P2P, Piracy, and other things – by “Matt A”

March 2, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

Graphs — A comparison of battery consumption between two individuals.

Peer-to-peer networks have come under a lot of fire over the past few years. Some of them have been able to slide under the radar by being very selective about their members, others have faced serious litigation, and a few have won their battles by squirming into the light of the DMCA’s safe harbor. One thing that hasn’t changed, however, is the technology. BitTorrent clients are freely available for download, and can be found easily with just minimal effort. P2P use scales beautifully: the more people using the service, the faster the downloads. And ever so slowly, its beginning to catch on as more and more legitimate means for distribution. Twitter is launching a new service based on BitTorrent technology to help lower the downtime on their central servers; instead of sending out updates to their various servers world-wide and rely on a lengthy direct download process, they will be using their servers as seeds in their own private swarm (it should also be noted that this project is named Murder for the flock of crows, not premeditated homicide). While this doesn’t involve the public as direct seeders, it still is a very valuable look at the legitimacy of P2P downloads. Another example, and indeed one of my favorites, is that of World of Warcraft, which has been using P2P technology to deliver its content for years. Granted the system isn’t ideal (it only seeds while downloading to avoid posing any undue bandwidth issues during play) and trying to deliver half a gigabyte of information to over 13 million people (or whatever the current number is) simultaneously without dedicated seeders upon completion isn’t the ideal system, but it improves download speeds regardless.

Bread Gloves — Society will find a way to fill its needs.

Now lets talk about piracy a little bit. Piracy has been intimately connected with P2P ever since it strolled out into the daylight. Lots of people with the same idea in mind using software that connects them, with the added benefit that the more connected they are, the faster their downloads? A match made in heaven. But P2P and its use for file-sharing runs into some moral boundaries and arguments. Is file-sharing a new distribution method or just plain stealing? Is it fighting the powerful ‘evil’ corporate machine or killing music and creativity? Then the economics arguments come in. Music can’t work this way, it will never happen! Or, music is a cultural phenomenon, it won’t respond to market forces. But this isn’t true. Economics works as it always does.

Digitalizing creates an ‘infinite supply’ (perhaps limited only by your bandwidth) and drives costs of production to near zero (or in terms of bandwidth, rent-sharing occurs when downloaders provide the bandwidth through seeding), then the price at which individuals are willing to purchase it becomes zero. Economics says free music is the way to go, its just an ugly/frightening answer for some. I agree that free music can’t work, or at least completely free music. People talk about Pandora (which I consequently love) and Last.fm, but until a reliable wireless network can stream it to me wherever I want, then this cannot be a replacement. The best approach I have seen thus far is the EFF’s. In a nutshell, utilize the technology that is already here, utilize the systems that are already in place, and charge an amount that people are willing to pay. Society will fill its needs in whatever way necessary, even if its illegal. To avoid piracy, simply provide that same service at a reasonable price. Legalize a system, and then constrain it to fit a model. Use P2P for distribution and hosting, allow members to upload what they want, and use share ratios for ‘benefits’ or some small form of currency. Monthly fees will be paid to copyright holders based on their files’ popularity over the payment period, making it a merit based system. People may scoff or freak out, but this is the same system we have for cable television. Or internet subscriptions. Or satellite radio. Or libraries (well, mostly). It isn’t revolutionary, its a natural progression. The music industry (artists, etc) will be outsourcing its hosting efforts to its consumers, and be getting paid for it. Consumers can pick the right package for them, maybe they want infinite downloads at a higher price, or a set amount of data. There are plenty of ways to make the system work well, but no one wants to take a chance.

P2P technology isn’t running away, and neither are the music industry’s problems. Piracy is a natural approach to filling society’s unmet needs. Fill the needs with a system that cuts production costs, turns your consumers into producers and distributors, and gain back a significant market share.

Bearshark — Just when pirates thought that leaving the open sea meant safety.

ACTA: Globalizing the DMCA – by “Elie C”

February 23, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

Although the public has been denied access to negotiations (note: RIAA and MPAA don’t count as ‘the public’), drafts of the ACTA’s internet enforcement section leaked online last week, providing a chilling glimpse into the covert negotiations among world leaders and the possible future of global internet policing. Introduced by the US Administration in 2007, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposes making ISPs liable for content that subscribers transfer using their networks, forcing ISPs to “operate “automatic technical processes” to detect copyright-infringing activities.” While section 512 of the DMCA already establishes third party liability in the US, the ACTA extends the liability of intermediaries beyond notice-and-takedown to possible Deep Packet Inspection (bye bye net neutrality?) to the contentious three-strikes rule (which France passed in 2009, banning three-time accused file-sharers from the internet), thus exacerbating and spreading shortcomings of the DMCA internationally – namely the E.U., Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

The current digital gatekeeping model established by the DMCA promotes a ‘shoot now, ask questions later’ approach to handling allegations of copyright infringement. While the DMCA imposes the burden of proof on copyright holders and outlines the necessary elements to a notification of copyright infringement, the court found in ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc. that copyright owners do not have to identify all infringing material (“imperfect notice”), thus shifting this responsibility to service providers. Although the complaint of infringement does not prove that infringement took place, the DMCA allows ISPs to takedown content without investigating whether the material was truly infringing before taking it down, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto subscribers.

The only recourse that subscribers have is filing a counter-notice of a “good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification…” Intermediaries risk losing their safe harbor if they do not take down infringing works whereas the consequences of wrongful takedowns amount to little more than disgruntled bloggers. In practice, there is no enforcement of fair use considerations prior to takedowns; section 512 of the DMCA explicitly imposes burden of proof on copyright holders, but third party provisions ultimately shifts the burden to subscribers.

Need to brush up on copyright law? Check out this video before it’s taken down…

As the amount of information online far exceeds copyright holders’ ability to monitor the dissemination of their works, they are becoming increasingly reliant on targeting internet hubs managed by intermediaries. In turn, intermediaries like YouTube are going “well above and beyond our legal responsibilities” by turning to automated technologies to keep up with this inundation of user-generated and uploaded content; its ContentID system enables copyright owners to automatically identify their works in YouTube hosted videos, and subsequently monetize, track or block the content. Technology that automatically screens for the presence of copyrighted material inevitably steamrolls over fair uses in favor of ease for copyright holders and intermediaries. As a standard rather than rule, fair use cannot be identified by an algorithm (real lawyers have enough trouble accomplishing that as it is) and technologies such as ContentID will further contribute to mass takedowns, leaving subscribers guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

As Spotify takes off, is a service-based model the future of music? – by “Samuel D”

October 14, 2009 ~ bradevanrosen ~ 5 Comments

iTunes has been leading the charge in legal online music sales since 2003 (selling over six billion tracks in that time) by selling individual songs and albums (DRM-free since January) through its iTunes Store software. Some interesting (ostensibly) legal alternatives have popped up over the years (Rhapsody, Pandora, imeem, Lala, MySpace Music), but none pose as great a threat as 2006 start-up Spotify. Spotify takes an entirely legal, service-based, streaming model to a new level, and the results overseas have been astounding.

Spotify has reached deals with major music labels for use of their collections. Users can stream the music with no buffer delay using a free version (with advertisements every half hour) or an ad-free premium version (for the equivalent of $16US per month). Users can also buy a one-day pass to go ad-free for 24 hours (for the equivalent of $1.62US).

Sharing: One of the most popular features of Spotify is sharing. Since the entire streaming library is available to all users at all times, users can share songs and elaborate playlists with users instantaneously. One user could make a 100-song playlist for a party, send it to a friend, and the recipient could play it instantaneously without downloading any files or buying any songs.

Offline: Users can cache up to 3,333 songs for offline use. This, clearly, would be larger than most people’s iTunes library and makes Spotify a direct (and potent) iTunes competitor. It’s also a huge competitive advantage over several of its streaming counterparts.

Geolocation: Spotify is the inverse Hulu, in a way, as it is currently only available overseas in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the U.K., France, and Spain. They are working hard to bring the service to the U.S. The Stockholm-based company is opening a U.S. office this year. The U.S. launch is imminent (as they reach deals with U.S. record labels), but apparently will rely on a mysteriously “slightly different” business model.

spotifyiphone

Portability/Mobile: The basic Spotify experience works through downloadable software (synced across multiple machines), but Apple recently shocked the tech community by approving the Spotify iPhone/iPod Touch app for the App Store. The app lets premium users stream the entire Spotify library over 3G or Wi-Fi AND sync offline. Given the offline sync, the Spotify app would instantaneously eradicate the need to buy music through the iTunes Store for your iPod. An Android app is available, as well. Playlists and settings are wirelessly synced between your phone and computers.

MP3: Spotify (for obvious reasons) does not allow users to download files of songs, but does link to legal music partners (Amazon, etc.) so users could buy MP3s on their own.

The Future: Spotify clearly takes the service-based music model to a new level. Valleywag calls it “everything iTunes should be.” As Spotify adds more and more music to its library and even Mark Zuckerberg sings its praises, how will Apple respond? Spotify is now reportedly making more money for Universal in Sweden than iTunes is. Many believe a service-based model is the future of music now that mobile platforms have caught up, but do people really want to rent music?

Spotify is currently valued around $250 million and with the U.S. launch imminent, that should only grow. Expectations and buzz are certainly high. The service has six million users presently, but is setting its sights high, aiming to take the service-based model to the next level:

“If we can transcend it so that, maybe you don’t actually have to pay for the music, it’s included in your data plan with your carrier or ISP or cable operator; it might be when you buy a new product, a TV screen, that you get one year of music included … devices like new Samsung TV screens, where they’ve got Linux built in, which allows you to do software on it – they’ve got YouTube built in, they might have Spotify built in.”

Spotify Website: http://www.spotify.com/en/
Spotify on Twitter: http://twitter.com/spotify
Spotify on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

A Threat to Freedom, Democracy, and Puppies – by “Francesca S”

September 28, 2009 ~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

: it’s easier to find pictures of puppies than freedom or democracy

It strikes me as an odd situation where you essentially are in the business of making and distributing skeleton keys, and Mr. Boback will help everybody buy new locks, and then, with your business plan of remaining one step ahead of the law, then you will probably make and distribute burglar tools, and then Mr. Boback or someone else will further improve the locks …

If I were you—and obviously I am not—I would feel more than a shade of guilt at this point for having made the laptop a dangerous weapon against the security of the United States. The 9/11 Commission reported that the central failure was a failure of imagination. Mr. Gorton, you, in particular, seem to lack imagination for how your company and its product can be deliberately misused by evildoers against this country.

This quote is taken from a Congressional hearing in 2007 on national security. The threat in question is not some biological weapon, or high tech explosive. No, the “dangerous weapon against the security of the United States” is peer-to-peer networks. Congressman Jim Cooper’s is addressing Mark Gorton, the CEO of Limewire, and expressing his concern for the national security threats caused by file sharing programs.

Testimony in the hearing details how classified documents had been accidentally shared on P2P networks by an expert on information system security. Other witnesses described the ease with which one can find mistakenly shared tax returns, medical records, or credit card numbers. The conclusion drawn is that those creating the programs are to blame, they are “distributing skeleton keys,” in an attempt to subvert our personal freedoms.

The Congressman argues that it is the responsibility of the software makers to regulate how their software is used. Limewire should anticipate its user’s incompetence, and protect them against themselves. Another congressman brings up the fact that Limewire is the only one of numerous file sharing programs (Imesh, BearShare, and Kazza for example) which did not, following the Grokster decision, implement mandatory copyright material filtering. Limewire instead implmented an opt-in filter, that gave users the ability to choose whether or not to use the feature.

More recently, this past spring, there have been more hearings on the national security risks due to P2P file sharing, as well as considerable lobbying by the RIAA for stricter regulation of these systems. However, it is difficult to come up with a solution that will monitor the system without limiting the ways in which it can be used. “With great power comes great responsibility.” The internet is a tool with unimagined powers, and I believe the American people can deal with a little responsibility.

RIAA Pursuing Old Suits – by “David K”

September 27, 2009 ~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

An opinion here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars asks why the RIAA continues to pursue lawsuits even after dropping its sue-everybody strategy last summer. Their reason appears to be that if they just dropped all the cases, the courts would get mad at them and they’d be vulnerable to countersuing, which has happned before in cases like this one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/06/exonerated-defendant-sues-riaa-for-malicious-prosecution.ars, where an annoyed defendent got them for malicious prosecution. But apparently a suti can simply be dismissed with the plaintiff’s permission, which these frightened plaintiffs would probably give, and the explanation the RIAA spokesman has actually given, of justice needing to be served, seems implausible, as the RIAAs policy until this point has been Thucydides’s “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

I haven’t heard anything in the news about their new strategy, however, which is “voluntary graduated response deals with US ISPS”. This sounds kind of weak and ineffectual, but that might be because its so vague. Does this mean the ISPs rather than the users will be asked to answer for what goes through them? Or the RIAA will somehow be trying to cut access for pathways found to be mosting much pirated music? Or is it really that ISPs can enforce this only if they’d like to? It’s not clear, but the fact that we haven’t heard anything in the news recently is significant, since publicizing their efforts has basically been the RIAA’s strategy up to this point. There’s enough music going around that people who want to pirate will be able to do it, so the way for the RIAA to limit its losses has been to limit the number of people who want to do this. They can achievet his goal with scare tactics (lawsuits), ethics tactics (anti-piracy propaganda) and knowledge tactics (getting rid of the easiest-to-find and most well-known pirating sites). But if I haven’t heard much from them, that means others haven’t either, and that means their tactics aren’t working so well.

Then again, I also hadn’t heard that they’d stopped litigating until I read this article. Why, then does Yale keep running its campaign to stop us from downloading? I don’t mean they should endorse it, but why are they being so insistent? There are all these posters and this speech at ST training, and the amount of propaganda about it has actually gone up since last year, even though the danger of getting sued seems to have gone down. Maybe Yale is just extra paranoid, or extra-ethical, or maybe they know something I don’t, or maybe they just haven’t read this article yet, either. I’d like to know.