Acknowledgements

SEARCH eRiposte!

10/7/02 <link>
Music Industry trying to take its battle global
The battle lines are being drawn against KaZaA, and the problem is geography. Here is the crux of the problem for the industry as stated in this New York Times article: "...Sharman Networks, the distributor of the program, is incorporated in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and managed from Australia. Its computer servers are in Denmark and the source code for its software was last seen in Estonia. KaZaA's original developers, who still control the underlying technology, are thought to be living in the Netherlands — although entertainment lawyers seeking to have them charged with violating United States copyright law have been unable to find them..."!
The industry has filed a lawsuit in a Los Angeles Federal Court against KaZaA's promoters. The latter states the court has no jurisdiction on them since they are not incorporated in the U.S. and their user base is spread across 150 countries globally, meaning that any relief sought in the U.S. will be ineffective outside the U.S. anyway. It would not be surprising if the industry decided to go after them in each of those countries, and they would be justified in doing so. However, here's our sound-bite to the music/content industry: There is a much simpler solution folks - charge the ISP. Don't waste hundreds of millions in lawsuits. Get creative for a change.

10/2/02 <link>
P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
Rep. Berman makes a reasonable case for this Bill, but we are not enthralled by it. We believe it is overkill when simpler solutions are possible. Berman refers to Julie Hilden's previous article on this Bill, where the latter examines the possible abuses this Bill might result in. We found it interesting the even some in industry are not necessarily thrilled by this Bill the way it stands, because it would allow anyone with copyright ownership to hack others' computers (presumably including their own!). Our view is that we need a different solution - as proposed below. 

9/28/02 <link>
Internet music (and for that matter,  video) downloads
The recording industry is trying to get laws passed that would enable them to legally flood and overwhelm peer-to-peer networks with dummy files and content, in order to disrupt free downloads of music over the internet. Some of the other tactics being talked about include automatic tracking software and a technique with the scary name of "interdiction" - which, in this context, is a way of disconnecting an individual's hard disk drive from the internet! The latter methods amount to a massive invasion of privacy which are very worrisome. These kind of developments make this issue one of the most critical that will impact the future of the internet. 

On the one hand we *are* sympathetic to the complaints of the record companies (and the artists who actually produce the content), because, after all, every one has a right to make a profit on what they have invested in. In that sense, personally, we would be willing to pay for downloaded music (assuming the fee is not outrageous). At the same time, audio and video tapes (and DVD-Rs will soon join the fray) have been used for recording content at homes and subsequent free distribution to friends and family - for a long time. Only, with the latter, enforcement is practically impossible and the scale of copying and exchange may be much less than over the internet. Regardless of the ease of enforcement, though, we think it is reasonable to expect that companies that use a certain technology to distribute their content, must realistically be resigned to the limitations that technology may impose on how well their content can be protected. In other words, you cannot enjoy the benefits that a mainstream technology brings to your profitability, while being unwilling to accept some of the disadvantages of using such mainstream technology that can be hacked or broken into. Like everything in life, balance is to be expected, however unpleasant. 

Although there is a lot more we can say on this subject, we are willing to suggest a compromise. The compromise tries to balance the needs of artists and record companies (and studios) to reasonably make a profit on what they sell, and music (and video) enthusiasts who do not want to be paying an arm and a leg for the content which makes the artists and companies rich.  The compromise will also ensure that privacy issues are taken out of the picture. 

Today, we pay out a significant chunk of money to cable companies for watching cable TV. The cable model is a nice one, where we don't necessarily get charged show-by-show (there would practically be no business if people had to pay-per-view for many of the shows TV brings us) but rather a fixed rate for access to a fixed set of channels and their content. We propose that broadband access providers should charge internet users an optional fixed monthly fee, which would go into the coffers of record companies, artists, and studios, for unlimited access to audio and video downloads from the internet. The fees would go to those companies that are willing to release their content over the internet (using a cable-TV like model). A lot of content should be covered by the monthly fee, and highly premium content could be charged a per-download-premium (much like Pay-per-view on Cable TV). Internet users who refuse to pay the fee may then be subject to reasonable schemes which the content companies may use to block illegal downloads. This would not be substantially different, in principle, from the laws governing cable TV today.