Tag Archives: downloading

Let My Video Go

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the title of an article in this month’s Wired magazine. Its an article that those interested in the copyright debate should take a look at.

The article basically makes the argument that the music industry blew it by trying to stop file sharing and implementing DRM – and that the video industry should learn from that.

About the music industry it states: Today, their industry in shambles, music execs are trying to turn back the clock, remove DRM, and finally give us what we should have had in 1999

Other comments: The lessons from the music fiasco are clear: Trying to limit the inherent advantages of digital files is a losing strategy. The way to stop piracy is to make everything available — easily, legally, and at a fair price.

Entertainment executives tend to find what they expect to find. If they fear theft, they’ll see piracy; if they’re looking for opportunity, they’ll discover ways to profit. The music labels ignored the opportunity for so long that it has all but evaporated. The television and film industries still have a shot, but they need to move fast.

So it leads me to a question. Is the proposal to add a fee to everyone’s internet access to allow downloading not mired in the same old thinking?

Read the Wired article

File-sharing programs allow breaches

Posted on by
Reply

For the London Free Press – March 3, 2008

Read this on Canoe

File-sharing programs are being installed on personal computers both in the home and at the office.

A recent incident in Newfoundland involving the file-sharing program Limewire on a government consultant’s computer shows how this type of software can lead to security and privacy breaches.

Limewire is but one example of file-sharing, or peer-to-peer (P2P) software that makes it easy to find and download things stored on other people’s computers. Most people think of the software just in the context of music or video, but they can be used to transfer any kind of file.

P2P software can be used for downloading copyrighted materials that one perhaps should not. But it also can be used to download material that the owner or creator is legitimately offering to share.

Many forget, however, that P2P software usually is configured to allow others to upload files from their own computer. Since that includes any type of file, it includes things such as spreadsheets containing personal finances, Microsoft Word documents containing personal information — and in the Newfoundland case, a database containing names, addresses, dates of birth and medical and work histories of dozens of people.

Discussions about file-sharing software usually focus on the downloading side, and the debate over the legalities of downloading music, video and software. Uploading issues are often overlooked.

The upside of these programs is that they allow computer users to share files with ease and without cost. The downside is that they often allow other computer users to access information on your personal computer with the same ease that you download new files.

This creates a significant security risk, but the answer is not necessarily to un-install any file-sharing programs you currently use.

One of the greatest risks for individuals using file-sharing programs is that their personal information could be accessed by potential identity thieves. Few people would like to have the contents of their hard drives available to the world to see.

The consequences for businesses could be wider ranging.

In the Newfoundland incident, the personal information of more than 150 people was exposed when an outside consultant installed Limewire on his computer. The information remained accessible for three weeks before a security company brought it to the Government’s attention.

For individuals, the answer is to make sure that file-uploading parameters in your P2P software are set so only specified file folders can be used to upload files from. Those file folders should contain only material that you would like to share with others.

Businesses should make its employees and consultants aware of the issue, especially where they may use home computers to work on company business occasionally. P2P software should not be installed on business computers unless it’s necessary, and upload folders should be controlled.

Free downloading has privacy catches

Posted on by
Reply

For the London Free Press – February 18, 2008

Read this on Canoe

A company called QTrax recently announced it had arrangements with major labels to allow free music downloading.

The labels would make their money from ad revenue — ads the user must watch while the music downloads. The privacy catch is the label’s share of revenue is calculated at least in part by how many times the song is listened to — which means each users’ computer will send that information back to QTrax.

This privacy issue got lost in the controversy over what labels QTrax had actually signed. It seems the deals had not actually been finalized with some labels.

On the surface this may seem like an ideal solution to the perceived problem of peer-to-peer downloading. It provides a revenue source to the music industry and gives downloaders a way to support artists without directly paying for the music.

This business model requires the use of a form of Digital Rights Management to track the number of times the songs are played on each users’ system, and to report that back. If that reporting is done transparently with the knowledge of the users, and in a way that does not report back any personal information, it would not pose a privacy issue.

The federal Privacy Commissioner has stated technologies that automatically collect personal information without a person’s knowledge or consent violate the fair information principles of privacy legislation. That this invasion occurs while people are in their homes with a high expectation of privacy makes the violation all the more significant.

It is difficult to say how invasive the DRM technology used by QTrax will be in terms of privacy. On the QTrax website they promise no adware and no spyware. They make reference to collection of information but don’t provide details on what will be collected. They have not yet provided information on any privacy policy.

One certainly wouldn’t expect that by simply playing a CD on their computer they would be installing software that could monitor their computer, but this is exactly what happened with some Sony music CDs in 2005. Since then, many are wary of what kind of software is being installed whenever they acquire music.

DRM can also be used to limit how we use the material we acquire — such as to specific devices, or specific numbers of copies.

Before we acquire music — or any digital entertainment products — we should check to see what the vendor has to say about any limitations on its use, whether it contains software we might not expect, and details of information collected along the way. From a vendor standpoint, it is important to be transparent about those issues.

QTrax raises privacy issues

Posted on by
Reply

There has been a huge controversy over the last day or so regarding the QTrax announcement that it has deals with major labels to allow free music downloads. The catch was that those deals areapparently not in place yet. There is also (in my mind at least) a looming privacy issue.

In return for the free downloads the user must watch advertising while it downloads. The labels are to get a share of the advertising revenue.

The privacy issue is that the revenue is apparently calculated on actual use, ie how often the songs are listened to, in addition to how often they are downloaded. That means there is a DRM mechanism that reports back how often you listened.

The Qtrax web site says there is no spyware, but I couldn’t find any details about the reporting issue, nor a privacy policy. Lets hope it does not report back any personal info, and that they explain how it works so consumers can make an educated decision about using the service.

Read a Times Online article

Read a GigaOM post

Downloading – Free content – Music Sales

Posted on by
Reply

The just released Industry Canada commissioned study on P2P downloading has been getting a lot of attention in the press and blogosphere. Essentially the study found that P2P music downloading has not caused a decrease in music sales. Indeed, it showed that those who download a lot tend to buy more.

More food for thought on the debate over giving away things to make money can be found in a post by Chris Anderson entitled Free is more complicated than you think.

He refers to a column by Scott Adams (Dilbert) and concludes that making a book available for free can help with visibility and sales for authors and topics that are not well known, but may not work that way for well known authors. So, as in many things in life, the answer to the dilemma is “it depends”.

Read Michael Geist’s comment on the Industry Canada study

Read Michael’s follow up post

Read Chris Anderson’s article

Harry Potter and iPod copyright issues

Posted on by
Reply

The connection between these 2 topics is the dubious distinction of creating head-scratching copyright issues.

Howard Knopf points out in his Excess Copyright blog an article from the Globe that talks about the over the top copyright claims of Harry Potter’s Canadian distributor. One can understand the desire of the publisher to keep the book under wraps until the official launch without any leaked details. Its all about hype, marketing, demand, and fan frenzy after all. It seems that the distributor has suggested that copyright law protects the confidentiality of the contents of a book until the author’s chosen release date. That’s clearly not a correct copyright principle. It may however be a breach of express written confidentiality provisions within the distribution chain, depending on how it was leaked.

Michael Geist reports that the Canadian Copyright Board has issued a decision that supports the addition of the private copying levy to iPods or indeed any elecronic device capable of copying music (aka computers, phones, memory cards, thumb drives, hard drives …). That’s despite a Federal Court ruling a while back that the Copyright Act did not intend for the levy to be on digital audio recorders. We have not heard the last of this one. Michael points out some of the issues this raises. Certainly more fodder for debate on the download/copying/fair dealing/copyright reform issue. (The numerous comments on Michael’s post attests to that.)

Read Howard’s post

Read Michael’s post

Digital security business threatens to sue Apple, Microsoft, etc.

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve said before that only the music industry would sue its customers to force them to buy their products. In another spin on that, CNet reports that “A California company that makes technology designed to prevent ripping of digital audio streams has accused Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks and Adobe Systems of violating federal copyright law by “actively avoiding” use of its products”

The gist is that the US DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological protection measures that control access to copyrighted works. This company makes technology designed to prevent anauthorized copying. So their logic is that if a business that supplies/enables digital media does not buy their product, it must be violating the DMCA.

Read the CNet article

File sharers beware

Posted on by
Reply

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 31, 2007

Read this on Canoe

A recent Australian decision added to what is included in downloading and uploading of copyrighted material. The Australian Federal Court ruled the inclusion of links to copyrighted material is illegal.

Mp3s4free.net was a website that provided a search engine where a user could download MP3 files. The website, which did not host any copyrighted music, was an open-links page that allowed anyone to add links to available MP3s, without checking if the music was approved for sharing.

The site’s operator argued linking should not be a copyright infringement, especially since he warned users the links may not be authorized copies.

The court disagreed. saying the site “induced” people to violate copyright and was illegal since its “principal purpose” was to direct people to infringing content.

Contributing to Cooper’s guilt was the fact there were no protections on the site to prevent unauthorized songs from being linked.

The court said Cooper had the “power to prevent the communication of copyright sound recordings to the public in Australia via his website . . . because he was responsible for creating and maintaining his mp3s4free website.”

The Australian court followed the Grokster decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Grokster was a software firm that produced a peer-to-peer file-sharing program. In the Grokster case, the court ruled the movie and music industries can sue technology firms that encourage customers to steal movies and music over the Internet.

These decisions have caused many to worry they create a mindset in which new technologies themselves will be ruled illegal, rather than their improper use.

Traditionally, the U.S. followed the Betamax Test, which held that “even if the principal purpose of a technology was infringement, it should be allowed if there were substantial non-infringing uses.”

The Betamax Test rescued the VCR from being illegal. Had the “principal purpose” test been used, the VCR never would have seen the light of day.

The decision, that it is the technology maker’s job to build in infringement protection, raises many problems. That burden on technology makers would cut innovation and boost development costs.

The entertainment industry forgets how helpful and profitable new technology can be. The VCR, for example, made huge profits for movie makers.

While the Australian decision has a serious impact on technology makers, it also creates consequences for the public. Similar action could be taken against individuals who use the Internet to link to copyright protected material.

Everyone should use caution when linking to available music and video files

Music Industry goes after ISP’s again

Posted on by
Reply

Marketwatch.com has an article that starts by saying: The global music industry Wednesday threatened to take legal action against Internet Service Providers if they failed to take action against users who illegally upload and download music.

The ISP’s, of course countered that its not their responsibility to monitor information distributed over their networks. I agree with the ISP position. It would be kind of like making phone companies liable for phone conversations between people plotting illegal activity.

If I understand the music industry logic, it is that:

If company X makes product Y, and some people use Product Y to do something that might be illegal or undesireable from another’s perspective; then Company X should have an obligation to prevent or control that activity, or otherwise be responsible for it.

So following that same logic, the music industry should be responsible for / control, and be liable for things such as:

- students getting bad grades when they listen to music instead of doing homework

- accidents that happen when a driver changes his radio station or MP3 player to hear a different song, or is distracted by music

- someone doing something that is suggested in a song lyric

- any improper activity performed to music such as drug use

- noise complaints when someone plays their music too loud

Read the marketwatch.com article

Copyright practices evolving

Posted on by
Reply

David Canton – for the London Free Press – September 16, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Music downloading continues in Canada and downloading of TV programs and movies is becoming more popular. But is legal to do it?

The law is not totally clear. There are, for example, fair dealing exceptions that allow a person to copy or use copyright material for activities like private study, research and commentary. The courts have recently expanded the scope of those exceptions, but the exact limits are not clear.

We are also expecting a copyright reform bill soon that may change some of this.

Let’s start with the proposition that all creative works are automatically protected by copyright. That means it’s illegal to copy someone else’s music, video or image file.

The Copyright Act, however, makes it legal to copy another’s CD for one’s own use, but not to copy your CD and give that copy to another. Opinions vary, but most legal experts believe it’s also legal to download music from someone else, but not to allow others to upload from you.

Only music is covered by that exception — not video, photos or other material. Therefore. it’s indeed illegal to either download or upload TV shows and movies. It may be legal to download small portions of them in accord with the fair dealing exception.

The creator of those materials may decide it’s acceptable for others to copy their material. For example, an advertiser may be pleased with widespread viewing of its ads.

The Canadian recording industry tried to launch lawsuits against music uploaders. The court refused to force the Internet service providers to release the names of the individuals the recording industry was after.

Opinion varies as to whether the decision means actions against music downloaders and uploaders will never be successful or the court simply set out a procedure that would allow such actions if the recording industry so desired.

The terms of service we agree to with our Internet service providers generally contain provisions saying we are not to use those services for illegal or improper use.

The Internet service provider may have the contractual ability to stop one from using their service to perform illegal copying. They would be more inclined to do so if one was uploading massive amounts of material rather than downloading.

If the owner of copyright material notifies an ISP that an individual is improperly copying the owner’s material, the ISP is not obligated to take action and privacy obligations prevent the ISP from revealing the name of the individual without a court order.

So, in the end, several factors come together to determine copyright issues.

And if an action is brought, the Copyright Act includes a right to “statutory damages” between $500 and $20,000 per infringement.