The Digital Economy Bill (DEB) has been suggested by a few sources on the Net. How accurate is this? Who knows, but IF the current government looses the general election how will that affect the bill? Many questions and is now to early to be second guessing?

Over the last few months Ive covered many topics on piracy.  Ive tried to suggest possible alternatives although from what Ive seen the argument falls into two distinct categories, those who wish to legislate with other the top and unnecessarily complex rules/operating polices/legislation and those on the other side of the argument who seem to want a file sharing free for all in the name of freedom of data.

I would ask that people keep with me on this article and ask for one person, just one to justify the file sharing stance (ideally more).  The last article on this subject had over 2000 UIP’s in the first hour of publication, so I know that people are reading it (I also see where the hits are comming from) and yet out of all the incoming hits from pro- p2p sites, not one person tried to put forward a counter.  This article is  yet another attempt by myself to get a better understanding about the pro-file sharing argument which I really can’t see where its coming from.

I have seen the rumoured legislation that is alleged to be passed with the Digital Economy Bill, I offer my interpretation of what is being proposed.

I would stress that none of the information I am quoting has been confirmed and would ask everyone until we get it from “the horses mouth” and its actually in place, to keep an open mind.  The main question I have about any of the proposals would be the upcoming general election and how that will affect this proposal.  That question IMO has yet to be answered.

Before I go any further I should clarify my stance (for those who don’t already know)  I am against the sharing of copyrighted material and believe it harmful to the industry.  I will make the point again later with examples but in the meantime its only fair that you understand I am writing from that viewpoint.  conversely though (which will also be covered later) it is my belief that file sharing has been met with knee-jerk policy, umbrella legislation and a complete ignorance of what is practicable in the “fight”/”campaign” against piracy/file sharing.  I am not for the criminalization of file sharers.  I am not for the three strikes policy nor the possible massive fines your kids could pick up if they downloaded the latest track from Lady Gaga.

The Proposal

So lets start with this link: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html and look at the pointed proposal this site offers in respect of the DEB (digital economy bill)

The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements (for example, he could create jail terms for file-sharing, or create a “three-strikes” plan that costs entire families their internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

This in my opinion is just  scare mongering on behalf of the site reporting.  The secretary of state COULD instigate the death penalty for file-sharers (with the support of parliament and the removal of a few other pieces of legislation) the secretary of state COULD make file-sharers dress like chickens and run through the streets.  The keyword is COULD, they COULD do a lot of things, lets wait and see what exactly they are.

The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to “confer rights” for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)

I am not quite sure which world the author of that article lives in, but under current legislation if a record label (for example) wanted to seek civil recompense in a UK court because you were sharing its material, it could simply apply for a court order demanding your ISP to hand over your details.  This is nothing new and certainly not something that is being brought in with the DEB.  If for example a school was allowing its students to share music, a possible suit which saw the school being held accountable would have the same effect and I would challenge you to find a school that would rather appear in court than simply block a URL.  It happens all the time anyway, usually a quick email to the school concerned will have the IT dept blocking that URL.

The Secretary of State would get the power to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement” (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright “militias” can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

Again, what world has this author been living in?  Read your contract/T&C of your ISP.  They also reserve the right to cut you off under current legislation and have “investigatory” powers already.  I am with O2 broadband, here is a quote from the current terms and conditions  (14.3):

You authorise us to use and disclose, in the UK and abroad, information about you and your use of the Services including, but not limited to, how you conduct your account for the purposes of operating your account and providing you with the Services, for credit control purposes; for fraud and crime detection and prevention and the investigation and prevention of civil offences; or as required for reasons of national security or under law to our associated companies, partners or agents, any telecommunications company, debt collection agency and fraud-prevention agency or governmental agency and other users of these agencies who may use this information for the same purpose as us.

Comments such as “its as bad as it gets” really don’t help any.   Comments such as “declaration of war against free speech” are, in my opinion rather weak.  Let me put this to you:  Recently T-Mobile’s customer data was copied and sold on (allegedly) presumably the detractors to their being copyright legislation, support the cloning of customers personal data?

The three strikes policy (IMO) is a pointless/toothless tiger since firstly ISP’s can already disconnect you (as per terms and conditions) and secondly because the whole implementation/investigation of such a policy would be a logistical nightmare (IMO).  How can you tell if an infringement has been made by little Peter, his friend or his mum and dad.  If an infringement is made by person X at a different venue, who gets cut off?  Who/what does the strike get recorded against? the person or the venue?

Putting that to one side though, the BBC reports a slightly less aggressive approach by policy (and until evidence to the contrary is given) then its just as valid for their view to be put forward: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8366255.stm

The plans for tackling illegal file-sharing, detailed earlier this year, will be a two-stage process. Initially the government will aim to educate consumers and, those identified as downloading illegal content, will be sent letters.

If this proves insufficient, technical measures which will include the powers to disconnect persistent pirates, will be introduced in the spring of 2011.

So until we hear the final word maybe its a little too early to second guess however exactly new legislation will manifest itself?

Looking on though, the Open Rights Group has a very detailed (and interesting) blog entry on this issue, this can be found here and it does shed a little more light on what exactly will be introduced.

They mention about a Henry VII clause which in a nutshell enables the creation of new legislation to counter or intercept new technologies.  In response to that point I would add that really that clause would be expected, since there are alternatives to the BT protocol already in development (and have been covered here before) the fact that they want to prevent having to play catchup again is no surprise.

The Open Rights Group refer to the ISP’s as being “piggy in the middle” with fines for non-compliance and they say “even those they gain nothing from the process”  Really?  Has the ORG completely forgotten that the ISP’s make money from the customers who use their service?  Nothing to gain?  How long have the ISP’s used fast speeds to promote sales, whilst not appearing to be overly concerned about file sharing?  I would cite Virgin Media as an exception, since it appeared on one hand to go out of its way to advertise fast speeds, yet on the other hand report/challenge file sharing.  Have the Open Rights Group already checked their own ISP terms and conditions? Might they have already digitally agreed to the same already?

The ORG makes reference to “copyright holders shouldn’t act as cops” to which I agree, although the majority of fines etc that have come about as a result of a user sharing are civil cases and theres an important distinction between civil and criminal.  I would certainly hope copyright holders do not act as cops in a criminal case, but in civil cases I think they are well within their right to police their own material.  Any fines enforced will have to undergo due process anyway since without being backed up by a court they are worthless IMHO.

All aboard me hearties! The penalties that COULD be brought in with regards to piracy are IMO over exaggerated....lets wait and see.

The law as it stands – Goblin’s interpretation

I have to say this before I continue.  This piece is relevant to UK law and is my opinion.  It is always best practice to seek your own independent legal advice if you should find yourself in breach or summoned for anything talked about below.  I would not suggest that my opinions are anything more than that and would welcome a challenge/correction to any of the interpretations I have made.

In my opinion there has been a mass mis-interpretation of the laws surrounding copyright, its civil consequences and/or criminal.  This misunderstanding I believe is on both sides.  Firstly on behalf of the government where they, IMO fail to consider the consequences tackling the issue at a customer level with such a heavy hand and also on behalf of the user, where they seem to read a piece of legislation and run screaming “war on freedom of speech” and such like.

I have repeatedly said (and apparently it hasn’t sunk in) that in respect of criminal law (forgoing any issues of indecent material etc) there is no remit within UK criminal law for the mere act of downloading copyrighted material.  The issues can arise when users share.  If you think about it for a minute, most of us engage in something similar to downloading copyrighted material every day, when you record coronation street, or Back to the Future 3 off TV to watch later.  Now correct me if Im wrong, you don’t own the IP rights to either, yet you are storing it on a medium for later use.  Just because the material is on TV makes it no more or less “copyright” than say Harry Potter 20 that hasn’t been released in the cinema yet.

Now applying a mere download to a civil case, if you haven’t shared material, its likely a case could only hold you accountable for the cost of that product (if at all) now tell me, is Warner Bros going to take you court for the price of one copy of Harry Potter?  I shouldn’t think so.

This is why I said before that the legislation as it stands is wholly inappropriate to tackle the downloading of copyrighted material.  Sure P2P could be “outlawed” or “policed” but when no sharing is involved what happens to the Newsgroup Binaries?  The original source may be held to task for putting it on the server, but what could be done about the downloaders?  I’d suggest nothing.  Same goes for IRC.  Since the “share” only occurs with the person sharing the data, all the downloaders would not be covered under legislation since they are not sharing anything.

Currently, unless Im mistaken Copyright “rights” include adapting, distributing (either electronically or via other means) selling, renting etc.  Where are the “rights” for a downloader from a .binaries?

Compulsory licensing of ISP’s

The “answer” that I have suggested previously, takes away the nightmare of investigation, takes away the criminality/restriction on the user and makes the ISP’s directly responsible.  I would like to see a system where ISP’s are licensed in a similar fashion to a public house/liquor license.  Ask yourself this, if a pub is repeatedly causing problems because of its customers, is it not the landlord/landlady who is ultimately looked to to provide a solution/resolution?  Things like the restriction of sale of alcohol (which by the way its an offense to sell liquor to a drunk person) upping of age limits, earlier closing time.  If a landlord/landlady cannot show they have taken reasonable steps to tackle the issue they can lose their license.

As anyone who has looked at a BT swarm, the harvesting of IP’s is rather simple.  But by holding the ISP, not the user responsible then it would be far easier for anyone with an interest in the material to solve the issue.

An ISP could easily block all the known BT sites (both private and public) and this would eliminate a massive amount of file sharing overnight, simply because I don’t think the vast majority of BT users would have the first clue in how to circumvent that (and maybe explains why IRC/NG’s never saw mainstream popularity as their operation is more complex than BT or similar)

This is where I see the problem occurring. Providing that legislation is not passed that either adds to or changes the copyright theft Act then I fail to see what could but done if these “remedies” cause a mass migration to IRC or NG binaries, this is the problem.  In my opinion the entertainment industry and the government have neglected the technological implications on the industry to a point where now they a desperately trying to play catchup with over the top legislation.

The answer to this needs to be kept simple.  ISP self regulation by licensing is, in my opinion far more of a simple solution that prevents the end user from being cut off the internet, the subject of an incomplete or incorrect investigation and maybe more importantly criminalization.

Counters/arguments/reasons?

Since a pro-file sharing opinion has never really been represented here by any reader, I will put some of the comments which I have seen used to justify file-sharing.

1. “A survey showed that file sharers spend more on music than those that don’t file share.” – Lets say for one minute that we believe a survey where the respondents that file share are actually telling the truth and not just saying it in order to further the pro-sharing cause, how can they answer for the people who they share material to?  This counter is, in my opinion unprovable since its like trying to measure the amount of crime a CCTV camera has prevented.  Its impossible.

2. “Data should be free for everyone, you cannot “steal” data”.  In respect of “steal” its maybe a bad choice of words.  Theft according to Sec(1) of the Theft act states – To dishonestly appropriate property belonging to the other with the intention of depriving the other of it. Since the data is not being “taken” more duplicated, I’d suggest that in respect of file sharing “theft” is a bad choice of words.  Maybe a “loss of revenue” type offence wording would be more relevant?  In respect of the free data for everyone, I ask file-sharers to comment on the duplication of personal data from the recent news report of T-Mobile.  Should that data be free too?  If all data should be free then surely it applies to ANY data?

3. “Companies make enough money as it is, they shouldn’t complain”.  - In respect of titles such as Harry Potter, I don’t think it can be argued about the massive revenues it generates even with file sharing, but thats not really the point as you can’t put all file-sharing under the same umbrella.  What about the bedroom coder who releases software to make a little money for him/herself?  should their work be distributed?  I would like to cite an example here “Crayon Physics” is a game made by a chap who is not a mult-national company.  I don’t suppose he has a private jet or holds shareholders meetings, yet even though his work is sold for a small sum, it is still distributed on a massive scale on BT trackers.  Are file sharers saying “Its ok to file share that which we deem has made enough money”? – I’d suggest not, and if you want to justify file-sharing its either all or nothing.

4. “Blocking sites is an attack on free speech, its a breach of human rights!” - Unless I am grossly mistaken the Human Rights Act is secondary to the law of the land.  Like it or not blocking sites needs to happen and we cannot live in a society without censorship (IMO).  For those thinking that there should be no blocking/censorship I would ask your opinions on a site displaying indecent material.  Should users be allowed to see that under the umbrella of free speech?  What about sites promoting hate about faith/sexuality? should we really have those too?  I’d hope the majority of people would agree with me when I say that racism/sexism/homophobia should be removed as should anything which falls under the banner of indecent.

These are just some of the counters Ive read by people trying to justify their actions.  If you have any more, I’d really like to hear them.

Finally…

I sometimes wonder about the society we live in.  File sharing after all is the sharing of material such as games/music/film which really at the end of the day is not critical to our daily survival.  I would agree that the pricing can be high but then as an adult if I believe something is too expensive for what it is I either don’t buy it or wait until it is reduced.  A good example was a recent film.  When it was released on DVD I considered it far too much money, so I merely waited until Blockbuster offered it ex-rental and bought it for a significantly reduced price.  If people disagree with pricing, why can’t they simply wait?  Are movies/music/games that important in their lives that they must have it now and preferably for free?  I can understand this of a young person, but an adult (which apparently accounts for much of the file sharing community) really?

Sources of further information

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8366255.stm

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html

http://torrentfreak.com/european-commission-no-3-strikes-without-judicial-oversight-091124/

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

Well apparently European countries have some new anti-piracy laws that have us a little shook. Last week France adopted laws that will cut off repeat offenders of downloading illegal content offline! The violators will get warnings from their internet provider that they’re downloading illegal media, wether film or music. If the violators choose to ignore the warnings they will end up getting the boot! No more internet.

Now some Americans feel we need those strict guidelines! It looks like it may be a fine time to find another way to download, cause the dream may be coming to a wake-up. No more getting the album 3 weeks in advance from your favorite leak spot!

Personally I don’t care as much about not being able to download movies, the only time I look for movies to download is around Oscar time when those beautiful dvd screeners get sent out. (I am not a fan of the camcorder style bootlegs). But not being able to snatch up those albums early will be a problem! Especially since they still charge a dime for an album these days. I would rather get the download and if, and only if I like the album, go out and buy it.

Will these laws help boost the sales of music and films in the States? That’s a good question. According to our friends in Sweden, who has similar rules, album sales have increased 18% so far this year.

So my advice would be that if you are in the know and you still need a few more cd’s for that collection, snatch them up now! It just get tight sooner than you think! Look at YouTube, videos are disappearing left and right.

So, I’m sure you’ve heard all about Lizard face Mandelson’s latest hair-brained scheme to throttle the Internet.  If you haven’t, then I suggest you go here and read all about it.  Here’s what UK Synth-Electro-Indie-Pop band Hot Chip had to say on the matter.

“I was shocked to learn that only one in 20 music tracks in the UK is downloaded legally. We cannot sit back and do nothing,” said Lord Mandelson.

From statistics like this, the UK music industry extrapolates estimated losses per year of around £200 million.  And I have to say, from personal experience, that times are tough at the majors.  Last year our label EMI executed vicious job cuts, resulting in a situation whereby not one person who worked on our previous album is still there to work on our next album.  At the time, people were going in to the office every morning, not knowing whether they’d still have a job in the afternoon. It was very sad for us to see some of the members of the promotion team, the production team and all the numerous other workers – with many of whom we had a personal, friendly relationship – in such a state of disorientation and insecurity.

So it’s clear to me that the major labels, and some of the bigger independents like Domino and Warp, are feeling the pinch when it comes to downloads.  However…

The machine is still running.  The labels are working harder with fewer resources, and the majority of the coke-snorting, cocktail-slurping, teen-shagging ex-public schoolboy disgusting-excuses-for-A&R men have gone.  The industry is far less wasteful, and more cautious, than it has ever needed to be in the past.  And we hear recently that sales of singles are up, http://bit.ly/3ZwP3t. ; So why the breathless panic of Mandelson, the media and the labels?

Well one explanation is that rather than luxuriating in the licence to print money that the music industry once held, they now actually have to run things like a proper business.  Margins are lower, because the rules of the game have changed.  Downloads mean everyone has to work harder, “in a more diverse and competitive market”, to earn the same amount.  But let’s remember that “the same amount” means “an absolute shitload of cash”.  It wasn’t uncommon, even when we were being signed 5 years ago, to hear label executives talk of “bottomless pits of money”.  Now this excess money has mostly gone, and most of those executives are at the bottom of the pit instead, staring into their reflections off the back of an M People CD.  But the machine’s still running, and the pop hits are still rolling off the conveyor belt, and Lily Allen is still blowing thousands of pounds on brand new boots and panties.  Us artists are all right; we’re not making as much money as we were at one time, but we more than get by doing what we love every day, which is not a bad situation.  With most of our income coming from live music, it means we have to be out on the road more, and labels are already adapting with most contracts now taking a cut of musicians’ live earnings.  I can’t predict what’s round the corner, but I’m not worrying about downloads.

So please don’t assume that all musicians are in support of the 3 strikes policy.  Penalising file-sharing is incompatable with privacy laws, will waste more money in policing than it saves the music industry in losses, and will piss everyone off.  I look forward to seeing Mandelson’s new “law” get shot down in court.

It’s nice to hear this coming from an artist as big as Hot Chip (not that I listen to their music, it doesn’t appeal to me).  It’s almost reassuring to know that everything’s not as bad as we’ve been lead to believe.  If anything we’re seeing benefits from these changing times.  It seems that filesharing has really been a wake-up call to the music industry, making them realise that to stay afloat they’re going to have to produce some really excellent music and hire some class acts that people are going to want to spend their money on.

But the clamp-down on filesharing isn’t my main concern.  Pirates have always found ways to get round legislation measures and technological restrictions and companies now know that measures such as DRM aren’t the way forward.  In this respect, the Pirates are winning which doesn’t worry me in the slightest.  What does worry me is the affect that such a legislation will have on Human Rights as a whole.  Mandelson’s measures are, in effect, putting users of the Internet in a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ position, even if they’re wrongly accused of illegal filesharing.

I am even surprised that legislation such as this is even considered by our government.  Maybe if this were an American proposition then I would probably just brush it off as “those crazy yanks ruining everything for everyone else again”, but it’s not America this time.  It’s Mandelson.  Its Britain.

I’m interested to see how far this goes.

The Pirate Bay has shut down its BitTorrent tracker, in favor of a decentralized system. And it helps get the Swedish prosecutors off their back.

Pirate Bay Retires World’s Largest BitTorrent Tracker | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Operators of The Pirate Bay shuttered the site’s BitTorrent tracker on Tuesday, six years after it was founded.

Trackers — the servers that bootstrap each BitTorrent download — are no longer necessary with enhancements like DHT and PEX that allow peers to locate one another without accessing a central server, site operators wrote in the Bay’s blog.

“Now that the decentralized system for finding peers is so well developed, TPB has decided that there is no need to run a tracker anymore, so it will remain down!” reads the announcement. “It’s the end of an era.”

“This is what we consider to be the future,” the Bay wrote. “Faster and more stability for the users because there is no central point to rely upon.”

The other day my students got an earful from me about the ills and evils of Digital Rights Management, better known as DRM. I loathe most DRM techniques, since as most reasonable people realize, they do nothing to thwart illegal file sharing, but contribute plenty to increased blood pressure and stress levels in legal media users.

Today I encountered yet another bit of DRM absurdity. I was surfing around and noticed that my beloved Steelers were locked in a death match with the Bengals, with about seven minutes to play. Neat, I thought, I will find a radio broadcast of the last few minutes. What I found instead was this:

So much for globalization

Now I sort of get this kind of blocking (even though in the end I still find it protectionist and worthy of derision) when it comes to content that has a clear commercial outlet in Germany, e.g.- studio movie productions. But NFL radio broadcasts? Please. Who is making money on those in Germany? If they are available here somehow, I envision having to go through the seven layers of technical and bureaucratic hell to get access to them.

What I know, of course, is that there are myriad backchannel (read: illegal) ways to get live sports broadcasts from around the world. I used them this summer, often, when my legally paid for Eurosport Web feed crapped out during every single critical moment of the Tour de France because the French firm behind it clearly does not know what “server capacity” and “peak load” mean when used in the same sentence.

In this case, the game is so close to being over it makes no sense to find an illegal site through which to view/hear the game. But I would like to thank all the parties who made the annoying message pictured above possible. You underscored the main point of my lecture last week: DRM sucks, and turns us all into criminals at some point.

Microsoft unterstützt Ermittlungsbehörden bei der Bekämpfung von Computerkriminalität. Beispielsweise durch die Entwicklung von Analysewerkzeugen für forensische Untersuchungen an beschlagnahmten Rechnern. Im Idealfall soll ein Ermittler nur noch einen USB-Stick mit vorinstallierter Software an einen zu untersuchenden PC anstecken und automatisch werden wichtige Systemdaten zusammengesucht, aufbereitet und auf dem Stick gespeichert – Bundestrojaner zum Mitnehmen für den Einsatz vor Ort gewissermaßen.

Genau das leistet ein Produkt von Microsoft, das offiziell nur an Strafverfolgungsbehörden abgegeben wird und für diese kostenlos ist: Der „Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor“ (COFEE).

Damit soll die Lücke zwischen den Kenntnissen krimineller Anwender und denen ermittelnder Beamter vor Ort geschlossen werden. Wenn Computer beschlagnahmt werden, müssen sie dazu meistens ausgeschaltet, abgebaut und zur forensischen Laboruntersuchung mitgenommen werden. Dadurch geht aber bereits wertvolles Beweismaterial verloren, wenn Speicherstände verschwinden, temporäre Dateien geschlossen und Verbindungen zurückgesetzt werden. Cofee soll es Ermittlern ohne IT-Fachwissen ermöglichen, diese Beweise direkt vor Ort am laufenden Rechner zu sichern.

Naturgemäß hatte die weltweite Hacker-Community ein großes  Interesse an dem Tool, schon um seine tatsächliche Leistung experimentell ausloten zu können. Daher war es auch nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis es durch undichte Stellen in eine Tauschbörse hineinleakte.

Dort fischten es die stets neugierigen Tester von Heise Security heraus und untersuchten es gründlich. Das Ergebnis war eher ernüchternd, zumal Cofee auch nur mit Windows-Versionen bis XP läuft und aus Linux-Rechnern gar nichts herausbekommt:

COFEE startet via Autorun direkt beim Anstecken des USB-Sticks und führt dabei ein Kommandozeilenskript aus. Tools wie whoami, autoruns und so weiter erstellen dabei einen Schnappschuss mit Basisinformationen, die danach für den Web-Browser hübsch aufbereitet werden. Raffinierte Tools, um etwa gelöschte Dateien oder anderweitig versteckte Informationen wiederherzustellen fanden sich nicht in der Sammlung. Der eigentliche Mehrwert liegt in der einfachen Bedienbarkeit und dem Schwerpunkt darauf, Beweise zu erheben, die auch vor Gericht stand halten.

Tatsächlich ist die Software in erster Linie eine besonders bequeme Möglichkeit, etliche zum Teil betriebssystemeigene Analyse-Werkzeuge direkt hintereinander ablaufen zu lassen und ihre Ergebnisse gesammelt in eine Datei auf dem USB-Stick zu schreiben. Allerdings könnte die Toolsammlung jederzeit erweitert und verbessert werden. So wie es die Heise-Autoren ja regelmäßig mit ihrer frei verfügbaren Version des ct‘-Helpers tun, mit dem jeder interessierte PC-Nutzer ganz ähnliche Dinge tun kann, wie es den Forensikern mit Cofee versprochen wird.

Und darin steckt auch das größte Risiko von Cofee. Wer es sich der Neugier halber aus einer Tauschbörse zieht und ausprobiert, kann nicht wissen, was die Verbreiter daran verändert und an Schadcode eingebaut haben. Jederzeit könnten ein paar zusätzliche Dinge eingebaut, Hintertüren geöffnet und Rootkits reingeschmuggelt worden sein, die tatsächlich Daten vom Rechner saugen. Allerdings nicht für die Polizei sondern für kriminelle Datendiebe im Internet. Und da Microsoft dieses Tool für Privatnutzer offiziell gar nicht anbietet, sind von dort auch weder Hilfen noch Sicherheitspatches zu erwarten.

Von diesem „Käffchen“ sollte man daher besser die Finger lassen.

Zur Befriedigung von experimenteller Neugier sind freie Toolsammlungen wie der ct-Helper allemal besser geeignet.

One of the most topical debates in music at the moment is the changing nature of how music is distributed, more specifically the ways people can acquiring music for free.

The following articles make for interesting reading.

Report
Reaction

What do you think?

Die britische Tageszeitung The Times hat die offiziellen Zahlen der Musikindustrie und der nationalen Verwertungsgesellschaften in einer Grafik zusammengefasst. Drunter schreibt die Zeitung: “This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see.”

In kurzen Worten: In den letzten Jahren verdienten die Vetriebsfirmen (a.k.a. Plattenlabels) weniger, die Künstler aber mehr, weil mehr Geld für Konzerte ausgegeben wird. Obere Grafik zeigt die Umsatzentwicklung, parallel aufgetragen, die untere zeigt das Gesamtvolumen und die relativen Anteile.

Lest selber: ( timesonline via boingboing) (pics click > grösser)

Falsch, das ist kein Tippfehler.  Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor  nennt sich dieses spassige Tool aus der Softwareschmiede des Bill “Billy” Gates. Entwickelt für Ermittler braucht man sich Cofee nur auf einen USP- Stick laden, diesen in einen fremden Rechner einführen und dann wird der PC mal locker durchgescannt.

Abgesehen davon, dass ich hier auch die Frage nach Datenschutz und Bürgerrechten stelle, Microsoft hat Unmengen solcher USB- Sticks in alle Welt verschenkt und, wen wundert es, seit einigen Tagen kann manx sich Cofee auf Tauschbörsen herunterladen. Zwar hat der Filesharingbeteiber, den Download geblockt, denn mit Geheimdiensten wollte man sich dann doch nicht anlegen. Aber hier zählt der alte Spruch:

Was einmal im Netz ist bleibt da auch. Und das ist auch gut so!

Ich rate aber dringend davon ab, sich Cofee zu downloaden. Ich halte erstens wenig von Spionage und es klappt ohnehin nur bei XP- Rechnern. Ausserdem können sich in diesem umfassenden Werk Programme verstecken, die Euren Rechner hacken. Also lieber die Finger davon lassen! Moin!

DON´T PANIC

“Die Tonträgerfirmen fördern heute in deutlich geringerem Umfang junge Künstler als das vor fünf bis zehn Jahren der Fall war“, meint der Geschäftsführer der Popakademie Baden-Württemberg Hubert Wandjo. Ursache dafür sind unter anderem illegale Downloads, die zu Umsatzrückgängen von bis zu 40% geführt haben. “Wir beobachten einen starken Trend zur Reamateurisierung“, sagte Wandjo. Jungkünstlern, die ins Profi-Lager wechselten und von ihrer Musik leben wollten, sei ein wichtiger Teil des Einkommens und der Förderung nahezu weggebrochen. Dies mindere auch ihre Chance, im Live-Bereich Fuß zu fassen. Dadurch müssten zunehmend junge Musiker ihren Lebensunterhalt auf berufsfremden Wegen verdienen. “Können sie sich nicht auf ihre Kunst konzentrieren, führt dies in der Regel zum Qualitätsverlust.”

TV3’s consumer watchdog show Target received a fair bit of criticism for a piece on piracy and illegal downloading in Episode 1039. (WATCH IT)  The Creative Freedom Foundation of NZ called “Shame On You” Target for presenting one side of the online copyright infringement debate.

Top Shelf Productions, the makers of Target, showed just one side of the argument and left many unchallenged viewpoints and statistics from NZFACT or RIANZ. Target became little more than a press release for these lobby groups, and our response follows...”

The CFF questioned the use of statistics and figures in the Target segment , pointing to artists who are increasingly bypassing the middleman, the major labels, “namely the companies in RIANZ ,” and signing with idependent labels or utilizing a lar carte music services like the distributors Rhythm Method.  In response to lost revenue from the movie industry, due to illegal downloading, the CFF quote a recent official UK Parliamentary enquiry (PDF) which concludes that rightsholders’ have been to slow to make popular legal alternatives available. 

Target also told viewers the closure of music stores and video/dvd rentals stores was a result of illegal downloading, the CFF argue that these retailers will be made obsolete by internet services, Sky, Fatso, TradeMe and online stores like iTunes.  This Reflects a change in consumer demand rather than the direct results of piracy.

The CFF go on to argue that the artist viewpoint featured on the show is not representative of artists in New Zealand.  This is followed by a reference to a recent UK study which has shown that illegal downloaders spend the most on music.  The CFF argue that Target’s assertion that the risk of viruses or malware infection is increased by illegal downloading of movies or music is nothing more than scare-mongering by NZFACT – generally these file types mentioned in the show do not carry viruses.

The CFF say that a ‘Three Strikes’ policy has not worked in Korea and will not work here.  They say that blatant illegal infringers will switch ISPs or hide/encrypt their traffic.  In contrast educational campaigns by ISPs, by the way of notices which advise of possible infringement, are said to have had a 70% success rate in the UK and Canada.  CFF: “Protecting artists means reasonable copyright laws, not internet termination.”

The Target episode, which also featured a bikini test, also received a few critical comments on the show’s website: 

Steve: ”A surprisingly biased item from a show I have previously viewed as a quality investigative and unbiased source. Usually Target would cut through the propaganda to give -all- the facts, and has always (until now) given a right to reply from the other side…”

Malcolm Locke:  “How did this item make it onto Target? This show usually provides information *to consumers* to help them protect themselves against businesses, but for some reason here we have a piece entirely for the purpose of *big business* (and thats who’s behind the S92A amendments) spreading propaganda…”

Dylan:  “There are a number of complex issues around copyright and online piracy. The Target item didn’t really cover those very well at all, but simply repeated industry talking points. The business model for creative industries needs to change (and is changing slowly) to better align with the market’s desires…”

We all know that the old-meeja go on at length about filesharing, copyright theft, internet piracy, call it what you will.  So it was no surprise to hear it rehashed on the beeb yesterday evening.  Usual format: an interviewer, and two people with opposing views to debate it.

I only caught bits of it: I was cooking my supper and not really listening.  But one thing struck me: one of the debaters said that everyone fileshares.  This was quite an emphatic everyone, and he clearly intended to distinguish the sense from a typical apologist’s appropriation of everyone to a manifest falsehood like “everyone supports the olympics”.  Nor was it an Orwellian with-menaces everyone, as in you’re misogynist racist pedophile terrorist scum and beneath contempt if you dare to question us.

Since it clearly is an apologist’s everyone, that must be a bit of willy-waving (“my everyone is bigger than your everyone”).  But more striking is that neither the interviewer nor the opposing debater made any attempt to challenge it: indeed, they seemed to agree with it.  Perhaps it really is true in meeja-luvvie circles?

Then it struck me: this is exactly like the meeja discussion of online porn was ten years ago.  We’ve got used to the Beeb being our (UK’s) self-proclaimed leading website.  But for a few years after they first noticed the ‘net, you’d never hear it discussed without someone blathering about online porn.  If you didn’t know better, you’d have thought that the ‘net revolved around porn and everyone was into it.

As someone with an altogether different vision of the ‘net, I found the association rather distasteful, and some aspects downright offensive[1].   Like, ratings for websites having an implicit assumption that every site might need them, without even a default category for “no sex or violence not because we’ve toned it down and pitched it at children, but because this website is all about coffee, computers, or astronomy”.  Should I declare my websites as having mild/inoffensive sex and violence (the lowest PICS category) just to avoid the risk of being blocked by family-safe services that block unrated sites to protect children?  Absurd and offensive!

Worse, the association with porn put barriers in the way of those of us who wanted to promote the ‘net for altogether good, constructive purposes.

So if filesharing is the new porn, what lessons can we draw?  The optimistic view is ignore the hot-air and it’ll go away, just as the meeja’s porn-fixation went away when the BBC decided it was going to be top-website itself.

But maybe it’s not the same: the porn message was rooted in the ‘net being a “new frontier” for the meeja and their mass audience, while the filesharing one is driven by powerful commercial interests, some of whom are the world’s biggest unauthorised profiteers from other people’s efforts (“thieves” or “pirates”, in their own language).  And I don’t just mean things like Disney famously copyrighting everything from common cultural heritage (fairytales) to african music in the lion king: people better-informed than I describe altogether more sinister practices like identity theft.

On the other hand, Big Pirates never succeeded in getting the photocopier or the cassette tape banned.  I expect those who persist in fighting technology will continue to fight a losing battle, and the meeja attention will indeed blow over.  Just as it did with porn on the ‘net.

[1] Nothing against pornographers.  Just so long as I’m free to steer clear of their work, it’s live-and-let-live.  Same principle as when I was doing research in a department right in the red light district: we (geeks) didn’t bother the ladies of the night, and they didn’t bother us.  But I’d have been mildly pissed off if the world assumed that the reason I worked there was because of them, and seriously so if my work was belittled or dismissed on that basis.

Das kann ja wohl nicht angehen. Dass die Kämpfer gegen das Radio des 21stenJahrhunderst (a.k.a. Filesharing) einfach so aufgeben. Weil sie in einem rechtsstaatlichen Gerichtsverfahren niemanden drankriegen, mangels Beweisen (siehe 11k2).

Daher erklärt der dänische Arm der IFPI, man werde eben gewichtigere Beweise beschaffen. In der Praxis bedeute das ein Beschlagnahmen privater Computer.

Lasst mich das kurz wiederholen: Weil ihr nicht genügend Beweise dafür habt, dass eine IP-Adresse jemandem eindeutig zuzuordnen wäre und diese Person deswegen des Raubmordkopierertums überführt ist, wollt ihr eine Hausdurchsuchung mit Beschlagnahme des fraglichen Computers erwirken? In der Hoffnung, die Beweise dort zu finden?

Könnt ihr vergessen, Leute. In Bayern vielleicht. Aber nicht in einem Rechtsstaat.

( via techdirt) (pic 11k2 cc by nc sa)

Anscheinend haben die Copyright-Monarchisten in dänischen Gewässern eine grösssere Seeschlacht verloren: Die Antipiratgruppen gibt nach mehreren verlorenen Gerichtsverfahren bekannt, dass sie das Verfolgen von sogenannten “Piraten” einstellen wird.

Das Problem: Vor Gericht war es nicht möglich, allein mit Hilfe der dünnen Beweise (IP-Adresse etc) angeklagte Filesharer zu verteilen. Nur einmal, weil der betreffende Swashbuckler ein Geständnis ablegte.

( via techdirt) (illu: philip ytournel)

Der weltschnellste Rechner mit dem wunderschönen Namen “Roadrunner” ist jetzt online und berechnet die Zusammensetzung des Universums. Parallel berechnete mein Rechner die Zusammensetzung des Internets: 99% Porn, 1 % Funny Videos.

°

Und, wenn die Menschen dann endlich wissen wie das Universum zusammengesezt ist bezahlen sie in frieden Gebühren für geistreiche Television der Marke “Bauer sucht Frau” auch noch Gebühren. Hell Yeah.

°

Neben dem Roadrunner gibt es eine weitere bahnbrechende Maschine. Sie simuliert das Leben von Internet-Kids.

°

Wenigstens zahlen die Internet-Kids für die Musik die sie sich Illegal ziehen. Gibt es nicht? Gibt es doch!

°

Und hier der Klecks Kunst, der im Titel versprochen wurde: Banksy.

Zitat des Tages: “Ein stolzer Mensch verlangt von sich das Außerordentliche. Ein hochmütiger Mensch schreibt es sich zu.” ~ Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

The European Parliament and Council have reached a compromise on its Telecoms Reform Package. The package will entitle users in all 27 EU states to be put through a “fair and impartial procedure” before being disconnected from the internet. Some members of the European Parliament felt nobody should lose their connection until after they had been prosecuted in a court for illegally downloading content. So far it is less than clear exactly what will constitute a “fair and impartial” procedure. The European Parliament wanted the issue on the agenda as a result of new legislation in France. French people caught downloading illegal content up to three times will be disconnected from the Web.

Shouldn’t it be a basic right to have access to the internet! Like having a phoneline or the use of snailmail or travelling to stay in touch and meet people. The music and movie industry should be moving in the 21st century too instead of crying about their own f@!ck ups!

In the last few days since the Demos study was released showing that Pirates spend more on music per year than those who choose to source their music legally, discussion about Piracy has become popular on the Internet once more.  Now that Piracy has been well and truly thrust into the public eye it’s given people like me an opportunity to see and hear for myself what the average person thinks when it comes to Piracy.

What I have seen concerns me somewhat in that people don’t really seem to understand what Piracy actually is.  The average person who claims to be against Piracy and p2p sharing lumps it in with simple theft, something that angers me and just isn’t true.

• Piracy is not theft.
• Theft takes the original.
• Piracy makes a copy.
• Piracy is Piracy.

What this all boils down to is copyright law as it stands today.  Media is produced by an artist or a director and the rights to that content are owned by a single organisation, whether it be a record company or a film studio.  The current model is based on capitalism and the scarcity of content.  The analogy i tend to use when explaining this is of diamonds and water.  Diamonds are scarce and water is in abundance, so because the current market works on the basis of supply and demand, a vendor can sell a diamond for thousands of pounds and this is generally accepted by the people.  You wouldn’t think to sell a bottle of water for anything close to the price of diamonds because it is in abundance and so readily available.  No one in their right mind would pay £1000 for a litre of water but would happily spend that amount on a diamond.  So, in this respect the current system works.

However, when it comes to digitally produced content such as a film or a piece of music which can be reproduced ad infinitum, the current system crumbles.  Because the product is no longer scarce the justification for an album or a movie being sold for their current prices goes out of the window.  In the days of Vinyl and reel-to-reel where copying was an expensive and time-consuming practice, the system worked perfectly.  Today however, I’m almost certain that even the most novice of computer users can take a CD, store its contents in near-CD quality on their hard drive and host it on the Internet for the world to share.  At this point the copyrighting system crumbles and is obsolete.

When the RIAA and the MPCA tried to clamp down on this and make examples of people a couple of years back, fining downloaders hundreds of thousands of dollars for filesharing, the Pirate community and those in favour of free distribution of idigital content went up in arms.  Anti-piracy organisations the world over have tried to thwart filesharing and p2p activities by sharing hoax releases and monitoring known p2p and Bit Torrent ports, but time and again the Pirate community has managed to find ways around these methods.  Applications such as Peerguardian hide your computer’s personal information effectively making you invisible to anti-piracy organisations and can be freely downloaded from multiple websites in a matter of seconds.  Some websites even promote applications like these and guides to new Bit Torrent users often include links to apps like Peerguardian in efforts to protect the members of this ever-expanding community.  It certainly seems that the people will always find ways around even the most extreme methods employed by anti-piracy organisations.

Governments and copyright protectors need to understand that the current system absolutely must change.  In a time where more and more people are employing Piracy as a means to aquire content, we cannot stand idly by and let these organisations make criminals of us all.  I haven’t met a single person who hasn’t downloaded something through illegal methods, whether it be ripping a YouTube video or a program from the iPlayer, using Kazzaa or Limewire, Bit Torrent or even FTP and Newsgroup applications.  I am more than aware of the effect that digital reproduction and p2p has had on the music and film industry, but I am skeptical of the scale of its impact.  I also do not agree with the argument that “If there is no monetary gain from the production of artistic content, people will stop producing”.  As an avid musician myself, I am certainly not put off by the fact that I might not make as much money now as I would have, say 20 years ago.  For me the recognition and appreciation alone would be the greatest reward.  If anything, knowing that people were employing any method they could to listen to my music would fill me with an immense pride and a sense of great satisfaction.  I am aware that man cannot live off praise alone, but that’s not to say that my success in the music industry would not open other avenues of income.  Artists are sponsored by companies to use their equipment, paid to perform live in venues with sell out crowds and have their works used in film, television and advertising, but let’s not forget that through all of this, there will always be album sales.  Granted, the money made from album sales may not be as high as if the album had been released 20 years ago, but albums will still sell nonetheless.

Soulja Boy Tellem is an American rapper who made his fame through online portals Youtube and Myspace.  In an interview with Billboard in late December 2008 the rapper gives us an insight into his income.  Since becoming famous off the back of tracks such as Crank That (62,341,305 views as of writing) released in 2007, he’s gone on to much larger things.  Currently signed with the Interscope Records (part of the Universal group), his debut album (launched July 13, 2007) had sold in excess of 943,000 copies as of December 2008.  Crank That was the most downloaded track in 2007 according to Nielsen SoundScan.  His music may be utterly abysmal, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not a complete success.  Stories such as Soulja Boy’s really go to show that even in this eara of rife downloading it is still possible to make vast sums of money from the music industry in the face of Piracy in such an incredibly short space of time.  He’s even quoted as saying;

“Really, I don’t depend on royalty checks to make money.  Those only come but every six months, how I make most money is from shows.  I get up to $75,000 for each, and I might do up to 20 shows a month.”

Not every artist will make the money that this miserable excuse for a rapper has made, but there will be people whose success will come from their use of social media and the technologies that are so readily available.  Rapidshare and Megaupload make it incredibly easy for artists to upload EPs or albums and places such as Twitter, Myspace Music and Facebook offer an incredible advertising potential.  Merging the two means that artists can send messages to their entire fanbase containing links to either of the aforementioned sites, which their fans can then navigate to and access the music they enjoy so much.  This then means they have copies to pass onto everyone they know.  Potentially an infinite number of copies can be made onto almost any kind of digital writable media and distributed in an ad-hoc fashion, essentially free advertising through the free distribution of music.  This method alone will not pay the rent, but if this music’s good enough it will almost certainly open other avenues for monetary gain.

A friend of mine calls it a double-edged sword and I agree.  I would hate to think of the artists I enjoy halting their music production purely because they’re not making as much money as they used to (frankly, i would hope that the musicians I’m into would be above that), but I don’t think that Piracy is as big an issue as the authorities would lead you to believe.  Clearly from the case study above, people still talk with their wallets even in this day and age.  Artists will continue to make money if the people want to access their work, be it recorded or live in a venue for all to see.  I do not see Piracy as the death of the music industry, merely a wake up call to those in charge.  It is truly a sign of the times when all the music industry’s efforts to stop Piracy just aren’t working, and if you want to argue that they are?  Then I urge you to go to The Pirate bay and read the letters they’ve received from the RIAA, the MPAA and other conglomerate businesses threatening legal action, then go to their top 100 list and see what’s there for the taking.

Until the model changes artists and companies will continue to suffer.  Don’t blame the Pirates.  Blame the people who regulate and control your content.