPs, who are legally obliged to forward these to their customers. Some ISPs simply ignore them, while others faithfully forward the emails to the customer account associated with the infringing IP-address. Many ISPs don’t keep records of these events.

So, is my ISP spying on me?

No. This is a common misunderstanding. ISPs don’t look into your specific downloading behavior, they never have and there is no indication that this will change anytime in the near future. All the ‘evidence’ comes from organizations that work for the copyright holders.

What do they know about me?

If you receive a warning, all copyright holders know about you at this stage is your IP-address and what files were (partially) shared via your account, or more accurately - the bill payer’s account. The MPAA, RIAA and others don’t know your name and they never will unless they get a court order forcing your ISP to hand over the information. In the bigger picture, this is very rare.

How did they track me down?

The copyright holders hire companies such as BayTSP and DtecNet to track down people who share certain titles on BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks. They join the swarm and request files from others. When someone shares a piece of the file with them they log the IP-address, look up the ISP and send out a copyright infringement notice automatically. Unlike the file-sharers, these companies are authorized to download these files, so they are not infringing copyright themselves.

Will I get sued if I receive a warning through my ISP?

No. These copyright infringement warnings are not related to any legal action. Copyright holders do go after people who share their work on file-sharing networks, but this has nothing to do with the warnings they send out via ISPs.

Will they take my Internet away?

No. Although there is a lot of talk about “three strikes” policies, no ISP has agreed (or was forced) to disconnect users after they receive their third warning. In New Zealand they came close to implementing a law that would require ISPs to do this, but this proposal was pulled.
In France they are also considering three strikes legislation, but this has not passed into action yet. In Ireland the largest ISP Eircom said it would disconnect repeated infringers only if they receive a court order.
It is worth mentioning though that ISPs may cut off people whenever they think it’s necessary. Cox does this in the US for example, without an agreement with the MPAA or RIAA. ISPs have terms and conditions and most forbid copyright infringement, but really this is just to cover their own backs under the law.

Do I have to be worried?

Receiving a regular infringement notice is nothing to be worried about. However, if you download copyrighted files without authorization from the copyright holder you are breaking the law in some countries. If you receive a warning without having shared anything yourself (which happens quite often) then there’s nothing to worry about.

Can I protect (hide) myself?

If you don’t want to be spied on when using BitTorrent the best option is to hide your IP-address. You can do so by subscribing to a VPN service or by using software such as TorrentPrivacy. Blocklist software such as PeerGuardian is often recommended, but it is also highly ineffective as the lists are never fully up-to date or accurate.

What’s the point in all this?

The MPAA and RIAA don’t want their products on file-sharing networks and they use these warning emails to deter people from sharing these files with others. Since it’s much cheaper (and effective) than suing people, this is now their strategy of choice. Using news outlets to spread their doom and gloom scenarios is just part of their operation.
In the future the amount of warnings they send out to alleged infringers will increase and the studios and ISPs will work together to keep the associated operating costs down, if that’s not what they’ve already been doing in their recent meetings. It’s just the old model, scaled up with a rumor or two on top.
Let’s move on already.
read more | digg story

---

Doubledown's Note: To me, this all rings true in relation to the gray area involving live music streaming into Second Life and the licenses we may or may not need.

Music Piracy Not That Bad, Industry Says

The Internet has been a blessing for the music industry. Although the RIAA and IFPI frequently complain about piracy, their own research shows that only 10% of all illegal downloads are considered to be a loss in sales. Meanwhile, piracy has shown them how to monetize music online, and turn it into profit.

read more | digg story

(via Torrentfreak )

iTunes Store goes DRM-free

Apple has announced three significant changes to its iTunes Store at Macworld Expo, but the first is undoubtedly the biggest news: The music and video download service, which features more than 10 million songs, is finally going Digital Rights Management (DRM)-free.

read more digg story

---

While Phil hasn't mentioned it in the keynote just yet, it looks like iTunes might be getting a big catalog overhaul, with most major labels finally offering up DRM free tunes. Previously purchased songs are now upgradable for the same old price of $0.30 a song.

read more digg story

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits - RIAA Stops Lawsuits, But Not the Threats

Via http://www.wsj.com/
By SARAH MCBRIDE and ETHAN SMITH

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

read more digg story

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

Via http://www.torrentfreak.com/
Written by Ernesto

For years the RIAA has been filing lawsuits against thousands of individuals who allegedly shared copyrighted music. Following recent court setbacks, the lobby group has announced it will stop mass lawsuits. Instead, it will focus on cutting deals with ISPs to disconnect ‘IP-addresses’ that repeatedly share copyrighted music.

read more digg story

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

Take action!

Write to your ISP proactively and say you expect them not to compromise your privacy, security, or ability to communicate by kowtowing to RIAA attempts at intimidation.

Support non-RIAA artists in your music purchases.

Check the RIAA Radar before making any purchases!

Install the RIAA Radar Greasemonkey Script.

Obama Embraces Creative Commons

Obama Embraces Creative Commons
Written by Ben Jones on December 02, 2008

US President-Elect Barack Obama is a man with a message, and according to the speeches made during his campaign, that message is ‘Change’. One of those changes has been somewhat of a snub to the creative industries and their lobby groups - the embracing of Creative Commons licensing.

In some ways, Obama is an enigma. His meteoric rise to win the presidency from almost complete obscurity several years ago is, of course, the very basis of the ‘American Dream’. Young for a president (or even a senator), while promising ‘Change’, he has a lot to prove to the younger voters that propelled him into Executive office.

However, with the decision to choose Joe Biden as VP, many worried that with his ties to copyright lobby groups, he would influence things to further increase the reach of already-draconian laws. Despite this, he was endorsed by both Lawrence Lessig, and the US Pirate Party, with the former’s wife even campaigning for him.

After his election he wasted little time in establishing a ‘transition’ website at change.gov. However, to the dismay of some, the copyright notices were as draconian as ever. That has all changed now, though, as the site embraces Creative Commons, opting for CC-BY. While Obama is not exactly a stranger to Creative Commons licensing – his flickr photos are under a CC BY-NC-SA license – it is no small step to go from photo album to entire website.

What does this mean for copyright? Well, as Creative Commons themselves point out in their blog, the group behind change.gov is not a part of the government - yet. It’s a non-profit organization, so could (and did) fill the site with copyright notices. Yet, that a Creative Commons license has been embraced by the President-Elect means good things. Most importantly, that the President has knowledge of less-restrictive copyright methods, and first-hand experience that not only do they work, but that the sky doesn’t fall down when they are used, cannot hurt. That the license chosen was, in Lessig’s words, the ‘freest license’ is more encouraging still.

One can only hope that when the likes of the RIAA and MPAA come to talk about further strengthening copyright, he turns around and says, “I’ve been using these great CC licenses, have you heard of them?” Regardless, it’s a great boost to Creative Commons, as they prepare to celebrate their sixth birthday.

TorrentFreak articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.

35 Days Against DRM -- Day 1: MacBook

Starting this Black Friday and over the next 35 days leading up to the end of 2008, we want your help in promoting a consumer boycott of DRM. Once again, Apple have pushed their DRM agenda, with the release of the latest revision of their MacBook computers, with a hardware chip that prevents certain types of display being used when playing movies.

read more / digg story

35 days against DRM
Say NO to DRM!

What is DRM? Digital Restrictions Management. DefectiveByDesign.org is a broad-based anti-DRM campaign that is targeting Big Media, unhelpful manufacturers and DRM distributors. The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by design". Learn more about our campaign.

Lime Wire Advances its File-Sharing Software

Lime Wire advances its file-sharing software
By Jon Healey Los Angeles Times
November 11, 2008

Lime Wire LLC announced a new version of the popular LimeWire file-sharing software last week, advancing the company's vision of its software as a platform for services. Clearly, the major record companies' lawsuit hasn't stopped the company from trying to develop its business - or pushing p2p to higher levels of functionality.

One of the main upgrades in the new version - due later this year - is the addition of social-networking features. Users will be able to create their own private file-sharing networks with friends and/or family members, with greater control over what gets shared with whom.

According to p2p monitoring companies, most of what's being shared today on LimeWire is pirated songs, movies, TV shows and software. Enabling people to create private sharing groups might encourage more of them to use the software for legitimate sharing of the media they create, but it might also be seen as a way to promote anxiety-free bootlegging by those concerned about Recording Industry Association of America lawsuits and malware.

Copyright law and the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling provide limited room for file-sharing companies to maneuver - if they knowingly promote or abet piracy by their users, or profit from infringement they could have stopped, they can be held liable for it.

On the other hand, LimeWire's enormous audience is enough to prod some content owners to look past the infringements and focus on the opportunities. The company claims the software is downloaded 350,000 times daily, with more than 70 million users per month and 5 million at any given moment.

Still, Lime may be racing the clock here. Online traffic counters say downloading is giving way to streaming as the consumption model of choice. Hulu is just one of a growing roster of sophisticated, free outlets for video on demand that are building large audiences among college students and other young users who used to rely on p2p for their TV shows.

Online YouTube video to MP3 audio converter

Extract any MP3 audio from YouTube videos.

read more

‘Heroes/Lost' Producer Recognizes Benefits of BitTorrent

‘Heroes/Lost' Producer Recognizes Benefits of BitTorrent
Written by Ernesto on July 02, 2008

Half of the people who use BitTorrent do so to download TV-shows. Some episodes of popular shows such as ‘Heroes’ and ‘Lost’ get up to 10 million downloads. We had a chat with Jesse Alexander, the co-producer of both ‘Heroes’ and ‘Lost’, and asked him what his thoughts are on BitTorrent, piracy and the future of TV.

Jesse Alexander has co-produced and written for both ‘Heroes’ and ‘Lost’, two of the most successful TV-series today. In addition to millions of viewers on TV, both shows are are also extremely popular on BitTorrent. In fact, millions of people share a single episode and this can go on to 10 million downloads per episode.

One could argue that their availability on BitTorrent actually helped ‘Lost’ and ‘Heroes’ to build a stronger fanbase. With torrents, no-one has to miss an episode anymore which keeps the fans more engaged. So called “pirates” advertise the shows to their friends, or write about it on their blogs. Accordingly, when we asked Jesse Alexander whether he thinks that BitTorrent might have helped to reach a broader audience, he answered with a clear cut “Yes”.

Not that Jesse wants everybody to get the shows off BitTorrent, but he said that it certainly signals that there is a market for on-demand and interactive TV. “People watching shows such as Lost and Heroes on BitTorrent is the present world reality,” Jesse told TorrentFreak. TV networks have to recognize this, give their viewers more ways to interact with the shows, and find ways to generate revenue from every member of the global audience.”

“It’s the same for music artists. The reality is, people share music. Artist now make money by driving people to concerts, through community websites, and by offering exclusive events. TV networks are focusing too much on one exclusive product, instead of building a community. This is a mistake I think.”

The success of Heroes on BitTorrent didn’t pass by the cast of the show unnoticed either. “The cast and the people behind the scenes have all been talking about it,” Jesse said. As an example he mentioned last year’s promotional tour in France, where the actors were recognized by hundreds of fans, even though the show had not even premiered on TV yet.

Alexander has hit the nail on the head. This is in fact one of the main reasons why shows like ‘Heroes’ are so popular on filesharing networks. It can take up to six months after the US premiere before these shows are aired in Europe, Australia and other parts of the world. Jesse agreed that this is indeed one of the major causes of piracy. “This gap is something that is certainly going to change in the future,” he added.

Jesse went on to say that in the near future, thanks to the Internet, the viewers of TV-shows will see more interactive components and alternate realities they can participate in. The future of TV will be more international, with real interaction, and shows will be more and more integrated into the core part of an online community.

When we asked Jesse if he has ever downloaded TV-shows off BitTorrent, he told us: “I can’t confirm or deny, but I’m familiar with all kind of new technologies.” I guess we all know what he’s trying to say.

It is no surprise that Jesse is more positive towards new technologies than some others in the entertainment industry. Last week we reported on the upcoming “Pirate TV” show that he is working on, together with Matt Mason, the author of ‘The Pirate’s Dilemma’.

“Matt’s book needs to get a broader audience,” said Jesse. “We want to discuss the negative and the positive side of piracy, and place things in a broader historical context. We want to start a real conversation about the future of intellectual property.”

We’re happy to join the debate, what about you?

----
My personal take: I love bittorrent. It is fair....and 100% legal ... the way I use it:
I have my TV on with the shows that I WANT to watch, but it's on mute because I'm stuck in Second Life constantly ensconced in the metaverse. ....so, effecively, the advertising has still played for me during the broadcast, but I didn't pay attention. I need to use bittorrent to watch the show. It's the poor-man's TIVO. Hey, I'm not massively spreading, I just need to know if they get off the damn island and where did the island go and what is that smoke and where is Jacob....... just.... If, us internet users, promise to watch the advertising associated with the program, can't we just download it and watch it later? or OVER AND OVER?!?!?!
Thank you to some artists that understand when fans crave. Its a devotion. It's not stealing.
JMHO@DLTV

Content Theft, Avatar Rights, the RIAA, & The Sound of Music

Wonderful genius Gwyneth Llewelyn comes to us with two brilliant posts regarding the future of music, technology, and the internet. These are must reads!

Content Theft, Avatar Rights, and the RIAA
You had to be very distracted to have missed the recent massive cry-out against content theft in Second Life. As the world grows, and as griefers and similar people commit misdemeanours all the time and get away with it, the situation can not improve by itself, as more and more petty residents find out that the best way to make money in SL — sometimes a cartful of money — is by illegitimate means. ..READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

&

The Sound of Music
Not so long ago, I commented on the future of music distribution via virtual worlds like Second Life®. It is still my belief that we’re assisting at the end of an age where music distribution via records/tapes/CDs and earning an income from royalties is coming to an end. While “free information activists” have long since predicted the downfall of the RIAA and the end of “music piracy” as a crime, they usually just address one side of the issue: consumers, who currently have sidestepped the distribution model by essentially exchanging music for free. Initiatives like Apple’s iTunes tend to combine both models: easy music distribution for a very low price and making sure that the musician gets a cut from the profit.
But these models completely forget one major player in the music industry: the musicians and performers themselves.

How, indeed, shall they survive, if their music is freely copied? ..READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE