Techdirt. Stories filed under "p2p"

RIAA Prefers Customers Who Buy A Little To Pirates Who Buy A Lot

Joe Karaganis — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:30:00 PST

Some weeks ago, we published a lengthy blog post called Where do Music Collections Come From? which discussed findings from our Copy Culture survey of 1000 Germans and 2300 Americans.

Some of the data demonstrated that P2P file sharers (who own digital music files) buy more music than their non-P2P using peers (who also own digital music files). Here's the chart again: To me, this was a fairly innocuous finding, well in line with other studies. For my money, the more important findings were that personal sharing 'between friends' is about as prevalent and as significant in music acquisition as 'downloading for free', and that together they are outweighed by legal acquisition.

But the public spoke and the P2P finding went viral: the biggest pirates are the best customers. Headlines like this generated pushback from record industry groups RIAA and IFPI--mostly centered around the work of NPD, their survey firm in the US. The exchange, I think, is an interesting window onto the state of the empirical debate around file sharing.

At the risk of boring you, here’s the chronology:

Oct.15: We argue that P2P users are the biggest buyers of recorded music. The story jumps from TorrentFreak to Gizmodo to many many other sites.

Oct.16: Russ Crupnick, Senior VP at NPD tells NBC News' tech blog

We hear this argument all the time and it makes no sense.... Peer-to-peer users tend to be younger and more Internet-savvy, so the likelihood that would be buying digital files makes perfect sense. But you can't compare that to the entire population.

Oct. 17:We point out that we didn't compare P2P users to the general population, but to digital music file owners (50% of the US population; 42% in Germany). We acknowledge that our labeling was a little ambiguous on this point, so we fixed it. We noted that "if NPD has data that suggests otherwise, perhaps they could share it."

Oct. 17: IFPI weighs in, arguing that NPD says that most P2P users are moochers, even if a few skew the average by buying a lot:

P2P users spent US$42 per year on music on average, compared with US$76 among those who paid to download and US$126 among those that paid to subscribe to a music service. The overall impact of P2P use on music purchasing is negative, despite a small proportion of P2P users spending a lot on music.

Oct.18: We say, OK IFPI, that's not super clear. Those categories don't seem mutually exclusive. But we take your general point so let's break down the P2P users with digital music collections. Here's what our data says:

16% bought no music files.
Another 9% said that 10% or less of their music file collections were purchased.
The median music file collection, among P2P users, is around 50% purchased.
And 15% said that their whole collection was purchased (suggesting that they used P2P for other purposes).

It’s a diverse group, but not moocher-dominated. We stand by our claim.

Oct.19:Then Russ Crupnick at NPD writes a piece that accuses us of publishing while drunk and also lacking a license to make proper sense of data (not joking about this). He repeats that you can't compare P2P users with the general public, and then notes that we're right about P2P users—but also wrong because it's dumb to be right about this.

P2P music downloaders do indeed buy more music than non-users. We’ve known that for about 10 years. It’s a dumb, illogical and irritating argument.

He then brings out his presumably non-drunk, licensed findings and, well, there are a couple things to say. First, he gets his math wrong by including the subtotal in the grand total (h/t Michael Geist). Possibly this is advanced licensed math of some sort. I wouldn't know.

Second, when corrected, the numbers are pretty similar to ours! P2P users do buy more legal music than non-P2P using music buyers. And if you add in concert and merchandise, they spend quite a bit more on music.

As near as I can tell, Mr. Crupnick has no actual disagreement with us on the P2P findings. That’s just smoke and mirrors. Rather, he want to make two other claims:

First, that even though P2P users buy more than others music buyers, they buy less than they used to.

The average P2P user spent $90 per capita on music in 2004- now they spend $42 (CDs, downloads, subscriptions). This was during the same period when the number of files illegally downloaded per capita was rising.

Our spending numbers would look higher, but we agree with the basic story. Here’s how we put it.

[P2P users] are better digital consumers. But is also clear that this investment has fallen vis à vis large CD-based collections. The survey offers ample evidence of this shift in the way music aficionados relate to music–no longer organized around large CD collections or measured in terms of individually priced songs or albums, but rather defined by a mix of legal and illegal strategies for accessing everything now.

Then he gets to what he really wants to talk about:

Celebrating P2P users for their contribution belies the fact that the paid component of the music that they acquire, aka their acquisition mix, is 50% less than the average music consumer.

And so the moral order is restored. Or is it? On any normal reading of the post, this makes no sense: P2P users can't simultaneously spend more and 50% less than other music buyers. (Admittedly, I've had a few drinks and should probably leave this to the metaphysicians at NPD.)

But I'm willing to go the extra mile and assume that Mr. Crupnick is just being unclear, rather than contradictory. Maybe the "paid component" refers to the percentage of overall collections, not to the annual "spend" on music. This would have the virtue of making the statement true, in the self-evident sense that P2P users acquire more music than they buy. In our formulation above: the median music file collection, among P2P users, is around 50% purchased.

But it wouldn't make the statement relevant. At this stage of the game, knowing who supports the music ecosystem and what their expectations are matters a great deal. The fact that P2P users pirate, on the other hand, only matters if your main strategy for increasing sales is enforcement. Boiled down, Mr. Crupnick's point is that it's more important to stigmatize the pirate than understand the customer.

Nov. 12: The RIAA's Joshua Friedlander steps in to endorse that view:

In reality, the comparison is unfair – what it’s comparing is people who are interested in music with people who might not be interested at all. Of course people interested in music buy more. But as research firm the NPD Group (which has been studying these issues for a decade) points out here, this data is neither new, nor illustrative. In their words, “Celebrating P2P users for their contribution belies the fact that the paid component of the music that they acquire, aka their acquisition mix, is 50% less than the average music consumer. Yes, that’s half the average.”

For what it’s worth, I think piracy does play a role in declining purchases of recorded music, but I also think there are so many forms of disruption in the market that it’s impossible to isolate that impact. Here’s how we put it in a post called Die Substitution Studies, Die II: Well, Maybe Some Should Live.

We’ve argued that the media ecology has become so complicated that nobody has a handle on what substitutes for what. Does a pirated MP3 file substitute for a $1 purchased file, a $12 CD, some number of listens on YouTube or Spotify or radio? Does Spotify substitute for MP3 purchases? Or YouTube listens? Should we take stagnant discretionary income into account, and rising costs for other media services, like cable TV, Internet access, and data plans. Do national differences matter–including major differences in digital markets and services (In Germany, CD sales represent over 80% of the market; in the UK and US, under 50%).... Which of these factors get priority? How do we model their interaction?

Increasingly, we don't think it matters. For younger music fans, the primary connection to music no longer passes through carefully curated CD (or MP3 ) collections but through the universal jukebox approximated by overlapping services--iTunes, YouTube, Spotify, The Pirate Bay, and your friends' collections. The total spend is shaped not just by the availability of pirated music, but also by the close complementarity of other free and cheap music services and by the greater competition for discretionary income and attention from other media--games, DVDs, apps, data plans, concerts, and so on.

So what’s at stake in all the misdirection and cheap shots? In a generous mood, I'd say carelessness. In a less generous mood, I'd say it sounds like resentment that he has to debate this stuff at all. Ten years ago, he didn't have to. Send out the press release, watch it get picked it up, and call it a day. NPD and RIAA simply owned the discussion. Now they have to nitpick with academics.

Companies like NPD make money not just by surveying people about their habits, but also by ensuring that the data that they make public leads toward conclusions their clients like. This is the noxious side of an advocacy-driven research culture. And for many research firms, it produces occasional schizophrenic moments: the social scientist warring with the company man. Maybe that's what we're seeing here. The P2P results may have been obvious and "known" for years but I can find no trace that NPD thought them worth mention before this exchange flushed them into the open. NPD has tons of data and could make a huge contribution to public understanding of these issues, but that's not their job. Dissonant findings stay confidential.

Which is too bad, because in the end, Mr. Crupnick arrives at many of the same conclusions we do. From earlier this year:

"There are always going to be those who look for bootlegs and songs you can't find on sites like Spotify and Rdio, and there will always be people who see illegal downloading as a sort of game, but I think that number will just get smaller and smaller as other options become more convenient with all your devices," says Russ Crupnick, senior entertainment industry analyst for NPD.

The reason for this, as Crupnick and others note, isn't because of potential legislation that mirrors SOPA so much as the growing number of cheap, legal alternatives to illegal downloading combined with the decline of many well-known file-sharing sites.

So what's he defending? Not different data or even significantly different findings, but just his client's failed monopoly on interpretation. But that drunk horse has left the barn.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 May 2012 11:21:00 PDT

There was quite a bit of chatter recently about a Torrentfreak article discussing an operation called "Pirate Pay," which was funded by Microsoft, and claimed it could track and shut down unauthorized works being transmitted via BitTorrent. The report claimed that Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures were already customers. The description of how it works is as follows:

“We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other,” Andrei Klimenko says.

John Pettitt, former VP of engineering at BitTorrent (who we've heard from before in a very different context related to software patents), noted in a mailing to Dave Farber's IP list that what Pirate Pay described didn't sound particularly effective or (more importantly) particularly legal.

Reading the article it sound like they are spoofing traffic to confuse torrent clients and force disconnects. It's not at all clear if this will work against all versions of the protocol (particularly the udp based version). Leaving aside the technical issues it's also unclear if such action is legal. It sounds like a targeted denial of service attack, a major corporation paying for such an attack leaves itself wide open to civil and criminal legal action particularly if they accidentally target the wrong torrent which given the history is highly likely.

Anyone want to take a guess as to how long it will be until a major entertainment company issues one of these misguided attacks on the wrong torrent, leading to an effective denial of service against legitimate content?

One other thought on this. The company's name is "Pirate Pay," which I'm sure the Hollywood folks get a kick out of. However, it's worth asking the question: how much of this activity would actually get anyone to pay? We've noted in the past that the entertainment industry seems much more focused on "stopping piracy" than it is on "getting more people to pay." You can argue that the former leads to the latter but there's little evidence to suggest that's true. Yet there is tremendous evidence that offering compelling services without significant restrictions at a reasonable price does, in fact, get people to pay. It's a tragedy that the industry isn't doing nearly enough of that, but instead seems focused on these harebrained (and potentially illegal) schemes to attack people.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better

Mike Masnick — Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:40:00 PDT

We just wrote about Hadopi's back slapping report about how much it had reduced "piracy." We noted that what was really telling was the fact that revenue was still declining. However, as more people look at the details of the Hadopi report, even the numbers they provide are looking less and less credible. Monica Horten from IPtegrity looks at a few different sources that raise serious questions about the Hadopi report. What the analysis shows is that P2P file sharing is still increasing in France. The "decline" is not in absolute numbers, but in relative numbers, compared to other sources -- such as streaming. And streaming has gone up quite a bit. An analysis in the French publication Le Figaro highlights how P2P and streaming appear to have basically flip flopped:
On top of that, France Telecom, who has said that P2P use continues to grow, has also noted that it saw "a marked increase in levels of encrypted traffic since the Hadopi notice-sending began," suggesting that there's plenty of file sharing going on via encrypted channels that Hadopi simply can't track.

Furthermore, Horten points to a Numerama report that highlights the fact that Hadopi's numbers come from the IFPI and ALPA. ALPA is a French anti-piracy organization. In other words, organizations who have a long history of fudging their own numbers. You would think, if the data was really showed that Hadopi was having an impact, its numbers would be a lot stronger.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Forget Laundering Unauthorized Music Via Music Match, What About AirDrop Darknets?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:23:31 PDT

In my initial post on Apple's iTunes-in-the-cloud Music Match offering, I noted the ability to effectively "launder" unauthorized tracks through the service. That's because it will scan your drive for all tracks -- those from iTunes and elsewhere -- and make authorized high quality, DRM-free versions of all of those songs available to you on any device "forever." In theory, this means if you have a lot of unauthorized music, if you pay your $25 and join up, all of those unauthorized tunes become "authorized" via iTunes. Not surprisingly, it's this aspect of so-called "legitimizing" unauthorized files that seems to be getting so much attention.

To be honest, I don't think it's a big deal, beyond the simple note of surprise that the major labels actually allowed this to happen. Beyond that, all the buzz about "legitimizing piracy" is a bunch of hot air. The simple fact of the matter is that once people had these songs on their hard drive, they were effectively legitimized. The only lawsuits were really over distribution. And while there may have been some efforts (such as in the Jammie Thomas case and the Joel Tenenbaum case) to establish where certain files came from, those were minor points and wouldn't be impacted by Music Match. Basically, this whole focus on "legitimizing" those works is a red herring. No one was getting in trouble for those works on their hard drives, and just because they move into the iTunes cloud doesn't mean that anything changes. At all.

What may be a much bigger copyright issue is the one raised by James Grimmelmann, who points out the much-less-press-generating announcement of AirDrop, and how it creates local, encrypted, peer-to-peer networks over WiFi. As Grimmelmann notes:

This is going to be yet another darknet vector. Imagine walking into a cafe, browsing someone else’s iTunes library, asking them for one of their albums, and getting it via AirDrop--all without knowing whose computer yours is interacting with. Sony’s rule on dual use technologies almost certainly absolves Apple of liability from any resulting infringement. Instead, this is yet another example of how technological changes are increasing the velocity with which media circulate, regardless of what copyright law may have to say about it.

Kind of makes you wonder if the labels knew about that as part of their agreement over Music Match...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over

Mike Masnick — Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:50:41 PDT

Wired has a "big" story up covering how various indie filmmakers seem to be jumping on the "sue downloaders as a business model," bandwagon. It notes that for some filmmakers, these legal shakedowns are becoming the business model of choice:

Welcome to the future of Hollywood, or at least the less glittery outskirts of Tinsel Town that produce art films, exploitation flicks and porn. Over the past year, small-budget film producers have nearly perfected a slick, courtroom-based business strategy that’s targeted more than 130,000 suspected movie downloaders.

As the article notes, this is wholly different from the RIAA's multi-year lawsuit strategy (which was a big money loser), which was supposed to be about deterrent. These new lawsuits are all about squeezing people for cash. Of course, if you read Techdirt, there's not much new there. But it is a nice piece bringing a bunch of these stories together.

But here is something new. Over at THREsq, Eriq Gardner picks up on the Wired story, and notes that the main example used by Wired reporter David Kravets, the B-movie Nude Nuns With Big Guns -- which Camelot Distribution Group has used to sue 5,865 alleged downloaders, claiming they're owed $880 million dollars -- may be even more ridiculous than some of the others. That's because Camelot is being sued by Incentive Capital for "breach of contract and fraud" in relation to a $650,000 loan that was given to Camelot to acquire the rights to various films, including Nude Nuns With Big Guns. Since Camelot failed to live up to its payment requirements, Incentive foreclosed on the film -- to which "no objection was made." So, technically, it appears that Camelot no longer holds the rights to the movie at all... despite the lawsuits over it.

Yes, you read that right. Camelot didn't make the movie. It has little to do with the movie. It apparently took out a loan to acquire the rights, sued nearly 6,000 people demanding cash for downloading the movie... and, according to the company who lent it the money, failed to pay back the loan, meaning they took control over the rights. Think about that for a second. That's quite a business model: borrow money, "buy" the rights to a film, sue thousands of people demanding they pay up, and don't pay back the loan, let the lending company "reclaim" the rights, but keep the lawsuits (and the cashflow) coming in.

Of course, it seems like this could open Camelot up to serious legal consequences, especially since it filed the lawsuit against those thousands of file sharers approximately two weeks after Incentive allegedly took over the rights to the film...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment

Mike Masnick — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:12:37 PDT

Last week at SXSW Film, I moderated a panel looking at the role of P2P distribution for filmmakers. It really was a case study session, where we tried to look at different things that fillmmakers have done in embracing file sharing, including some things that worked, and some that didn't. You can listen to the whole panel on the SXSW website, including me with my nearly missing voice (SXSW will do that to you). The focus of the panel was really targeted at indie filmmakers who would likely have difficulties going a traditional route in getting their films out to the market. The panel consisted of me as moderator, Ray Privett, the founder of Cinema Purgatorio, Shahi Ghanem, the Chief Strategist from BitTorrent Inc., and Jamie King, the founder of VODO. Privett kicked us off with a preview of a film that he's helping release via BitTorrent and Vodo, called Zenith. You can see the preview below: A couple days after the panel, the first part of Zenith was officially released, via Vodo and BitTorrent. There were a few very interesting things about the way this is being done. The first is that releasing it via BitTorrent really fits with the nature of the film. That is, the film is a bit of a conspiracy theory about a product that has been lost... and then found. So distributing it via BitTorrent really fit with the nature of the content of the film. On top of that, the film is officially by "Anonymous," trying to build into that sort of internet mythology.

The second part that's interesting is that they're trying to release the film in segments, where the latter segments aren't released unless there have been enough donations for the first segments. It's not clear what will happen if enough donations aren't raised, but it's still an interesting strategy. Others have done this on a production basis, where they say that they need a certain amount to conclude production of later segments. In this case, the entire film is made, but they're trying to release it in sections. I really don't know if this kind of strategy works for films, but it's worth watching.

With Zenith, they are offering typical tiered offerings for people who donate different amounts, including the ability to meet with a character in the film. At lower levels, donors can get their names on the future releases as either a thank you or as an Executive Producer credit.

Anyway, Zenith is another case study worth watching. I have no idea if it will succeed with its current strategy, but in a world where most people tend to think that a film has to be released as a full and complete work, it'll be worth watching to see if it works as a "serialized" film instead.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Not Impressed By Reverse Class Action Attempt In Mass P2P File Sharing Case

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:00:00 PDT

We recently wrote about an attempt by one of the growing number of mass P2P pre-settlement lawsuit lawyers, John Steele, to file a reverse of defendant class action lawsuit to try to get around the issue of misjoinder in combining a bunch of totally unrelated individuals in a single lawsuit. Typically, of course, class action lawsuits involve a class as the "plaintiff" not the defendant. It's not unheard of to have a defendant class action, but it is rare. Either way, the judge doesn't seem to be buying it. In a recent hearing the judge noted that the whole thing felt like a fishing expedition, and barred the court from issuing any subpoenas until an adversarial hearing was held. It's unclear who will represent the still anonymous "class," but hopefully the judge takes a note from another court and brings in experts like Public Citizen and the EFF.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn

Mike Masnick — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:49:49 PST

Porn producer Liberty Media has been quite aggressive of late in jumping into the whole mass infringement lawsuits business, with some really questionable moves, including a questionable quiet settlement, targeting third parties and a laughable demand that people pay $1,000 and confess to file sharing its movies before it even accused them of doing so.

However, copyright lawyer Ray Dowd points us to one woman's response to the accusation that she had downloaded gay porn. While the filing is technically pro se from this woman, who notes that her profession is as an electrician, Dowd notes that the motion is surprisingly well-written for a non-lawyer (and also refers to herself in the third person), raising questions if there's an anonymous lawyer helping out. Either way, she points out that she never downloaded the film in question and had never even heard of it or the company. She notes that she lives in New Jersey and any such lawsuit should be in New Jersey. She also notes that Liberty failed to follow basic civil procedure rules for serving her with the lawsuit, and says that the lawsuit fails the statute of limitations test, because it does not provide a date when she was supposed to have infringed.

You can read her entire filing below.

On a separate note, reading this, it's the first time I realized that Marc Randazza is apparently representing Liberty Media. That's unfortunate, as Randazza quite frequently does really good work in favor of protecting people's First Amendment rights -- and, as a reader recently noted, Randazza's firm is even listed on the EFF's website of law firms that are willing to help those accused of file sharing in lawsuits exactly like this one! It's too bad. I usually support the work that Randazza does, but supporting Liberty Media in this overreaching campaign seems like a mistake.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:24:58 PST

Wow. We've noted that the various lawyers who have jumped on the mass copyright infringement shakedown bandwagon (mostly for clients in the porn business) have been running into some serious problems on the issue of "joinder" -- tying all of those defendants into a single group. You're only supposed to be able to do that if they were all involved together in breaking the law. So far, the courts haven't been buying it for the most part. However, it appears one of the lawyers involved in these cases, John Steele, is trying a bit of a novel strategy: a class action lawsuit in reverse.

Normally, a class action lawsuit involves a "class" of related people as the plaintiffs. Steele is arguing that you can lump all of the defendants into a class as well:

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Class because the putative named class representative Defendants are residents of Illinois. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over absent class members because due process is satisfied by providing them with best practicable notice, an opportunity to opt-out, and adequate representation. In addition, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over individual Defendants because their infringing activity should have reasonably been anticipated to violate the Copyright Act in this jurisdiction. Therefore, due process is satisfied because any person engaged in such activity could reasonably anticipate being haled into this jurisdiction where he or she violated the Copyright Act.

Now, there have been a few examples of such defendant class action lawsuits in the past, but they're very rare, and usually require a pretty damn good reason. I'd be surprised if the judge grants it here. As in other cases like this, judges have pointed out that the mass group of defendants sued are not really comparable, as they each may have extremely different defenses, and were not really connected to each other in any way at all.

On a totally separate note, what is it with the lawyers bringing these mass P2P porn cases all having names out of some bad novel? Evan Stone. John Steele. Ken Ford. Is there some rule that you need a forceful, single syllable last name to be one of these lawyers?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:02:20 PDT

Once again, adding to the increasingly long list of similar rulings in Spain, a Spanish court has ruled that a popular file sharing site, CVCDGO, did not actually transfer or host any copyrighted works, and therefore did not violate copyright law. This is the same thing that numerous Spanish courts have found. The entertainment industry will surely use it as part of its media campaign demanding that Spain change its copyright laws (something which economists have noted would do more harm than good). However, wouldn't it be nice if, rather than the knee jerk reaction to these rulings, the industry actually understood what the courts were saying? They're pointing out a simple fact: the service provider isn't actually infringing on anyone's copyright, no matter how many times the entertainment industry wishes it were so.

Separately, the judge in this case noted that the industry seems to be totally overreacting to the issue of file sharing, noting that people have been sharing and trading content for ages:

In their ruling, judges Ocariz, Gutierrez and Campillo said that "...since ancient times there has been the loan or sale of books, movies, music and more. The difference now is mainly on the medium used -- previously it was paper or analog media and now everything is in a digital format which allows a much faster exchange of a higher quality and also with global reach through the Internet."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Spanish Gov't Moves Forward On New Law To Make File Sharing And Links Sites Illegal

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:25:00 PDT

A bunch of free culture sites got pretty excited recently when a Spanish court ruled that file sharing sites, as well as links sites, weren't illegal. Of course, we noted this was hardly a new thing. Spanish courts had already made similar rulings in the past. In fact, the timing of this ruling seemed particularly bad, since we'd noted a few months ago that there were proposals being pushed to change copyright law in Spain. So it should come as little surprise that just days after that last ruling, the gov't has started moving forward with getting the new law approved, and many expect it will be in place within a few months.

The new law sounds particularly bad as well. It would set up a governmental bureaucracy that could simply denounce any site as illegal, if it feels that it offers links to infringing content. Once "denounced," the Spanish high court would get a grand total of four days to determine if the site should be shut down -- and the only reason why it would be allowed to not shut the site down would be if there were clear concerns about freedom of expression. Basically, if the gov't feels a site has too many "unauthorized" links, it gets shut down with minimal review. So much for a more balanced approach to copyright law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Rules P2P Legal In Spain Yet Again

Mike Masnick — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:58:08 PDT

Spain continues to be one of the few countries out there that seems to not have its judges lose their critical thinking abilities the second anyone mentions the word "piracy." We've pointed out a few times in the past that Spanish courts have ruled that file sharing is legal and it looks like they've done so again. Infophage was the first of a few to send in an article about the latest ruling, which again found that just linking to infringing material is not copyright infringement. The judge apparently went further, though, also noting that using P2P file sharing systems does not appear to violate copyright law in Spain, as long as the user isn't doing so for monetary profit.

Of course, this isn't over by a long shot. Late last year, entertainment industry lobbyists got Spanish politicians to propose new copyright laws that would (of course) ratchet up copyright to make it more like it is in other countries (i.e., more draconian). And, as we recently noted, a bunch of Spanish record labels have sued the gov't for not doing enough to stop file sharing. But, hopefully, this country that has explicitly rejected three strikes laws will stick to its guns and recognize that perhaps the court rulings make sense -- and that the first response to an industry unwilling to adapt to a technologically-changed market isn't to change the laws, but to ask those companies to start adapting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oxford University Bans Spotify, Apparently Prefers Students To Get Music Secretly, Rather Than Legally

Mike Masnick — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:52:00 PST

For years, the recording industry has pushed universities to block file sharing apps and promote legal alternatives. In the US, the industry even pushed legislation that would require universities to support legal music services. Apparently, the folks over in Oxford are going in the other direction. IT folks at the prestigious university have banned Spotify, one of the most well-known legal music services out there, claiming that any P2P technology is not allowed, and then also claiming that it's a bandwidth hog. Finally, when confronted about it, the University noted that the service "cannot be justified as educational." There are lots of things online that cannot necessarily be justified as educational, but are totally allowed.

Given the multiple explanations, you get the feeling this may have been an overreaction on the part of the University by someone unfamiliar with Spotify. I would doubt that the application is really that much of a bandwidth hog -- and even if it is, you would think that there are better ways to deal with it than an outright ban. Either way, it's not like it will actually stop students from using it or some other means of accessing music they want to hear -- it's just that they'll do so in more secretive ways.

Still, a bigger question is why such an esteemed university seems to think that all P2P applications are somehow bad. You would think that an educational institution would recognize that P2P is just a way of using the internet -- often in a more efficient manner -- and it's been used in all sorts of beneficial and educational settings for years.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-File Sharing Lobbyists/Lawyers Shove Each Other Aside To Blame P2P Rather Than Dumb Guy For Congressional Leak

Mike Masnick — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:02:00 PDT

A couple years ago, some entertainment industry lobbyists hit on a new idea for trying to get Congress to legislate against file sharing software: figure out ways to blame it for stupid employees. More specifically, figure out a way to blame it for stupid employees... in the government. So, those lobbyists have worked hard to highlight every single time some sort of sensitive government information was leaked via file sharing programs, and then even got Congress to investigate file sharing programs, rather than government security policies or how the government deals with stupid employees who put sensitive information on home computers that also have file sharing software installed improperly (set to share everything). The latest is that they were even able to get a ridiculously poorly thought-out law proposed that would cause problems for nearly every software you use online. Brilliant.

So, of course, as the news broke that there was a leak of a Congressional ethics investigation, because a staffer put the document on his or her home machine that had file sharing software on it, the usual crowd of folks wasted no time at all in highlighting the use of P2P software and presenting file sharing as if it (rather than dumb employees and bad government security) was a huge national security threat and (of course) to urge Congresss to pass laws against file sharing programs. The one thing in common? All of those calls come from people who get paychecks from the entertainment industry.

Funny, I don't see them calling for laws that would lock down and secure laptops, even though government employees lose thousands of laptops every year -- many with sensitive information. I don't see them calling for laws against email software, though I would bet that a lot more sensitive information is leaked by people simply emailing it to the wrong party. They don't call for laws against the telephone, even though people leak info over the phone. What? No laws against dining in restaurants where you might hear some info from folks at the next table? This has nothing to do with file sharing software. It has everything to do with poor security setup and dumb government employees. The claims that this happens so often are misleading. The federal government employs nearly 3 million people. We hear about these sorts of "leaks" once every year or so. Out of 3 million people, if anything, I'd be amazed there are so few leaks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films

Mike Masnick — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:00:00 PDT

While some continue to insist that there's nothing good or legal that comes from file sharing sites, many content creators who have embraced those sites have found them to be wonderful tools for distribution and promotion. Now, it looks like a bunch of them are teaming up to do even more. Mininova, The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Miro, Vuze and Frostwire have all agreed to work with a new project called Vodo, which will help promote indie films. Filmmakers can offer their films through Vodo and get promoted on the various file sharing sites -- and the system is designed to let people easily donate. While I'm not a huge fan of a pure "donation" business model, it should be interesting to see how Vodo evolves over time. Certainly, it could be a valuable tool to indie filmmakers who recognize that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their efforts than piracy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Congress Moving Forward On 'P2P' Warning Law

Mike Masnick — Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:17:00 PDT

Back in May, we wrote about a bill being proposed by Congress, at the urging of the entertainment industry, to force any kind of file sharing app to put certain ridiculous restrictions on the app, such as requiring it to put up a big warning sign every time you use it for sharing files, and requiring the user to "consent" to use the software. Public Knowledge notes that the bill is back in action and going through the markup process, with little in the way of complaints or warnings from the many, many software developers this will impact. Public Knowledge outlines many of the problems with the bill:

Legislating Software Design: The bill is aimed at a specific technology and kind of application instead of simple non-tech-focussed consumer protection and disclosure principles. Instead it's aimed at legislating the design and workings of common software. It's the exact kind of thing that has all kinds of unintended and unforeseeable consequences.

Over / Under Inclusive Definition: No matter how narrow the definition of "covered file-sharing program" may seem, it's going to include more and less than is intended or desirable. Over inclusive: bill would include basic operating systems like Windows 7 and Mac OS X that enable file sharing; iTunes shares media files as well. Under inclusive: bill would not include applications that simply upload the entirety of a user's hard drive to the web.

"Initial Activation" Needs Clarification: The amendment, just like the previous bill, requires the software to notify the user at installation and "initial activation of a file sharing function." The problem remains that there are a number of interpretations of what this means, here are three: A. The first time an application is installed and launched; B. Every time the application is launched; or C. Every time the feature is enabled. Unless the language is made clear, developers not wanting to incur penalties will err on the side of notice, which means the most notifications.

Applies to Software Already Written: Software that has already been written and is still being distributed, but not maintained by a developer or manufacturer may fall prey to the provisions of this bill. Unless otherwise exempted, this would require developers to update their older software at great cost, unless they wanted incur penalty of law.

Interferes with User and Administrator Choice: This bill would require a fundamental change in how much software operates. Users, especially system administrators, make informed choices about the applications that will meet their needs -- especially those that "just run" without user interaction. In many cases, how an application installs, launches, and operates behind the scenes is part of their decision, and this bill would interfere with how they run their systems.

This bill is bad news, and it's yet another attempt by the entertainment industry to get Congress to start slapping specific restrictions on any software it doesn't like.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Brazilian Court Says It's Illegal To Distribute File Sharing Software If You Have Ads On Your Site

Mike Masnick — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:27:30 PDT

A judge in Brazil has apparently told a website that offers downloads of a P2P file sharing app that because it has ads on the site, its operators can be found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and may face jailtime. Specifically, the entertainment industry had sued a particular website because it distributed a piece of file sharing software called K-Lite Nitro, even though it does not make or control the software. After first demanding that the software filter out a huge list of content, which was impossible since the website operators had nothing to do with the software, the company behind the website is now being told by the court that just offering up the software is infringing. So... first there was contributory infringement for file sharing apps themselves... and now they're going after sites that distribute such software? What is that? Contributory contributory copyright infringement? The site plans to appeal, noting that there are plenty of legal uses of the software as well. They also might want to point out that some forms of Brazilian music has done quite well by embracing file sharing to their advantage... But, for some reason, no one ever seems to want to look at that side of the equation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

P2P Banned In Antarctica?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:37:00 PDT

We know that there's been an ongoing effort by entertainment industry lobbyists to convince politicians (and others) that file sharing and P2P apps are somehow to blame for stupid government staffers accidentally leaking files via those programs. Apparently the propaganda campaign has worked in at least one area: employees of the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) were sent an alert that they need to stop using all P2P programs. The "scenarios" described in the note are the same ones that entertainment industry lobbying group Arts+Labs has been spewing for a few years now. However, rather than assume that the real lesson is that users should actually understand the software they're using on their computer, and make sure not to use it in a dumb way (such as exposing sensitive documents), the director of IT simply told everyone that while on Antarctica, they must disable any P2P apps on their computer. Hope no one there uses Skype to keep in touch with family...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Once Again, Congress Wants To Blame Limewire For Stupid Staffers, As Arts+Labs Propaganda Campaign Works

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:33:00 PDT

This started a few years ago, when suddenly grandstanding Congress-folk started blaming Limewire for "leaking" a confidential terrorist threat assessment. Of course, that was misguided. The problem wasn't Limewire (or any file sharing software), but idiotic gov't employees who (a) put file sharing software on gov't computers (b) didn't properly wall off the software and (c) put confidential info where it could be shared. Earlier this year, suddenly, the issue came up again (again targeting Limewire). It was instigated by some aggressive entertainment industry lobbyists, who have concocted this huge story about how Limewire is to blame. And politicians always seem willing to buy it.

The latest is that some in Congress are planning legislation after claiming that "Secret Service safehouse locations, military rosters, and IRS tax returns" were available via Limewire (funny... those are the same things mentioned in the PR email I got from the entertainment industry lobbyist's PR person...).

Our Congressional critters tried to one up each other in stupid proposals, with one, Rep. Bill Foster, even tossing out the idea of passing a law to block the Gnutella protocol (though, he admitted it wasn't likely to work). Others just planned to pass laws that would ban the use of file sharing software on gov't computers (you need a law for that?!?) and to have the FTC investigate Limewire. And, of course, the real goal in all of this, politicians want to pass a law demanding that the gov't "undertake a national campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of file sharing software."

That last one, of course, is actually the end-goal here. The entertainment industry and their shills such as the group Arts+Labs (who was behind much of this campaign) have been demonizing file sharing software completely, and now want the gov't to help. So the best way to do that was to find some folks who misused the software, get some headlines about how P2P software "exposed" Obama's safehouse locations and then get the gov't to put in place some entertainment industry propaganda. Arts+Labs wins completely. It's backers include the various entertainment firms (bonus! gov't pitching their propaganda story) and a few tech companies who sell filtering/blocking technology (bonus! gov't increasing demand for their technology).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Unintended Consequences: P2P 'Warning' Law Could Impact Browsers, FTP

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 May 2009 05:29:32 PDT

We discussed recently how entertainment industry lobbyists have been pushing this story about how P2P software needs to be regulated to prevent gov't data from leaking, incorrectly blaming the software for user error. So, of course, it's no surprise that legislation has been introduced that tries to force any P2P software used for transferring files from one computer to another to include a big warning and require the user to give "informed consent" when installing the software and every time it's used. Yes, every time it's used. This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. Has it occurred to anyone crafting such a bill that when you pop up such a notice and require "consent" every single time software is used, most people will just ignore it? But, more importantly, as Declan McCullagh points out, the wording of the bill suggests that this "notice and consent" solution would apply to lots and lots of products, including browsers, FTP clients and backup software. Tons of software these days involves transferring files between two computers. This is, of course, symptomatic of legislation being written and introduced by people who don't understand the technology. They think that software to transfer files is limited to things like LimeWire or BitTorrent, not recognizing that it's a core part of the internet itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

French Lawmakers Trying To Regulate File Sharing Don't Know Much About It

Mike Masnick — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:11:00 PDT

We've joked in the past that judges and politicians should be required to pass some sort of "class" on certain basic technology issues before they'll allowed to rule on lawsuits or create regulations having to do with technology. All too often we find that many of the problems created in the courts and legislatures are due to politicians simply not understanding technology. It looks like that's true around the world as well. Over in France, where politicians are pushing hard for a three strikes law, a reporter went and asked some politicians some basic questions to gauge their understanding of the technology in question -- and found that most had absolutely no clue. Combined with the fact that approximately 90% of people in a recent survey were against the law, and that the European Parliament has said any such law would be a violation of a user's civil rights, you have to wonder how politicians can possibly justify such a draconian law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US Contractor Follows Japanese Example: Leaks Military Secrets Via P2P

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:59:00 PST

Nearly four years ago, it was reported that a contractor in Japan who had plans for a nuclear powerstation leaked them via a file sharing app on his personal computer. It was never clearly explained why he had those classified work-related materials on his personal computer, but it led to quite a mess, with the government begging people to delete the nuclear secrets, if they found them. You would hope that with that as a guide, other government and military contractors around the world would be more careful. No such luck. Lots of folks have been sending in the news that the details on Marine One, President Obama's helicopter were recently leaked via file sharing software found on the computer of a (you guessed it) government contractor. Apparently no one takes things like basic computer security seriously anymore.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Serious Questions Raised About CNN's Use Of Stealthy P2P Video For The Inauguration

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:48:32 PST

CNN got a lot of attention on inauguration day as being the online site of choice for people to watch the streaming video of the events. However, as reader Jim Wood alerts us, many people are probably unaware that they agreed to do so by sharing their bandwidth via a P2P application. Now, first off, I actually think this is a good general use of P2P and have wondered in the past why more streaming apps don't make use of bandwidth sharing P2P in a similar manner. However, it does appear that there are many, many issues with how this was implemented. CNN told people they had to install Octoshape Grid Delivery to watch the video -- and it turns out that wasn't true. You only had to install it if you wanted to make use of the more efficient bandwidth sharing. Also, it doesn't appear that it was clearly explained to users at all what they were agreeing to. This is especially problematic at a time when more and more ISPs are using broadband caps that often include upstream traffic. Users might not realize at all that they were giving up a significant amount of their bandwidth.

Separately, the EULA for the software contains some totally ridiculous clauses, including: "You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software." Yes, if you install the software, you can no longer monitor your own traffic usage, at least according to those terms.

There are also serious concerns about potential security problems associated with the software, since the software can automatically be activated by visiting any "Octoshape-enabled" website. That seems like a zombie-scammer's dream setup: a secretive P2P network that people don't even know they have that can use up a ton of bandwidth, can't be sniffed (legally) and uses an unexpected port.

Again, there are definite useful ways to make use of P2P to spread out the bandwidth, but it needs to be done in a much more transparent, reasonable and safe manner. Unfortunately, this implementation doesn't seem to have done that -- and millions of trusting CNN users may now run into problems because of that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Gov't Insists That File Sharers Won't Be Kicked Off The Internet

Mike Masnick — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:29:05 PST

While there are still some concern about what the UK gov't is planning concerning ISPs in relation to the recording industry, reports are coming out that kicking file sharers off the internet with a "3 strikes" policy is off the table -- at least according to David Lammy, the Intellectual Property Minister in the UK. That's a good sign, and fits with what the EU Parliament has said. The full government report is expected later this week, though no one has yet explained to us why the government is stepping in to what is effectively a business model issue, and trying to force a different industry (ISPs) to help deal with a problem created by an industry (the recording industry) that has spent a decade trying to hold back new business models that would solve any "problem" it faces.

Meanwhile, of course, Lammy's comments have (not surprisingly) upset the recording industry. Folks at BPI are particularly pissed off that Lammy compared file sharing to swiping a bar of soap in a hotel room you rented (i.e., a minor issue, not something to arrest someone over). BPI's representative claims he's "appalled" that the IP minister would say such a thing, and even says it shows a lack of understanding about intellectual property. Generally, if you're pissing off the established recording industry folks, you're probably doing something right these days.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Record Labels Kill Off 'Legal P2P' Before It Even Gets A Chance

Mike Masnick — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:37:00 PST

One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.

That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story