http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/
This story talks about how Comcast is deliberately blocking P2P file sharing online. Of course Comcast is totally pulling the denial card but it does not surprise me. I am sure Comcast as well as other Internet Service Providers are afraid that if people continue to file share on their lines that backlashes like the recent $222,000 decision in Minnesota will fall back on them. Even though this has not happened yet, I would not be surprised if something like that does occur in the near future.
Now the question is, what can we do about it? Well, for one thing, if you do P2P file sharing, and you see a story like this your first reaction would probably be, "well, maybe being Comcastic is not for me anymore!" For others, this may be the swift kick in the butt that they need to quit illegally downloading files. Now I've said in this blog that I might have been guilty in the past of downloading illegal material, generally music that I could not get. Stuff like rare live music that someone taped while at a concert or other songs that were essentially "B-sides" (If you do not know what B-side refers to, then that just another way that I feel real old, genrally on records all the good songs were on an A-side of the record while the not so known hits were on the B-side, thus B-side term refers to lesser known songs by bands).
Well, hopefully, Comcast "fixes" the problem, even though I condone in some ways illegal downloading, in other ways I can understand why people do it and can see how some people who get some programs think they are downloading legally but are really not.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Creative Commons and what it can do for you!
I know that the class was exposed to the Creative Commons website and idea, but I wanted to explore the website further. This entry will not be based on an article, but on a thorough review of the website itself.
Creative Commons is a web-based “tax-exempt charitable corporation” created to provide alternative methods of copyright licensing for works created and posted on the internet. The developers allow individual creators to choose for themselves the exact form in which their work can be used. The website provides a dynamic set of licenses designed for this goal. The main idea behind Creative Commons is to redefine what copyright laws can be in the face of expanding internet use, creativity, and re-creativity. The current all-or-nothing copyright laws are deemed antiquated and overly restrictive. Creative Commons does not endorse stealing, but wishes to accredit original creators at the same time allowing derivative creativity to flourish.
The first thing you see when your browser loads the CC home page is a large map pinpointing the amount of money contributed to CC as well as the world-wide locations of it’s donors. The home page also includes numerous Creative Commons related web-articles from all over the world. If the user knew nothing else about Creative Commons before coming to the website, I feel as if their initial impressions would be of awe and respect for the international community this cause has created. From the home page, the next point of interest is the “About” page. This is where Creative Commons provides detailed information about each of their licensing options. Keeping true to the art-form, the About page also contains biographies of the CC creators, FAQ’s, the legal support behind the project, press releases, the history of the copyright issue, information to know before choosing a license, as well as videos and comics that deal with how Creative Commons works! Talk about catering to the masses? There is a little something for everybody: to-the-point information, introduction to the issue and staff, FAQs, and visually based learning tools to bring it all home! If you want to get started with Creative Commons right now, stop reading this and check out the About page!
One of the most interesting things about Creative Commons is their dedication and reach. As previously stated, CC is an American based group, but not solely American minded. The staff realizes that in order to be successful in any way, Creative Commons has to extend as far as the internet itself, meaning at home and abroad. The rest of the tabs include a merchandise store. The store is clearly multifunctional in that the spread of the CC label not only creates awareness, but it also brings in revenue to the company for the continuation of its future projects. The cunning consumer may shrewdly ask, “Before I plug in my credit card number…just what are these future projects to which I am contributing?” That is a completely valid question, and one that is also answered by Creative Commons. The “Projects” and “International” sections of the website outline the ever developing branches of Creative Commons within the United States as well as abroad. Since different fields require different methods of copyright, CC has to earn entry into the creative worlds of science, academia, in addition to entertainment. Perhaps an even bigger challenge is figuring out how to adapt CC to another country’s legal system, requiring legal as well as translation help from multiple sources. Basically, this page tells you everything you need to know, and then some. If you have any questions, about how you can participate, or about CC in general there are sections for that as well!
www.CreativeCommons.org
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Does the Minnesota case has affect on future lawsuits?
View this article at: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9041078
This article was found from an online news source called Computerworld. It was published on October 5, 2007 by Jaikumar Vijayan, and discusses the Jammie Thomas case with illegal file sharing and piracy and also what others should expect verdicts in the future to be like.
Charles Mudd Jr., a lawyer who has worked on dozens of cases involving the music industry, is quoted in the article stating that this Minnesota case will act “as a banner by the RIAA.” The verdict of this case was not only to punish Thomas for her illegal actions but also to forewarn other illegal downloaders that their actions are completely against the law and there are severe consequences for illegal down loading and piracy. Charles Mudd also argues that the fine Jammie Thomas received was unreasonable; stating that the actual damages done by the accused is generally multiplied about ten times, and that is what the illegal file sharer is forced to pay. Alongside this, Mudd also says, “I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics and I don't agree with their settlement amounts, but paying $4,000 to settle is certainly much better than what happened in Minnesota.”
Another man that had say in the article claims that the verdict in Minnesota should and most likely will deter future illegal file sharers to rethink their actions before pursuing their downloads. He says that the damages should be paid for and that the RIAA has right to prosecute those who are downloading illegally, however the recording industries should also look for answers as to why downloaders are doing so illegally. He claims that paying for an entire album is not what people want to do, rather they want to obtain one or two tracks from the artists’ album, and recording companies should look into alternatives for this as well.
Roy Beckerman is another lawyer who represents those who are being prosecuted for illegal file sharing. He states in the article that people will now be afraid to engage in this type of illegal activity. He also claims that a few years ago a woman was charged with illegal downloading and was forced to pay $22,000 and that was a big deal, but now that the Jammie Thomas case has arrived, people will be even more affected by this verdict.
This article was found from an online news source called Computerworld. It was published on October 5, 2007 by Jaikumar Vijayan, and discusses the Jammie Thomas case with illegal file sharing and piracy and also what others should expect verdicts in the future to be like.
Charles Mudd Jr., a lawyer who has worked on dozens of cases involving the music industry, is quoted in the article stating that this Minnesota case will act “as a banner by the RIAA.” The verdict of this case was not only to punish Thomas for her illegal actions but also to forewarn other illegal downloaders that their actions are completely against the law and there are severe consequences for illegal down loading and piracy. Charles Mudd also argues that the fine Jammie Thomas received was unreasonable; stating that the actual damages done by the accused is generally multiplied about ten times, and that is what the illegal file sharer is forced to pay. Alongside this, Mudd also says, “I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics and I don't agree with their settlement amounts, but paying $4,000 to settle is certainly much better than what happened in Minnesota.”
Another man that had say in the article claims that the verdict in Minnesota should and most likely will deter future illegal file sharers to rethink their actions before pursuing their downloads. He says that the damages should be paid for and that the RIAA has right to prosecute those who are downloading illegally, however the recording industries should also look for answers as to why downloaders are doing so illegally. He claims that paying for an entire album is not what people want to do, rather they want to obtain one or two tracks from the artists’ album, and recording companies should look into alternatives for this as well.
Roy Beckerman is another lawyer who represents those who are being prosecuted for illegal file sharing. He states in the article that people will now be afraid to engage in this type of illegal activity. He also claims that a few years ago a woman was charged with illegal downloading and was forced to pay $22,000 and that was a big deal, but now that the Jammie Thomas case has arrived, people will be even more affected by this verdict.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Mobile File Sharing
The apple iPhone has been advertised as break through technology. The iPhone has many components that a typical phone does not have. This makes the iPhone similar to a computer and is classified as a smartphone. The iPhone has a large memory which enables it to store a multitude of applications, games, pictures, music, videos, and other information. Another attribute that the iPhone has is portable internet capability. The iPhone allows users to access the internet anywhere on the AT&T wireless network. This technology allows for individuals to access the internet from some of the most remote locations in the U.S. with the use of their mobile device. This could revolutionize file sharing as we currently know it.
Current file sharing is limited between computer users connected to the internet. This new technology allows for users to wirelessly stay connected to the internet. Since the user doesn’t need a direct internet connection, iPhone owners can share files at any time of the day. The versatility is astounding. Users can wirelessly download music from iTunes, share business files with colleges from their office, share photos with extended family members while on vacation, watch YouTube videos while stuck in traffic, even check the status of their favorite sports teams while waiting for an entree at a restaurant.
The consumers crave this versatility and freedom. Apple iPhone sales exemplify the consumer want for this good. Apple sold 270,000 units in the first 30 hours or 150 every minute for over a day. While Apple and AT&T currently possess the mainstream market for internet capable phones, many companies are coming out with phones that will rival the iPhone. Nokia makes a smartphone called the N95 which like the iPhone has many capabilities similar to the iPhone. However, other companies lack the hype and hard drive space that the iPhone boasts. Phone technology is constantly changing and I believe that the rapid development of mobile technology will have major ramifications upon file sharing in the near future.
What Cool Videos?
Finding and Sharing Videos Online
from PC World, by Steve Bass
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091800314.html
The author of this article reminisces of the time when one could find a video online and it would actually mean something, not just another sap making a fool of himself. You'd share this video with a friend and everyone would get a chuckle and wait for the next good video to be found. He goes on to say how the good videos these days are practically impossible to find. It seems that a million new videos are posted daily. He claims that he knows higher end stuff, videos worth your time to watch. Videos with teaching capacity.
He sets the complaint that sometimes there is a video these days that one wants to share with a friend, but either the video is embedded in a dirty website, or it has sleazy or explicit ads. He doesn't have a solution for this, that he knows of, how to extract the video from the source so that one may share the video at one's own disclosure. Apparently there are also videos with the sleazy site's URL in the video so that it is hard to avoid.
He mentions a blog called TED.com. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It is dedicated to intellectual topics other than the same old silly kid running into a wall or expressing his flatulence to the world as if it were something special and/or magical, which whether it is or not, gets old. TEDBlog talks about technology, culture, science, and life.
The author encourages the reader to join TEDBlog, you'll only have to sit through a few, loud apparently, short ads. He notes this: "Did you know you can unlock your car with a cell phone?" I am not doubting the validity of this statement... although I highly doubt you'll get my '91 Buick Century non-automatic locks open with any phone without a lock pick in it. Although he claims this and some other silly things, he doesn't cite the specific source. I suppose the idea is to look around ted.com yourself. It is a pretty interesting site by the by.
Another interesting video is "Ten Great, but Fake, Tech and Science Videos." Or "How long will you live?" which apparently the Wharton School of Business can closely guess for you. There is then a brief discussion about using WinRAR to download videos in parts and being able to preview the parts before the actual download is complete.
The article ends with some small bit of news of Microsoft coming out with a phone to top Apple, but no real conclusion is gotten to. It was a somewhat sloppy article, but video sharing is file sharing can be a good thing. But like many things on the internet, probably a waste of your time. I'm glad to see there are groups that filter all the somewhat useful videos to one place. Hopefully one day you can just program your current consciousness into a computer and it will tell you whether a form of entertainment will be a waste of your time or not. Or maybe not. Either way, none of us will never watch another dumb video, so let me know if you find a good one out there, maybe I'll check it out.
picture from http://www.leechvideo.com/pic/1594/501329667578663.jpg
"Aw nuts! I fell down again. Did you get it on camera at least? Awesome."
This video is cool though, just click the bird. My mom sent me a video and a believable story: this bird steals a bag of chips from the same shop everyday, then feasts upon his victory with his friends. Human customers actually pay for the bird's chip habit now.
from PC World, by Steve Bass
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091800314.html
The author of this article reminisces of the time when one could find a video online and it would actually mean something, not just another sap making a fool of himself. You'd share this video with a friend and everyone would get a chuckle and wait for the next good video to be found. He goes on to say how the good videos these days are practically impossible to find. It seems that a million new videos are posted daily. He claims that he knows higher end stuff, videos worth your time to watch. Videos with teaching capacity.
He sets the complaint that sometimes there is a video these days that one wants to share with a friend, but either the video is embedded in a dirty website, or it has sleazy or explicit ads. He doesn't have a solution for this, that he knows of, how to extract the video from the source so that one may share the video at one's own disclosure. Apparently there are also videos with the sleazy site's URL in the video so that it is hard to avoid.
He mentions a blog called TED.com. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It is dedicated to intellectual topics other than the same old silly kid running into a wall or expressing his flatulence to the world as if it were something special and/or magical, which whether it is or not, gets old. TEDBlog talks about technology, culture, science, and life.
The author encourages the reader to join TEDBlog, you'll only have to sit through a few, loud apparently, short ads. He notes this: "Did you know you can unlock your car with a cell phone?" I am not doubting the validity of this statement... although I highly doubt you'll get my '91 Buick Century non-automatic locks open with any phone without a lock pick in it. Although he claims this and some other silly things, he doesn't cite the specific source. I suppose the idea is to look around ted.com yourself. It is a pretty interesting site by the by.
Another interesting video is "Ten Great, but Fake, Tech and Science Videos." Or "How long will you live?" which apparently the Wharton School of Business can closely guess for you. There is then a brief discussion about using WinRAR to download videos in parts and being able to preview the parts before the actual download is complete.
The article ends with some small bit of news of Microsoft coming out with a phone to top Apple, but no real conclusion is gotten to. It was a somewhat sloppy article, but video sharing is file sharing can be a good thing. But like many things on the internet, probably a waste of your time. I'm glad to see there are groups that filter all the somewhat useful videos to one place. Hopefully one day you can just program your current consciousness into a computer and it will tell you whether a form of entertainment will be a waste of your time or not. Or maybe not. Either way, none of us will never watch another dumb video, so let me know if you find a good one out there, maybe I'll check it out.
picture from http://www.leechvideo.com/pic/1594/501329667578663.jpg
"Aw nuts! I fell down again. Did you get it on camera at least? Awesome."
This video is cool though, just click the bird. My mom sent me a video and a believable story: this bird steals a bag of chips from the same shop everyday, then feasts upon his victory with his friends. Human customers actually pay for the bird's chip habit now.
Friday, October 12, 2007
China to crack down on illegal music download
September 24, 2005
The article is rather short, but to the point. Based on the Chinese State Copyright Bureau’s point of view, Baidu is out of luck and nobody is safe from legal action. The idea that a website provider can be targeted for the illegal activity of its users is yet another development in the war against file sharing. I personally cannot decide which method of combating file sharing is better. Hit up the search engines for bringing the illegal website to the user, or fine the user when they actually do something wrong. I do not want to say that websites should not maintain a level of responsibility and integrity, because the functionality of the internet would be at stake. However, to what degree should search engines be required to filter their results? Doesn’t that come close to censuring the internet? How can a search engine, who devotes its existence to providing an accurate index of the World Wide Web’s listing, exclude certain sites because they do not uphold the law?
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200509/24/eng20050924_210629.html
Traditional television only offers a limited number of shows during a specific period of time. Television is similar to attending a theatrical production. In order to watch a specific show you must structure your time around that particular program. Everyday millions of people turn on their television sets at 6:00 P.M. to watch the daily news. Many individuals do not get home in time to watch the 6:00 P.M. news. Those that miss the six o’clock news are forced to wait till eleven before they can watch the news. This still means that there are only two times during the day that one can watch the news broadcast. This is the primary reason that TiVo digital video recording exists. With TiVo a person wishing to watch the news at a different time can record the broadcast and then watch it later. However, the digital recording equipment is expensive and the individual must purchase a subscription to TiVo in order for the device to work. Internet television has provided an alternative solution to the television dilemma. With internet television, one can sit down and watch the news on their computer at any time of the day.
Many broadcasts that do not have large enough markets to become a cable or satellite channel market are turning to internet TV. If there is a smaller market for a certain broadcast material then there will be less people viewing the content on the internet. This would decrease the required amount of bandwidth for the particular broadcast. It would cost $150,000 initially to add a channel to sky satellite service and $70,000 a month to keep the channel on the air. Many small market broadcasts have found that setting up a website to disseminate your material is quicker and cheaper.
The internet television has also brought rise to niche markets. The demand for foreign broadcasts in languages other than English will continue to increase as the percent of immigrants in the U.S. increases. America is a melting pot that has given rise to a diverse population. As special interests of individuals within our nation continue to grow the possibility of pleasing everyone with tailored broadcasting seems unlikely. Eventually the number of special interests will outnumber the possible channels that satellite and cable providers can accompany. Inevitably the consumer demands will drive the conversion to a system where individuals have greater control over the available programming.
Interesting Related Links
Totalvid - http://www.totalvid.com/
Akimbo Review - http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/02/akimbo-review/
VegTV - http://vegtv.com/
Brilliant But Canceled - http://www.brilliantbutcancelled.com/
Many broadcasts that do not have large enough markets to become a cable or satellite channel market are turning to internet TV. If there is a smaller market for a certain broadcast material then there will be less people viewing the content on the internet. This would decrease the required amount of bandwidth for the particular broadcast. It would cost $150,000 initially to add a channel to sky satellite service and $70,000 a month to keep the channel on the air. Many small market broadcasts have found that setting up a website to disseminate your material is quicker and cheaper.
The internet television has also brought rise to niche markets. The demand for foreign broadcasts in languages other than English will continue to increase as the percent of immigrants in the U.S. increases. America is a melting pot that has given rise to a diverse population. As special interests of individuals within our nation continue to grow the possibility of pleasing everyone with tailored broadcasting seems unlikely. Eventually the number of special interests will outnumber the possible channels that satellite and cable providers can accompany. Inevitably the consumer demands will drive the conversion to a system where individuals have greater control over the available programming.
Interesting Related Links
Totalvid - http://www.totalvid.com/
Akimbo Review - http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/02/akimbo-review/
VegTV - http://vegtv.com/
Brilliant But Canceled - http://www.brilliantbutcancelled.com/
File-Sharing Students Fight Copyright Constraints
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10students.html?ref=education
This article talks about how students at universities across the country are banding together in order to try and change the rules regarding intellecctual property rights. This came about at Brown University when Zachary McCune and twelve other students received summons telling them they were being taken to court for illegally downloading copyrighted material on the college campus network. Mr. McCune settled for $3000 with the RIAA.
These students have organized themselves and hold protests and demonstrations in front of major record stores holding up signs like "Ipod Liberalization." But it is not just music that they are looking to make free and open to the public. Another way they are searching for ways to make things more public is trying to make research that is being conducted be more in the public eye. There is a bill that was passed called the Federeal Research Public Access Act which makes it mandatory for government financed research to be published online, free to the public.
Personally I think that people should have access to any research information, while I understand that some professors want to make a living on their research, I feel if US Tax or any Tax dollars go into that research that citizens should have a right to look over the research for themselves, this would allow people to formulate their own ideas on the subject and may stimulate further research in that given field.
I do not know if I would go so far as to start protest rallies on the matter, but it would seem like something that just sounds like the right thing to do.
Now I do feel if one is illegally downloading music to his or her computer and they got caught after being warned several times not to do so, well, then that was their fault and they deserve the punishment they received.
This article talks about how students at universities across the country are banding together in order to try and change the rules regarding intellecctual property rights. This came about at Brown University when Zachary McCune and twelve other students received summons telling them they were being taken to court for illegally downloading copyrighted material on the college campus network. Mr. McCune settled for $3000 with the RIAA.
These students have organized themselves and hold protests and demonstrations in front of major record stores holding up signs like "Ipod Liberalization." But it is not just music that they are looking to make free and open to the public. Another way they are searching for ways to make things more public is trying to make research that is being conducted be more in the public eye. There is a bill that was passed called the Federeal Research Public Access Act which makes it mandatory for government financed research to be published online, free to the public.
Personally I think that people should have access to any research information, while I understand that some professors want to make a living on their research, I feel if US Tax or any Tax dollars go into that research that citizens should have a right to look over the research for themselves, this would allow people to formulate their own ideas on the subject and may stimulate further research in that given field.
I do not know if I would go so far as to start protest rallies on the matter, but it would seem like something that just sounds like the right thing to do.
Now I do feel if one is illegally downloading music to his or her computer and they got caught after being warned several times not to do so, well, then that was their fault and they deserve the punishment they received.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Single mother owes $222,000
To read this article, visit: http://www.thenewstribune.com/tacoma/24hour/technology/story/171816.html
I have an increasingly obvious trend within my professional blog post subjects. The articles that interest me the most and that I typically dissect are those that have to do with lawsuits against an individual or a small group of ordinary people. I have researched many articles and published posts on them that pertain to this topic, and still this time I have not failed to find another article, very recent as well, that is well related to my previous articles of choice.
This article was another one that was published by The News Tribune and was titled “Woman to Pay Downloading Award Herself.” The published article was about a woman, Jammie Thomas, who resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota and was found guilty of the illegal file sharing of 24 songs. There were many music industry companies that were suing Thomas including; Interscope Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Records. Jammie Thomas was sued $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that she was found guilty for sharing to thousands of users of Kazaa. Total, Thomas will owe $222,000, which she publicly stated that she will look for no financial assistance with paying back, even though she makes $36,000 a year and is a single mother.
The article introduces Roy Beckerman, an attorney that represents people who have been charged and sued by various record industries, who states in the article, “Now, look at this. This is 10 times better. They can talk about this case, they can use it for frightening people." This is an exclaiming statement because it shows how even professionals within the law see how abusive these cases can be. Beckerman argues that the “award was disproportionate to the price of the 24 songs Thomas was accused of sharing for free” and that the fine she must pay is incredible.
On the other hand, Richard Gabriel, a lawyer for the record company, disagrees with Beckerman. Gabriel disputes that although Thomas may have only illegally downloaded twenty-four songs, she made those same songs then available to many millions of people; therefore causing the totaling damage of $222,000. Right, wrong, or indifferent; Jammie Thomas will have to pay.
I have an increasingly obvious trend within my professional blog post subjects. The articles that interest me the most and that I typically dissect are those that have to do with lawsuits against an individual or a small group of ordinary people. I have researched many articles and published posts on them that pertain to this topic, and still this time I have not failed to find another article, very recent as well, that is well related to my previous articles of choice.
This article was another one that was published by The News Tribune and was titled “Woman to Pay Downloading Award Herself.” The published article was about a woman, Jammie Thomas, who resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota and was found guilty of the illegal file sharing of 24 songs. There were many music industry companies that were suing Thomas including; Interscope Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Records. Jammie Thomas was sued $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that she was found guilty for sharing to thousands of users of Kazaa. Total, Thomas will owe $222,000, which she publicly stated that she will look for no financial assistance with paying back, even though she makes $36,000 a year and is a single mother.
The article introduces Roy Beckerman, an attorney that represents people who have been charged and sued by various record industries, who states in the article, “Now, look at this. This is 10 times better. They can talk about this case, they can use it for frightening people." This is an exclaiming statement because it shows how even professionals within the law see how abusive these cases can be. Beckerman argues that the “award was disproportionate to the price of the 24 songs Thomas was accused of sharing for free” and that the fine she must pay is incredible.
On the other hand, Richard Gabriel, a lawyer for the record company, disagrees with Beckerman. Gabriel disputes that although Thomas may have only illegally downloaded twenty-four songs, she made those same songs then available to many millions of people; therefore causing the totaling damage of $222,000. Right, wrong, or indifferent; Jammie Thomas will have to pay.
$222,000 for 24 songs.
A woman by the name of Jammie Thomas is now $222,000 poorer. Six different record companies for illegally downloading songs, and making them available to people on Kazaa recently sued Thomas. Jammie Thomas is a mother of two and makes $36,000 a year working for a local band in her area. Therefore, this price she had to pay was not an easy one. Although $222,000 seems like a lot of money just for 24 songs, some people would consider Thomas lucky seeing how many jurors wanted her to have to pay the maximum amount of $3.6 million. The law allowed the record companies to be awarded anywhere from $750 and $150,000 for each song, Thomas is only having to pay $9,250.
Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, was quick to argue with judge Lisa Reinke about how the "size of the verdict is out of proportion to the offense", seeing how Thomas could have easily bought each individual song online for 99 cents. The problem was not that Thomas bought them illegally online; it was that she made them available for other users of Kazaa. How the jury was able to come up with price that Thomas would have to pay is, they each wrote on a piece of paper the amount that they think she should pay and then passed their prices in and eventually an agreeable price was settled on. Judge Reinke really had no idea on how much Thomas should have paid but she knew that it had to be a reasonable amount because it needed to prove a point to file sharers that you can’t steal music offline and get away with it. Reinke said if “you go too low, it’s not going to stop the illegal downloading of music”, “people are going to think, ‘I could do this, I could go through Federal court and get off cheap”. Throughout the 4 ½ hour deliberation over the price, Reinke said she found herself feeling bad for Thomas, but she knew that she could not let her emotions get in the way of her job, after all, she is a judge and it was her duty to make the decision.
In the end, Thomas had to pay her fees to the recording companies, EMI Group PLC’s Capital Records Inc.; The Arista Records LLC label and its parent Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is run by Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG; Vivendi SA’s UMG Inc. and its label, Interscope records; and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002253.html
Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, was quick to argue with judge Lisa Reinke about how the "size of the verdict is out of proportion to the offense", seeing how Thomas could have easily bought each individual song online for 99 cents. The problem was not that Thomas bought them illegally online; it was that she made them available for other users of Kazaa. How the jury was able to come up with price that Thomas would have to pay is, they each wrote on a piece of paper the amount that they think she should pay and then passed their prices in and eventually an agreeable price was settled on. Judge Reinke really had no idea on how much Thomas should have paid but she knew that it had to be a reasonable amount because it needed to prove a point to file sharers that you can’t steal music offline and get away with it. Reinke said if “you go too low, it’s not going to stop the illegal downloading of music”, “people are going to think, ‘I could do this, I could go through Federal court and get off cheap”. Throughout the 4 ½ hour deliberation over the price, Reinke said she found herself feeling bad for Thomas, but she knew that she could not let her emotions get in the way of her job, after all, she is a judge and it was her duty to make the decision.
In the end, Thomas had to pay her fees to the recording companies, EMI Group PLC’s Capital Records Inc.; The Arista Records LLC label and its parent Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is run by Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG; Vivendi SA’s UMG Inc. and its label, Interscope records; and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002253.html
Converting DVD Movies = Versatility
A Laboratory Tool Kit for Converting DVD Movies
from NY Times, by Peter Wayner http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/technology/circuits/28basics.html?_r=1
Did you know that if you have a “PlayStation Portable,” you can download a movie on to it? You just have to downsize the file. Eric Petit is the creator of “HandBreak” which is just the program you’d need. Not just for the PSP though, you can also downsize a DVD to work on a cell phone, game machine, or other portable media player. There are a few formats and terms pertaining to video one must be familiar with in order to use the software correctly. Handbreak converts the digital information from the DVD to a smaller version so that the whole movie can fit in a smaller amount of space. There are several programs for doing this, but many are pay for only. HandBreak is distributed freely (handbrake.m0k.org), and thus a scuffle is aroused with copyright laws.
Searching the internet for “video conversion” brings up several companies such as Techspansion which sells VisualHub, used to convert videos from sites like YouTube. The author of the article reminds the reader to be wary of downloading any such software because it could contain viruses or malware.
The software converts files easily enough, but there are some technical terms and definitions one must be savvy of in order to use it correctly, from size of file to bit rate to aspect ratio. The technical complexities involved make the legal convolutions all the more messy. Some people think that having your own DVD files is a just request, a copy of a work that you already paid for. The problem is that once it’s on your computer and unprotected, it is easily shared to anyone else. The editor of 2600 magazine, Eric Corley, lost a lawsuit in 2001 against Universal City Studios for distributing DeCSS, a tool to remove the CSS encryption layer that protects DVDs. From this, some argue that HandBreak is also illegal.
The creators of the software point out the old days when people would make copies of their video tapes or audio cassettes so they would have their own personal copies of music and movies as a backup or to play with. It would be popular to convert music from vinyl LPs to cassettes. This was perfectly acceptable. It made it so one could play a tape with a portable tape player, and I’ve never seen a portable LP player.
This software would be ideal for carrying less as well. One could carry a laptop as opposed to a DVD collection, and have the movies and player all in one place. Laptop owners may choose to convert a DVD they own into files stored on the hard disk to avoid carrying the discs. Also, parents could regulate what their children watch better by putting passwords on files. All this and no more scratched discs to mess up right at the climax of the movie. Don’t you just love that part?
The legal issues are not yet sorted out, but the article goes on to explain the jargon of digital video like bit rate, codec, dimensions and frame rate, which is interesting but I will not get into here. But basically, one needs to learn these terms and plan accordingly. Essentially, it’s like this: the more space you have, the better quality of movie you will have, but there is a certain point where it only depends on your screen size, because once you get a higher quality video after that point, you won’t be able to notice anyway. Another question would be whether you would want to watch the videos on a bigger screen later, thus you’d want to keep as perfect quality possible. Also, how many movies would you want to store? If more, then they’d have to take up less space per movie.
All these have to do with frame rate and bits per second. If you half the frame rate or bits per second, you’ll get a much smaller file size, but lower quality movie.
There is a bit of work involved with all the figuring, but the way technology as advanced so quickly in such little time, the author points out, which I agree with, that in time, it could be as easy as dubbing music to a cassette tape. The legal silliness should disappear if the average person has this equipment and uses it like nobody’s business.
In my opinion, companies are going to have to stop making physical means of carrying media, and we’ll just connect to entertainment, be it games, pictures, movies, music, books, articles, etc via an internet site. And advertising, or maybe a small subscription fee, will make it possible instead of paying twenty dollars for a disc that is likely to scratch, and just a pain.
Since you only watch these movies such a small number of times, one might as well just stream them to a nice screen, sit back, and not worry about rewinding a tape, putting a DVD away, or missing that one portion of the movie, your favorite part, that you swear should have worked because you checked the DVD, cleaned it, and there is nothing on the DVD but it still leaves out that part when the guy blows up! Nope, never again.
I'm ready to start using just a laptop, no more losing individual CDs or DVDs, or worrying about scratches.
Photos from:
LP - http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/f8/Lp_record_album.jpg
Cassette - http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/429993/2
/istockphoto_429993_audio_cassette_tape.jpg
DVD - http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/windowsxp/images/using
/moviemaker/create/68860-insert-dvd.jpg
Laptop - http://laptoping.com/wp-content/0088278074441_500X500.jpg
The only other question is, what if I want to watch my movies on a bigger screen? These connections are possible but I say they're making those easier too. Right now, I just use S-Video and an audio 8th inch jack to RCA audio (red and white) cables.
from NY Times, by Peter Wayner http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/technology/circuits/28basics.html?_r=1
Did you know that if you have a “PlayStation Portable,” you can download a movie on to it? You just have to downsize the file. Eric Petit is the creator of “HandBreak” which is just the program you’d need. Not just for the PSP though, you can also downsize a DVD to work on a cell phone, game machine, or other portable media player. There are a few formats and terms pertaining to video one must be familiar with in order to use the software correctly. Handbreak converts the digital information from the DVD to a smaller version so that the whole movie can fit in a smaller amount of space. There are several programs for doing this, but many are pay for only. HandBreak is distributed freely (handbrake.m0k.org), and thus a scuffle is aroused with copyright laws.
Searching the internet for “video conversion” brings up several companies such as Techspansion which sells VisualHub, used to convert videos from sites like YouTube. The author of the article reminds the reader to be wary of downloading any such software because it could contain viruses or malware.
The software converts files easily enough, but there are some technical terms and definitions one must be savvy of in order to use it correctly, from size of file to bit rate to aspect ratio. The technical complexities involved make the legal convolutions all the more messy. Some people think that having your own DVD files is a just request, a copy of a work that you already paid for. The problem is that once it’s on your computer and unprotected, it is easily shared to anyone else. The editor of 2600 magazine, Eric Corley, lost a lawsuit in 2001 against Universal City Studios for distributing DeCSS, a tool to remove the CSS encryption layer that protects DVDs. From this, some argue that HandBreak is also illegal.
The creators of the software point out the old days when people would make copies of their video tapes or audio cassettes so they would have their own personal copies of music and movies as a backup or to play with. It would be popular to convert music from vinyl LPs to cassettes. This was perfectly acceptable. It made it so one could play a tape with a portable tape player, and I’ve never seen a portable LP player.
This software would be ideal for carrying less as well. One could carry a laptop as opposed to a DVD collection, and have the movies and player all in one place. Laptop owners may choose to convert a DVD they own into files stored on the hard disk to avoid carrying the discs. Also, parents could regulate what their children watch better by putting passwords on files. All this and no more scratched discs to mess up right at the climax of the movie. Don’t you just love that part?
The legal issues are not yet sorted out, but the article goes on to explain the jargon of digital video like bit rate, codec, dimensions and frame rate, which is interesting but I will not get into here. But basically, one needs to learn these terms and plan accordingly. Essentially, it’s like this: the more space you have, the better quality of movie you will have, but there is a certain point where it only depends on your screen size, because once you get a higher quality video after that point, you won’t be able to notice anyway. Another question would be whether you would want to watch the videos on a bigger screen later, thus you’d want to keep as perfect quality possible. Also, how many movies would you want to store? If more, then they’d have to take up less space per movie.
All these have to do with frame rate and bits per second. If you half the frame rate or bits per second, you’ll get a much smaller file size, but lower quality movie.
There is a bit of work involved with all the figuring, but the way technology as advanced so quickly in such little time, the author points out, which I agree with, that in time, it could be as easy as dubbing music to a cassette tape. The legal silliness should disappear if the average person has this equipment and uses it like nobody’s business.
In my opinion, companies are going to have to stop making physical means of carrying media, and we’ll just connect to entertainment, be it games, pictures, movies, music, books, articles, etc via an internet site. And advertising, or maybe a small subscription fee, will make it possible instead of paying twenty dollars for a disc that is likely to scratch, and just a pain.
Since you only watch these movies such a small number of times, one might as well just stream them to a nice screen, sit back, and not worry about rewinding a tape, putting a DVD away, or missing that one portion of the movie, your favorite part, that you swear should have worked because you checked the DVD, cleaned it, and there is nothing on the DVD but it still leaves out that part when the guy blows up! Nope, never again.
I'm ready to start using just a laptop, no more losing individual CDs or DVDs, or worrying about scratches.Photos from:
LP - http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/f8/Lp_record_album.jpg
Cassette - http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/429993/2
/istockphoto_429993_audio_cassette_tape.jpg
DVD - http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/windowsxp/images/using
/moviemaker/create/68860-insert-dvd.jpg
Laptop - http://laptoping.com/wp-content/0088278074441_500X500.jpg
The only other question is, what if I want to watch my movies on a bigger screen? These connections are possible but I say they're making those easier too. Right now, I just use S-Video and an audio 8th inch jack to RCA audio (red and white) cables.
re: my first article review
According to http://www.technewsworld.com/story/59694.html it turns out that Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000, however she is going to appeal, which she announced on her blog.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
RIAA Win Could Bolster Efforts Against Illegal File Sharing
The article can be found here :
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138136-c,onlineentertainment/article.html
This article talks about the RIAA's courtroom victory they had on Thursday in Minnesota. The federal jury found that Jammie Thomas of Duluth Minnesota, would have to pay $222,000 to six different recording companies for the 24 music files that he downloaded off of the Kazaa network. This equates to $9,250 for each song. This case was the first time that this type of case has gone to trial. This could mean a bad precedent for cases in the future or currently being tried.
Now that the RIAA has received its first victory in the battle against file sharers, it will no doubt continue in its work to make people pay if they illegally download music files. Charles Mudd, who is a Chicago attorney who has been representing defendants in these cases, has stated that the $222,000 that was awarded was much higher than the compensation that was warranted for this particular case. He claims that this number is ten times higher than it should be.
Now Mudd does say that he is not sure how this latest decision will impact future litigation and points out that every case is individual in nature. Some of these people have been falsely accused of this and those cases have been dropped by the RIAA.
Never-the-less, I feel this decision will make an impact on the way people think about downloading illegal music since there is that credible threat out there that was not there before. Now the case in Minnesota is not finished yet. Even though the jury brought in the original verdict, it can still be appealed and in the article Ray Beckerman, a New York attorney, who like Mudd, represents many individuals accused of illegal file sharing, said that most likely that figure of $222,000 will be lowered or thrown out. That is to be seened but for now that casts an eerie light on people who do download on the internet.
Now, I buy all my downloaded songs off of Itunes, but if I were an illegal file sharer, I would be extremely concerned with this decision and would think twice before purchasing any material.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138136-c,onlineentertainment/article.html
This article talks about the RIAA's courtroom victory they had on Thursday in Minnesota. The federal jury found that Jammie Thomas of Duluth Minnesota, would have to pay $222,000 to six different recording companies for the 24 music files that he downloaded off of the Kazaa network. This equates to $9,250 for each song. This case was the first time that this type of case has gone to trial. This could mean a bad precedent for cases in the future or currently being tried.
Now that the RIAA has received its first victory in the battle against file sharers, it will no doubt continue in its work to make people pay if they illegally download music files. Charles Mudd, who is a Chicago attorney who has been representing defendants in these cases, has stated that the $222,000 that was awarded was much higher than the compensation that was warranted for this particular case. He claims that this number is ten times higher than it should be.
Now Mudd does say that he is not sure how this latest decision will impact future litigation and points out that every case is individual in nature. Some of these people have been falsely accused of this and those cases have been dropped by the RIAA.
Never-the-less, I feel this decision will make an impact on the way people think about downloading illegal music since there is that credible threat out there that was not there before. Now the case in Minnesota is not finished yet. Even though the jury brought in the original verdict, it can still be appealed and in the article Ray Beckerman, a New York attorney, who like Mudd, represents many individuals accused of illegal file sharing, said that most likely that figure of $222,000 will be lowered or thrown out. That is to be seened but for now that casts an eerie light on people who do download on the internet.
Now, I buy all my downloaded songs off of Itunes, but if I were an illegal file sharer, I would be extremely concerned with this decision and would think twice before purchasing any material.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/23/nearly.free.sex.idg/
As Peter wrote the music industry has done everything within its power to eliminate file sharing. The music industry sees money running out the door and the only solution that they see is eliminating file sharing all together. The same thing happened when the VCR was first introduced in the 1970’s. The major motion picture companies did everything that they could in order to keep the VCR from entering the market because they saw the immediate loss in movie ticket sales instead of the potential to sell videos to individuals to watch at home. The motion picture companies failed because the public pushed hard for their right to watch videos at home. This is similar to the alcohol prohibition that happened between 1920 and 1933 in the United States. There were many people that backed the consumption of alcohol during this period which made the laws hard to enforce. Eventually the United States decided to allow for the consumption of alcohol so that they would have better regulation over where the alcohol was consumed and who consumed the alcohol. The adult films industry has taken a similar approach. Many major adult film companies have decided that they best approach is not to work against the consumers of the good, but to work toward a common goal of appropriate artist reimbursement. One of the ways that they have gone about accomplishing this goal is to provide small sample of the work online free of cost. Instead of making it harder for the consumer to obtain illegal material the adult industry has taken steps to make it easier to obtain legal material. The thought is that once the consumer has sampled a portion of the work that they will be more willing to spend money to receive the whole work. In order to get the consumer to purchase their product the major companies provide video clip samples that are arousing in nature instead of satisfying. The consumer is then moved to purchase the goods that will satisfy the arousal that the video sample created. The incentive created by the video clip sample is similar to the way that Cosco provides food samples of many of the products that they sell in order to entice consumers to purchase those products. This is an innovative approach that has helped the adult film industry to combat illegal file sharing. I believe that if the music industry would take a similar approach that they would find similar results. If bands provided free a free sample of one of their best songs online than consumers might be enticed to purchase a CD. This is especially true for a new band or for a person just getting into new to a type of music. If someone has never listened to country before but decides that they would like to give that particular genre a chance than they would want to sample a number of different artists before purchasing an album. Currently the easiest way to sample music is to download numerous free illegal music files in order to sample and listen to the music. The music industry should follow the adult films path and make it easier for interested individuals to legally download music.
As Peter wrote the music industry has done everything within its power to eliminate file sharing. The music industry sees money running out the door and the only solution that they see is eliminating file sharing all together. The same thing happened when the VCR was first introduced in the 1970’s. The major motion picture companies did everything that they could in order to keep the VCR from entering the market because they saw the immediate loss in movie ticket sales instead of the potential to sell videos to individuals to watch at home. The motion picture companies failed because the public pushed hard for their right to watch videos at home. This is similar to the alcohol prohibition that happened between 1920 and 1933 in the United States. There were many people that backed the consumption of alcohol during this period which made the laws hard to enforce. Eventually the United States decided to allow for the consumption of alcohol so that they would have better regulation over where the alcohol was consumed and who consumed the alcohol. The adult films industry has taken a similar approach. Many major adult film companies have decided that they best approach is not to work against the consumers of the good, but to work toward a common goal of appropriate artist reimbursement. One of the ways that they have gone about accomplishing this goal is to provide small sample of the work online free of cost. Instead of making it harder for the consumer to obtain illegal material the adult industry has taken steps to make it easier to obtain legal material. The thought is that once the consumer has sampled a portion of the work that they will be more willing to spend money to receive the whole work. In order to get the consumer to purchase their product the major companies provide video clip samples that are arousing in nature instead of satisfying. The consumer is then moved to purchase the goods that will satisfy the arousal that the video sample created. The incentive created by the video clip sample is similar to the way that Cosco provides food samples of many of the products that they sell in order to entice consumers to purchase those products. This is an innovative approach that has helped the adult film industry to combat illegal file sharing. I believe that if the music industry would take a similar approach that they would find similar results. If bands provided free a free sample of one of their best songs online than consumers might be enticed to purchase a CD. This is especially true for a new band or for a person just getting into new to a type of music. If someone has never listened to country before but decides that they would like to give that particular genre a chance than they would want to sample a number of different artists before purchasing an album. Currently the easiest way to sample music is to download numerous free illegal music files in order to sample and listen to the music. The music industry should follow the adult films path and make it easier for interested individuals to legally download music.
Forgot a kudos
I forgot to mention that the picture in my article is courtesy of google image search which brought up mass.gov, or more specifically, http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/gavel.jpg . Thanks, internet!
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Seattle campus of University of Washington's decision to side with RIAA
Find the actual article at: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/96215.html
As my fellow authors of this blog have also been exploring file sharing, I have recently come across an article from a newspaper in Tacoma, Washington called "The News Tribune" that I can personally relate to, and believe many others will be able to as well. The article, authored by Melissa Santos in June 2007, pertains to the University of Washington's decision to "not shield students from lawsuits from the recording industry" and if in fact any students are caught engaging in illegal file sharing, UW has promised to personally help the recording industry that is involved in catching the illegal sharer. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have stated that if any one student is caught file sharing illegally, they are to then pay between $3,000-$5,000 within twenty days or are then summoned to court.
Eric Godfrey is also a voice in the article as he explains that there are some students at the University of Washington Seattle campus who have letters from the RIAA already on route to them. Tyler Dockins, "incoming student body president", states that the email that UW received from the RIAA is extremely unclear and does not offer much information of what is expected from the University of Washington and its students. Dockins also reports that many students, who have a history of engaging in illegal file sharing on the campus internet connection, are simply downloading nonchalantly, and often times do not engage in this type of activity on a regular basis.
The spokesperson from the Tacoma campus of the University of Washington, Mike Wark, states that they were not originally involved in the negotiations between the RIAA and the Seattle campus, but that now he is looking into whether or not their is a comparable and related policy intact at the Tacoma campus. Mike Wark claims that the Seattle campus of the University of Washington’s dealings with the RIAA is the first time that this subject has been brought to his attention.
I felt that I could personally relate to this article being that I am a college student attending a university that has a campus-wide internet connection and dormitories wherein students can access the university’s internet whenever they please. I do like that the University of Washington forewarned their students of the new policy that was taken into effect, rather than just forwarding the Recording Industry Association of America’s letter to the illegal file sharing offender. I recently did a few other article summaries, and one of them contained subject matter that was particularly pertinent to this article. It was about other college students who had found themselves in a bit of trouble because of file sharing illegally through a campus-wide internet connection. The link to the article and my summary on it is accessible through: http://rosemary.umw.edu/~raz/cpsc104/sec2/team1/index.php/Main/WhoShouldReallyBeHeldLiable?
As my fellow authors of this blog have also been exploring file sharing, I have recently come across an article from a newspaper in Tacoma, Washington called "The News Tribune" that I can personally relate to, and believe many others will be able to as well. The article, authored by Melissa Santos in June 2007, pertains to the University of Washington's decision to "not shield students from lawsuits from the recording industry" and if in fact any students are caught engaging in illegal file sharing, UW has promised to personally help the recording industry that is involved in catching the illegal sharer. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have stated that if any one student is caught file sharing illegally, they are to then pay between $3,000-$5,000 within twenty days or are then summoned to court.
Eric Godfrey is also a voice in the article as he explains that there are some students at the University of Washington Seattle campus who have letters from the RIAA already on route to them. Tyler Dockins, "incoming student body president", states that the email that UW received from the RIAA is extremely unclear and does not offer much information of what is expected from the University of Washington and its students. Dockins also reports that many students, who have a history of engaging in illegal file sharing on the campus internet connection, are simply downloading nonchalantly, and often times do not engage in this type of activity on a regular basis.
The spokesperson from the Tacoma campus of the University of Washington, Mike Wark, states that they were not originally involved in the negotiations between the RIAA and the Seattle campus, but that now he is looking into whether or not their is a comparable and related policy intact at the Tacoma campus. Mike Wark claims that the Seattle campus of the University of Washington’s dealings with the RIAA is the first time that this subject has been brought to his attention.
I felt that I could personally relate to this article being that I am a college student attending a university that has a campus-wide internet connection and dormitories wherein students can access the university’s internet whenever they please. I do like that the University of Washington forewarned their students of the new policy that was taken into effect, rather than just forwarding the Recording Industry Association of America’s letter to the illegal file sharing offender. I recently did a few other article summaries, and one of them contained subject matter that was particularly pertinent to this article. It was about other college students who had found themselves in a bit of trouble because of file sharing illegally through a campus-wide internet connection. The link to the article and my summary on it is accessible through: http://rosemary.umw.edu/~raz/cpsc104/sec2/team1/index.php/Main/WhoShouldReallyBeHeldLiable?
Swedish Progression
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/pirate.php?page=1
This article outlines an event that I am sure most of the internet users around the world remember. On May 31, 2006, Swedish police took the founding members of ThePirateBay.org (TPB) along with the server farm responsible for the site into custody. The raid brought on its heels a massive backlash from the Swedish and worldwide community. There are many objections to the invasive action taken by the Swedish government. The first being that the .torrent storing website was not in violation of current Swedish law pertaining to file-sharing, second: the confiscation of unrelated servers (found in the same room) that had no connection with TPB’s business, and last but not least, the allegation that Swedish intervention came at the behest of the American entertainment industry. Although the Swedish government denies any involvement by the American government, the rumor took a strong hold among the populous. Robert Brannstrom, editor of idg,se sees the raid as a futile attempt on the part of the Entertainment business, stating that “…the battle against piracy was already lost.” This article seems to support Brannstrom’s statement. The Swedish are seen (and self-identified) as “sharers” and have some of the most lax file-sharing laws in the world. The phenomenon has taken hold, and it is clear that the Swedes are not prepared to be thrust back into the dark ages of litigation and copy write laws. Within a few days of the raid, TPB was back up and running on servers supposedly located in the Netherlands. Official sites for the Swedish police as well as the Swedish government were hacked and crashed in a retaliatory gesture on the part of unknown, disgruntled internet users. The two founders of The Pirate Bay, Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm were released from custody and not only set up their website once again, but were delighted with the “free” press surrounding their enterprise, “Today, millions of additional people have heard about The Pirate Bay,” Neij said during an interview. "We will have huge numbers of new users.”
I chose this article to illustrate how file sharing is dealt with outside of the United States. Although I was not a .torrent user at the time of the Pirate Bay raid, I was aware of the situation and it’s immediate retaliation against official government websites. The fact is, Swedish officials had neither a legitimate reason for the raid, nor the means to charge Neij and Svartholm and shut down the site. With the general attempt around the world to shut down any file sharing, Sweden had become a comparative safe-haven and a model of a population taking a collective stance for the evolution of internet capabilities as well as legislation dealing with the protection of property.
This article outlines an event that I am sure most of the internet users around the world remember. On May 31, 2006, Swedish police took the founding members of ThePirateBay.org (TPB) along with the server farm responsible for the site into custody. The raid brought on its heels a massive backlash from the Swedish and worldwide community. There are many objections to the invasive action taken by the Swedish government. The first being that the .torrent storing website was not in violation of current Swedish law pertaining to file-sharing, second: the confiscation of unrelated servers (found in the same room) that had no connection with TPB’s business, and last but not least, the allegation that Swedish intervention came at the behest of the American entertainment industry. Although the Swedish government denies any involvement by the American government, the rumor took a strong hold among the populous. Robert Brannstrom, editor of idg,se sees the raid as a futile attempt on the part of the Entertainment business, stating that “…the battle against piracy was already lost.” This article seems to support Brannstrom’s statement. The Swedish are seen (and self-identified) as “sharers” and have some of the most lax file-sharing laws in the world. The phenomenon has taken hold, and it is clear that the Swedes are not prepared to be thrust back into the dark ages of litigation and copy write laws. Within a few days of the raid, TPB was back up and running on servers supposedly located in the Netherlands. Official sites for the Swedish police as well as the Swedish government were hacked and crashed in a retaliatory gesture on the part of unknown, disgruntled internet users. The two founders of The Pirate Bay, Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm were released from custody and not only set up their website once again, but were delighted with the “free” press surrounding their enterprise, “Today, millions of additional people have heard about The Pirate Bay,” Neij said during an interview. "We will have huge numbers of new users.”
I chose this article to illustrate how file sharing is dealt with outside of the United States. Although I was not a .torrent user at the time of the Pirate Bay raid, I was aware of the situation and it’s immediate retaliation against official government websites. The fact is, Swedish officials had neither a legitimate reason for the raid, nor the means to charge Neij and Svartholm and shut down the site. With the general attempt around the world to shut down any file sharing, Sweden had become a comparative safe-haven and a model of a population taking a collective stance for the evolution of internet capabilities as well as legislation dealing with the protection of property.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
File Sharing Brought to Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101353.html
The writer actually seems to sympathize with th
e poor record companies on this one. Did you know that they’re actually supposed to get a few million from each person? just by, what I’d say, is an unsurprising amount of songs for a person to have? Yes. The record companies sometimes seek out the screen names to programs like Kazaa, Napster, or any file sharing program they could see, and obtain user names and figure out who people are.
They usually scare the person who has taken part in free file sharing with big sums of money that have accumulated from all the songs they have downloaded and shared. From this particular article, one person, Jammie Thomas, who shared a wide range of music, had about 1700 songs for which the record company says she owes $1.2 million. How much do you owe?
Hah, I always find it funny how record companies are looking out for money, not so much for someone’s well being. Sure, a person should reap the benefits of his or her work, but I don’t know if Thomas really hit $1.2 million worth of damages, $750 to $30,000 for each copyright violation.
She will be the first of 26,000 people being sued by the record companies who are bringing their cases to trial. The companies usually just settle after scaring the person for a few thousand dollars in damages, outside of court. People don’t always take these matters to court because it takes time, and more importantly thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in court fees.
The amount of people that have been targeted and so threatened is only around 26,000, while the number of file sharers is upwards of 7.8 million people. The attack isn’t really substantial enough to have an impact on everyone enough to stop. So I think, they are just getting these little bonuses every time they do this. If they tried to do a large scale action, they’d get less money in the long run and probably a much harder group to fight.
Her trial marks the event when both sides can argue in front of a jury. That is, how it hurts and how it helps. Her lawyer hopes to make the record company prove that they actually own all 1700 songs first.
Thomas told a lawyer she’d be willing to pay a retainer fee of what the record company would be willing to settle for, which made the lawyer, Toder believe she meant to fight this.
The court date is for Tuesday, and the outcome is expected the same day, but somehow I doubt that. I think these endeavors by the record companies have made some dent, but only in one area: the one where you download a program, and instantly you can start downloading anything you want, easy as pie.
Many have been encouraged to design their own file sharing techniques like torrent servers, and programs that only let you download so much based on how much other users have uploaded from you. On the whole, I’d say most people are not worried. I’m not, are you? While I used to be much more a busy downloader, now I mostly just turn on Pandora and do nothing, it’s great. But I still have my reserves waiting for me should I want them at any moment.
The writer actually seems to sympathize with th
e poor record companies on this one. Did you know that they’re actually supposed to get a few million from each person? just by, what I’d say, is an unsurprising amount of songs for a person to have? Yes. The record companies sometimes seek out the screen names to programs like Kazaa, Napster, or any file sharing program they could see, and obtain user names and figure out who people are.They usually scare the person who has taken part in free file sharing with big sums of money that have accumulated from all the songs they have downloaded and shared. From this particular article, one person, Jammie Thomas, who shared a wide range of music, had about 1700 songs for which the record company says she owes $1.2 million. How much do you owe?
Hah, I always find it funny how record companies are looking out for money, not so much for someone’s well being. Sure, a person should reap the benefits of his or her work, but I don’t know if Thomas really hit $1.2 million worth of damages, $750 to $30,000 for each copyright violation.
She will be the first of 26,000 people being sued by the record companies who are bringing their cases to trial. The companies usually just settle after scaring the person for a few thousand dollars in damages, outside of court. People don’t always take these matters to court because it takes time, and more importantly thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in court fees.
The amount of people that have been targeted and so threatened is only around 26,000, while the number of file sharers is upwards of 7.8 million people. The attack isn’t really substantial enough to have an impact on everyone enough to stop. So I think, they are just getting these little bonuses every time they do this. If they tried to do a large scale action, they’d get less money in the long run and probably a much harder group to fight.
Her trial marks the event when both sides can argue in front of a jury. That is, how it hurts and how it helps. Her lawyer hopes to make the record company prove that they actually own all 1700 songs first.
Thomas told a lawyer she’d be willing to pay a retainer fee of what the record company would be willing to settle for, which made the lawyer, Toder believe she meant to fight this.
The court date is for Tuesday, and the outcome is expected the same day, but somehow I doubt that. I think these endeavors by the record companies have made some dent, but only in one area: the one where you download a program, and instantly you can start downloading anything you want, easy as pie.
Many have been encouraged to design their own file sharing techniques like torrent servers, and programs that only let you download so much based on how much other users have uploaded from you. On the whole, I’d say most people are not worried. I’m not, are you? While I used to be much more a busy downloader, now I mostly just turn on Pandora and do nothing, it’s great. But I still have my reserves waiting for me should I want them at any moment.
Friday, September 28, 2007
CPSC 104
I've only just started blogging, but I think we can work together to find interesting things on file sharing. brb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)