how to play burned xbox 360 games

Now canicule accepting chargeless video amateur is as attainable as activity to the Internet and I am not talking old out of date video amateur but cast A video games new and old favorites.What happens is Internet pirate sites action cracked versions of cast new games that would accustomed be copyright-protected and article you would buy at Best how to play burned xbox 360 games buy. Best of the time How To Play Pirated Games these pirated bold are attainable chargeless of charge. The bodies who able these video amateur do so not for a accumulation but for the actuality that they can do it.

Sounds abundant to addition who is ailing of advantageous a acceptable a pop for computer software amateur back they can get it for chargeless from the pirated sites.

Its absolutely accessible one adeptness anticipate why it not a acceptable abstraction How To Play Burned Xbox 360 Games to download How To Rip Xbox Games pirated video games it illegal.

Video bold piracy has been about continued afore the Internet and yes some pirates are out there to accomplish a profit. Proof of this is axiomatic if you go to around any bazaar in Southeast Asia you ll see rows and rows of bartering games music and movies accessible for basal prices.

During the time of the Sony Playstation hackers ample out how to adapt the consoles disabling the absorb again reselling the machines with pre-loaded pirated software. This action is alleged modding.

It is estimated from abounding altered sources that the video bold industry losses on boilerplate . billion a year from pirated computer video games.

Basically what this has done is accomplished the adeptness for the video bold industry to accomplish video games.

With as big and avant-garde as video amateur are today development time is abundant best and the amount to assemble the video bold is higher. It is not abnormal to see a development aggregation of bodies or more. And the announcement window for a lot of the amateur is actual short. So the botheration actuality is if your bold developer’s is How To Sell Games aggressive adjoin a chargeless archetype of itself that could aftereffect in a lot of agitation for the bodies who fabricated it.According to Shane Pittman a above baronial affiliate of Razor an online video bold piracy ring.

It didn t assume like How To Play Burned Xbox 360 Games stealing he says. Physically I couldn t see an adapter to anyone.

As a aftereffect in backward Pittman alive as an IT ambassador in Hickory N.C. recieved a alarm from the FBI who were alfresco his home he aggregate with his wife and two kids that they had a warrant.

The FBI confiscated computers and boxes aloft boxes of austere CDs. Pittman pled accusable to absorb contravention and spent ages in a federal prison. Why would Pittman a husband ancestor accident so abundant in his actionable hobby Because it fabricated me feel important How To Program Games he says. I wasn t a amateur or one of the air-conditioned kids but suddenly I was the go-to guy. I could do being the boilerplate Joe couldn t.

Not all pirates like Pittman are acceptable guys How To Copy Xbox Game with a bad habit. Video amateur like Spider Man in which your bought for you can get to akin three again the bold shuts down. The chargeless archetype of Command and Conquer was loaded with viruses.

Video amateur were one the the aboriginal pieces of software to be pirated but it wasn’t until cine piracy that the National Cyber Security Alliance took notice. Even admitting law administration has stepped up the burden on pirates in contempo years both How To Program Games at a federal and bounded akin the industry still faces an acclivous battle. Why because abundant of the piracy that occurs happens alfresco the US which makes it actual difficult for the US to blow them because their laws are so abundant different.
The video bold industry will acquaint the boilerplate customer that the archetypal video bold is too big to download and best bodies will not delay for a -gigabyte book to download assimilate how to play burned xbox 360 games their home computer.This doesn’t assume to stop bodies who appetite to download such ample computer video amateur as Quake and Grand Theft Auto.

Why do hackers do it my assumption would be the adventure to exhausted the system to stick it to the man mentality. The botheration lies that as continued as there are associate to associate administration networks out there there is activity to be pirated software.

Virgin Media is now acting as chief lapdog to the Lord Mandleson sell out of the internet to the dying music distribution industry. Virgin Media is to trial deep packet inspection technology to measure the level of so called illegal filesharing on its network. Customers being monitored will not be informed.

Virgin will use a product called CView, sold by Detica, a BAE subsidiary that specialises in large volume data collection and processing, and whose traditional customers are the intelligence agencies and law enforcement. BAE profited massively from the Neo Con Labour War in Iraq and Afghanistan, now it loks set to profit again from The War Against Piracy.

The CView product will operate at the centre of Virgin Media’s network with an aim of estimating the proportion of filesharing traffic that infringes copyright.

40 per cent of Virgin Media’s traffic will be monitored. If you are on Virgin and are not being monitored today, tomorrow you may well be. If this is truly limited to peer to peer traffic then your next game on your XBOX 360 may be monitored. It would be all but impossible to identify the difference between a game played on your XBOX 360 and an encrypted bit torrent file. This will therefore exaggerate the amount of “illegal” bit torrent traffic.

The system will look at traffic to identify peer-to-peer packets. The programme then looks at those packets to determine what is licensed and what is unlicensed, based on data provided by the record industry.

Virgin promises data will be aggregated and and made anonymous. The trial though has no scheduled end date.

It should be remembered that CView uses the the same technology that powered the Phorm advertising system, which monitored individual internet users to target advertisements. It too was trialled – by BT – without customers’ consent or knowledge. The Government faces an EU investigation for allowing this.

Detica will want to sell this to other ISPs. So there may be no escape from this. Once all ISPs have this, how anonymous will traffic be then?

Virgin Media’s implementation will they promise focus on music sharing. Of course their proposed music download service has nothing to do with this. Are you sure you will not be flagged because of a video you watch on youtube or even Vidzone on the PS3? Do you trust the list provided by the Music Industry?

Detica has is also trying to flog CView to the Government. In the sales document, Detica said that as well as aggregate data, CView could be used to categorise filesharers and apply technical measures against them, or target them to be sold legal alternatives.

Welcome to Digital Britain.

Military.com: posted CNN video of security companies and new defense mechanisms set to aggressively combat pirates.

General questions:

1)    What visual aesthetic initially attracts you to a band’s content? (i.e. style, branding etc)

2)    What sources do you use to find new music?

3)    Do you download music?

4)    If so – Do you buy everything that you have downloaded in the physical form afterwards?

5)    Do you own CD’s with “additional content”? (i.e. bonus DVD/CD/CD-ROM)

6)    What do you like/dislike about how the content was presented during the experience?

7)    How often do you watch/listen to the additional content?

8)    In response to the above question, what influences your chosen decision?

Questions for musicians:

1)    What ways do you choose to promote your band?

2)    Do these methods give you full control over your content?

3)    Does your band have a press pack? (A collection of photos, music, reviews to show potential venues and/or labels)

4)    If not – Would you find interest in having one in the future?

5)    Would you find it beneficial to have all the different aspects of a press pack in a singular CD-ROM for convenience?

6)    Would you be more interested in choosing a press pack CD-ROM over your current method if it offered more security over your content?

Leave a comment with your answers!

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

Forrester is currently running an executive survey assessing the ‘state of the nation’ of digital music.  We are surveying right across the value chain, from labels, through artists to digital services and companies such as telcos and brands that are working with music. We’re looking at what’s working and what’s not, competing against free and changing business models. If you are involved in some part of the digital music value chain then we’d love to hear your opinions.

All results will treated as strictly confidential and results will only ever be presented a aggregate level.

You can take the survey here: https://deploy.ztelligence.com/start/index.jsp?PIN=15VMGXK5XCSPX

By Keepnstitches36(Guest-blogger)

“Exclusive” names have been changed to protect litigant. I have checked-out the accounts of the alledged copyright-infringement suit against rap-mogul,Jay-Z. This comes from a reliable-source a fellow freelancer-artist/writer;with whom I’m conducting this phone interview.(keepnstitches36) Why don’t you introduce yourself?,”I’m-sosik”(so-sick).

(keepnstitches36) Thank you for that and allowing this “Exclusive”(so-sik) No, thank you for granting me the opportunity to express myself on the issue!.(keepnstitches36) Please divulge,(so-sik) The extent of it is Intellectual-property” that Jay-Z excuse me,Mr.Shawn Carter may or may not been aware that another artist own- ed that cursive looping-”R”!.

(keepnstitches36)Let me interject;You believe Jay-Z has Blatantly used the logo to rub in your face because of his status!.(so-sik) Yes,this is to acknowledge me as the creator/ owner of the looping cursive-”R”! Not he and his company Roca-wear.They have the “RW” that is uni- que!.In regards of marketing,look the design”was for my line of tee’s,”Resik Inc”now “ResikArt- Inc”.That I came on the scene with in 1991.The shirt’s were “the follow-up”to my championship Bulls caricature ones with Jordan atop the world sipping a coke with the trophy to the side.I designed those shirts when I first moved to Atlanta.

(keepnstitches36)Well?,(so-sik) “Let me stop you”,please you were about to ask “Why now”?.It has not been for lack of not trying to pursue-compensation. When I became “painfully-aware” of my logo’s usage it was 2002!.I saw it on a “bootlegged-cap” Jay-Z had not released or conceived to this man had one on at ” H.E.Holmes train station” formerly “Hightower”.Then it was “the Domino-effect” it was every where I saw Chris Brown,Ciara wearing it in roca-wear ads!.However then ” I was struggling to make ends meet” and to en masse a counter-attack,I knew I needed money!.

(keepnstitches36)And now?(so-sik)I’ve obtained help that I weren’t-aware existed for graphic-artist!. Jay-Z’s marketing has major financial-backing,it is exact to mine the usage of the “R” and the colors of the caps as I drew them!.”The subtleties went out the window” of giving Jay-Z “the benefit of the fact was unbeknownst to him”.I feel he thinks he’s entitled”to take it”.Because I’m unknown I’ve thrived as a artist for 16-plus years!.”I’m not back-down”because he has money!.Jay and his people at Roca-wear “blew-off”the email I sent them in 2005 speaking of my intent.

They sent an auto-reply saying they would look into it!.Well,”they were forewarned”.The twist of fate came last-week ago saturday.Upon emailing my intent again along with a copy of “the original-design” to the offices of Volunteer lawyers for the arts in Atlanta and the headquarters in New York.I returned a call I got from their office in Atlanta by an intern para-legal.Do you know she tried discouraging-me? to pursue it after answering her question of the year I created it which I can’t-disclose legally.

She said it was due to the statues of limitation being expired”Let me be clear”,I will not give-up my fight for a “supposed-technicality”.(keepnstitches36)”So-sik”thank you for “the exclusive”.To all you established-artist you have the money to”thoroughly-check”if there is own er-ship of a logo,”signature-mark”,content that is similar or exact to yours!.”Take-time” to dot your “I’s”and cross your “t’s” literally or this will happen to you!.

Barely a decade ago, sneaky, shady, men (and women) were hawking bootleg CDS and DVDs on the streets of Singapore. Perhaps such vendors still exist today, but the chances of finding them are as good as Half Life 2 : Episode 3 being announced tomorrow (at the time of this posting).

Valve lies. There is no Half Life 2 : Episode 3. Or lupus.

Which is to say, very very not likely. Nil, Nada, Zilch. 0.00000001% chance.

Flash forward to the present. Piracy has donned a new disguise, or rather, an flashy and eye-catching outfit, in which everyone has at some point in his or her life, gazed upon and cursed, exalted, mourned, or felt some semblance of emotion towards. Indeed, torrents have been the face of piracy ever since the Bittorrent protocol was released in 2001. A startling 27-55% of all Internet traffic is accounted for by torrents.

Now, one may ask, what does social media have to do with piracy? It would be the equivalent of comparing apples to, say, sirloin steaks, if you take it at face value. Both are edible, tasty (damn, Angus steak house), were once living things…and the similarities just about end there.

But not if you look at the bigger picture, or so to speak.

With the advent of social media, sharing anything has become ridiculously easy. Don’t know where to torrent that awesome song you just heard? Ask about it on Twitter. Need a torrent for that latest video game? Oh sure, ask your gamer friends on Facebook.

Oh dear.

My point is, social media actually encourages piracy by making it even more accessible. If you can’t find something that you need, all you need to do is merely ask. There’s a 99.9% chance someone out there has what you’re looking for, which makes piracy and social media as compatible as chilli and fries.

Of course, it can’t be denied that more stringent measures are likely to show up on social media sites with regards to file-sharing and the like, but i truly doubt piracy will ever die out, especially in today’s interconnected world.

Now, I’m not going to debate whether this is good or bad, but all i can say is that piracy is in a golden age right now.

I’m sure I heard a musician sighing somewhere.

[The First Part of this series was <<A: Open Source. The second installment of the Stop Usage Based Billing alphabet series was <<B: Packets and the Internet. The third installment was <a href="<<C: Deep Packet Inspection, and the final installment will be E: Open Source Deep Packet Inspection]

What is BitTorrent Anyway??

“BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for distributing large amounts of data. BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, and it has been estimated that it accounts for approximately 27-55% of all Internet traffic (depending on geographical location) as of February 2009.”

– Wikipedia on BitTorrent

BitTorrent is an extremely fast and efficient means of uploading and downloading. BitTorrent is an excellent way to distribute large materials to many people via the internet.

Radical Ideas

Like so many of the radical new ways to do things that technology and the internet have made possible, BitTorrent can only work through co-operation. BitTorrent requires a network of “peers”, or other people’s computers who are willing to share the file. This is referred to as “peer to peer” or “p2p.

If I have a large file I want to transfer, the first step is to “seed” the file, transferring portions of the file to multiple members of the p2p network.

Diagram 1: Seeding

It only takes a small fraction of the file to be passed along before the process speeds up enormously.

Diagram 2: Seeding and Sharing

Once I have a small portion, i pass it along at the same time as I’m receiving new bits of the same file, either from the original seed source of another peer.

Diagram 3: Upload + Download = Speed

With many participants (peers) uploading and downloading at the same time, large files can be distributed very quickly indeed.

Diagram 4: Finish Fast

Bell Canada “Throttles” BitTorrent

Bell Canada

When Bell Canada was first caught “throttling” internet traffic to the Independent ISP customers, Bell Canada’s justification to the CRTC was that the internet was too crowded, and that it was necessary to “manage” the traffic. Bell claimed that they needed to employ Deep Packet Inspection to identify BitTorrent Traffic so that they can “throttle” it.

Mandate:
“The CRTC’s mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. ”

—CRTC Role, CRTC Website

Amazingly, the CRTC had nothing to say about Bell Canada’s plans to discriminate against particular Canadian internet users.

The CRTC has accepted Bell’s unsubstantiated contention that this discrimination was necessary, and in approving it they have allowed Bell Canada to think that this discrimination is acceptable. In no way does this serve the Canadian public.

You might almost think that the CRTC mandate was to suppress Canadian creativity and the creation of Canadian movies and music. The availability of the technologies that exist to make it easy to create our own movies and music should be welcomed as an opportunity to add to and help grow our Canadian Culture.

Why single out BitTorrent traffic for throttling if it is an efficient use of the available bandwidth?

One of Bell Canada’s arguments for implementation of Usage Based Billing is that Canadian internet bandwidth is in short supply, making it necessary for them to “manage” bandwidth by penalizing heavy users.

So how could anything as efficient as BitTorrent possibly be seen as a bad thing if the Internet is so crowded?

It doesn’t make sense to discriminate against BitTorrent use. There is nothing inherently bad about BitTorrent use or BitTorrent internet traffic. But Bell Canada’s contention is that BitTorrent is bad because people use it to download movies and music.

Which begs the question: how does that make BitTorrent bad?

The Copyright Red Herring

The “Copyright Lobby”, which consists of large media producers and distributors (like Disney), and corporations and organizations (like MPAA), who distribute commercial movies and music, want us to believe that this is a bad thing.

This corporate special interest group has spent a great deal of time, energy and cash trying to promote the “pravda” that any digital copying of copyright works is bad. Making no distinction between commercial bootleggers who distribute illegal copies for profit and legal purchasers who seek to make a back-up copy or digital format shift for personal use, the Copyright Lobby has been pressuring governments the world over to criminalize personal use copying.

The problem for ordinary citizens is that these corporate interests have vast quantities of money to spend and a great deal of media power. This makes it incredibly difficult for governments to stand up to their onslaught. In some parts of the world this persistent advocacy has paid off for the Copyright Lobby, as lawmakers knuckle under and legislate to the detriment of their own citizens by making it illegal even to copy or download movies or music for personal use.

Here in Canada the Copyright Lobby is seeking to influence our lawmakers to criminalize personal use copying. They are trying to make Canadians think that people who make copies for personal use are performing criminal acts, and should be penalized the same as a a bootlegger who films the latest theatrical release off a theatre screen and proceeds to sell hundreds of thousands of bootleg DVDs.

Once again, Channel Four’s hilarious I.T. Crowd puts this question in perspective with this send-up of a video piracy commercial I found on YouTube.

Strong and free?

Canadian Law says

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, personal use copying is simply not illegal.

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, use of the BitTorrent file transfer protocol is also perfectly legal.

RIGHT NOW, in Canada, peer to peer (p2p) file sharing is legal; Canadians break no laws simply by joining in a p2p network.

The Copyright Lobby’s smear tactics have gone a long way toward making the world believe that BitTorrent is inherently bad.

Bell Canada has convinced the CRTC that it is acceptable to “throttle” BitTorrent, because of BitTorrent’s reputed connection with possible copyright infringement. So although BitTorrent is perfectly legal, Canadian internet users are paying the price for the success of this Copyright Lobby propaganda.

Myth: All BitTorrent/p2p internet traffic consists of copyright movies and music

The Corporate world doesn’t understand radical ideas like Open Source software and p2p file sharing because these concepts are so different from anything appearing in the old business models. Even more incomprehensible to the outdated business models is the fact that it may or may not generate a direct monetary profit.

The classic example of corporate myopia is:

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. ”

—attributed to Thomas J. Watson, president of International Business Machines, circa 1943

For many years IBM has taken the rap for this quote whether or not Mr. Watson really did say it. (Most likely not.) Maybe proving it wrong is part of why IBM is such a going concern in the 21st Century. Having weathered the storms of fortune today’s IBM is a world leader by continuing to innovate and adapt alongside evolving attitudes and technologies. IBM has been steadily increasing their participation and involvement with Open Source software in this new century.

The reality is that IBM not only understands the importance of open source, the corporation has actively supported and promoted adoption of Linux and Open Office in the corporate world. And naturally BitTorrent is a part of the equation because it is such an efficient means to distribute large files (like for instance, Canonical’s Ubuntu.)

“Think.”

—Thomas J. Watson, president of International Business Machines

Seems IBM actually does heed their most enduring slogan (which definitely was coined by Mr. Watson). Sadly, this type of foresight is uncommon. Because BitTorrent is such a radical idea, most entrenched corporations simply aren’t capable of understanding it.

There are other uses for BitTorrent that are not only legal, but even perfectly acceptable in polite society.

Probably my favorite use of BitTorrent is the amazing Project Gutenberg. This organization has been digitizing books in the public domain and distributing them freely… via BitTorrent, since this is such an efficient method of digital distribution. After all, BitTorrent is used for transferring very large files like music and movies because it is very efficient.

BitTorrent file sharing is not all movies and music. Like IBM, many people actually use p2p to help distribute open source software like OpenOffice via p2p. There is a growing body of open source software available, for instance my favorite web browser is Mozilla’s Firefox.

In fact, there the awesome SourceForge website which provides a place to find all manner of open source software, or where you can release your own.

When a new distribution of Ubuntu is released, people around the world gather together and have Ubuntu Release Parties making more good use of BitTorrent

And of course the Pirate Party of Canada has established Captain: the Canadian Pirate Tracker, their own BitTorrent site where Recording Artists and Filmmakers (and I imagine novelists, and software creators as well would be welcome to utilize this) to freely distribute their work.

Every bit of music and every movie transferred is not a copyright infringement. If I get to the point where my home made movies may prove marketable, I would certainly be looking at BitTorrent Distribution. In fact it would probably be easier to distribute home movies to family via BitTorrent than it would be to try to burn DVDs. (DRM makes the two commercial movie making software packages I’ve purchased almost unusable. Of course it doesn’t slow down the bootleggers.) If YouTube is an indicator, I’m not the only person who wants to transfer music and movies freely … not as copyright infringements. I have paid levies to the music industry for home movies I have made and burrned to CD for distribution to friends and family. If I choose to transfer them via BitTorrent now I can avoid the levy but instead suffer the added expense of Bell Canada’s deliberate throttling inflation?

Another really good legal use of BitTorrents are the actual commercial websites where people can go to to purchase downloads of music. So far no one seems to have found anything wrong with this practice.

But that’s not all. Canada’s own CBC Television Network tried their own experiment by releasing an episode of their program Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister via BitTorrent. Unfortunately the BitTorrent didn’t work so well because of Bell Canada’s CRTC approved BitTorrent “throttling”.

Geist tweets about the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation

Which is not to say it wasn’t a good idea. Not too long ago Michael Geist tweeted about the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation’s foray into BitTorrent use. All accounts indicate that their experiment was very successful indeed, which is having a big impact in the way they do business.

Ink Poster

The sad tale of a pirated Independent film can be found in this TorrentFreak article Indie Movie Explodes on BitTorrent, Makers Bless Piracy.

I guess it isn’t such a sad story after all.  

Thanks to piracy this Indie film called INK was has been achieving a distribution level that the filmmakers had never dreamed of.  They are of course extraordinarily pleased.

I think what is being called piracy here is BitTorrent p2p personal use sharing. Friends sharing with friends is one of the most effective ways to achieve recognition. They used to call it a “grass roots” movement. This is one of the major issues for the large movie studios. This is the place where they complain of being ripped off. What they don’t seem to realize is that this is a good thing. Exposure garners fans, makes a “name”. Fans buy stuff.

BitTorrent Traffic is not the only thing Bell Canada is Throttling

Rumour has it that there are people who actually work from home.

Time was the government encouraged the idea of people working from home. There are all sorts of advantages to society, like reduced congestion on actual highways, less wear and tear on our roads, a decrease in commuting based pollutants in our environment, a reduction of human depletion of fossil fuels.

But if you work from home, you are probably going to have to transfer files back and forth between your home and workplace. Chances are good that you are going to encrypt this type of traffic for security reasons. Although Bell Canada says they are only “throttling” BitTorrent traffic, in fact there have been instances of Bell throttling encrypted internet traffic on the assumption that if it’s encrypted, it must be BitTorrent traffic.

Bell places the onus on the customer to prove their “innocence” before they will consider stopping throttling.

Since the CRTC gave Bell Canada permission to use Deep Packet Inspection to inspect our packets, the only way to ensure that our private information remains private is through encryption. And in Canada any encrypted internet traffic will most likely to be throttled.

Canadian Copyright Consultation

The Canadian Government is looking at updating Canadian copyright law. They held a copyright consultation process this year, traveling around Canada soliciting opinions of stakeholders. Even better, they set up a website where they accepted submissions from any Canadian who wished to contribute. This website was flooded with thousands of submissions. Some are simply a few lines, some are extensive essays covering all sorts of topics, but all I’ve read are heartfelt. Because of the overwhelming response it took a long time to get all the submissions posted. (My own submission finally made online.)

This process led a lot of Canadians, including me, to believe that the copycon process might actually mean that our elected representatives were listening to us.

Unfortunately there is currently a lot of pressure on our government to make copying movies, software and music for personal use illegal. The secret ACTA meetings have caused a feeling of dread to settle over most Canadians. There has been deprecating talk about weak Canadian copyright law.

Except it isn’t true.

If anything, Canadian copyright law is probably more robust than is good for us.

The essential problem that the copyright lobby is attempting to overcome the problem of suing their own customers for what they imagine are infringements. They have noticed that fighting personal use copying garners bad publicity. This problem can be neatly solved by passing the responsibility for finding and prosecuting copyright infringement to governments. And of course the only was to get government to take ob the responsibility is to convince them that the copyright infringement is a criminal offense.

Regardless, currently copyright law is imprecise as regards personal use copying. So we’ll just have to wait for an actual law to be passed before it becomes illegal. (This pressure is actually largely from foreign owned interests– like Disney. It will be interesting to see if our government caves to this outside pressure.)

mixed messages

The government mandated levy we pay every time we purchase a blank CD is a tacit governmental admission that it is legal to burn CDs of our own music.

In the pre-Tivo era, Canadian cable networks actively encouraged Canadians to videotape the movies that they showed so we could watch them when it was convenient. They called it “time shifting” in their massive advertising campaigns. But no media giants took our cable companies to court back then. For the same reason artists will lend or give away their work for free when they’re starting out (because they need to build and audience– exactly like the INK producers mentioned above), back then even Disney didn’t have a channel in Canada. So Disney didn’t kick up a fuss even though they had to have known this was happening. They let it go because it was in their best interests to allow time shifting (i.e personal use copying). Disney knew this was in their best interests because it would help the Canadian cable companies build their market.

Of course now Disney doesn’t want us to record their movies for personal use. Disney would be happy if our government decided personal use copying was illegal. They would be happier still if our government spent time and energy searching out and charging people who download Disney movies.

Disney would be happy they no longer had to expend time and energy chasing down copyright infringements. They would be ecstatic if our Mounties were to do it for them. Gratis.

But this precedent indicates copying movies for personal use is also legal in Canada

So even though p2p networks or copying movies and music are not actually illegal in Canada, our friends the CRTC gave Bell Canada permission to “throttle” anyone using BitTorrent transfers. Because the assumption is that even if you’re not technically performing criminal acts, per se, anyone who uses BitTorrent can’t be very nice.

The CRTC, the government body that is supposed to safeguard Canadian telecommunication consumers, gave Bell Canada legal permission to mess with BitTorrent traffic. Its discriminatory for one thing. If there are copyright infringements happening, there are laws to handle them. It isn’t any of Bell Canada’s business. Or the CRTC’s.

[More on copyright in my other blog-- in the wind: Personal Use Copying vs. Bootlegging]

Dudley Do-Right?

Eirik Solheim's metaphorical image of the internet is the best I've seen: The internet is a series of tubes

Even if it were true that Canadian consumers were downloading music or movies, and even if it had been made illegal under Canadian Law, it should not make a whit of difference.

Because Internet Service Providers or Internet Carriers are NOT branches of Canadian law enforcement. They have not been deputized to enforce the law by the RCMP. If Bell Canada was in fact a Law Enforcement entity they would not be allowed to peek in any citizen’s packets without first acquiring a search warrant. Corporations don’t exist to uphold laws, they exist to make money.

The internet has been called dumb pipes, or a series of tubes, or a highway. It doesn’t really matter what you call it, what is most important is access for all.  
The people who control the pipes should not be allowed to discriminate against particular users for ANY reason. Net Neutrality is so important: the internet should be accessible to all.

revolutionary ideas

In the United Kingdom The Times Online Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? article looked at the benefits of personal use copying applied as peer to peer file sharing with some dramatic results.

Canada’s own ThisMagazine presented this thought provoking article Pay indie artists and break the music monopoly — Legalize Music Piracy which advocates making the law serve the artists and consumers rather than just the corporations.

Further rumblings about changing the way we look at this issue were reported recently by the The Globe and Mail blogs article NDP, Billy Bragg make case for free music

STOP Usage Based Billing

The idea of Illegal downloading (or Peer 2 Peer file sharing, commonly known as P2P) became widely accepted by the public when Napster was created in June of 1999 by 18-year old Shawn Fanning. Shawn was a young adult with no idea that what he had just created would change the way consumers feel about paying for music when they “don’t have to”, the way we think of Intellectual Property, and that it would spur one of the most controversial internet-related debates we have yet to experience.

It’s true that Napster was not the first program to contribute to copyright infringement by facilitating P2P file sharing. Other programs had existed before it such as IRC, Hotline, and USENET, but these latter programs were not strictly music databases. They had many other uses like, search engines, newsgroups, and real-time internet text messaging; They were not a direct threat to the Music Industry like Napster was.

The reason Napster caused such a stir, at the very roots of the issue, was because it was allowing consumers to go to their computer, and download 4 or 5 songs off an album for free, that would typically cost you $15+ in a store. The program was easy access for anyone with a computer and internet connection, needing only to download the application, and have a shared directory on your computer containing the MP3’s. When in use, Napster would then search the database of shared directories from other Napster users all across the world, and come up with hundreds of pirated, copyright infringed files matching the title you entered in the search field.

In 2000, a copy of Metallica’s not yet released demo, “I Disappear” was found circulating through Napster, which then led to the song being put on rotation on many American radio stations. After investigations, it was brought to Metallilca’s attention that their entire back catalogue of studio material was available to the public through Napster, without any royalty payments going to the band, their engineers, producers, or record label. This resulted in the first lawsuit against Napster Inc. which was followed by  several others for the same or very similar reasons with Dr. Dre, Madonna, Jerry Lieber, Casanova Records, and the most prominant: A&M Records vs. Napster Inc. in 2001 for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright protection under the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Artists/Musicians Deserve, and have a legal right to be paid, monetarily, for their creative works and intellectual property. There is no denying the fact that these artists are being virtually robbed by the consumer by not paying for the songs they listen to.

Some artists may argue that having their music on P2P programs allows them higher levels of exposure. Ex. The movie ‘Global Metal’ shows interviews of people from Egypt and Saudi Arabia saying they would have literally zero access to certain music if it weren’t for P2P file sharing, because there’s no where else for them to get it.

The music industry has gotten smarter; Rather than suing every unsuspecting, otherwise innocent person for being in possession of pirated music they have started to sell individual songs at reasonable prices. But illegal downloading has not ceased. There are too many people that have gotten a taste of getting the music they want for free, rather than paying for a whole album for $15+ and not enjoying half of it.

Some artists that are not signed to a major record label, that do not have access to mass media promotion and production, may argue that downloading for free was good for them because it helped get exposed to the public, but the fact of the matter is, you cannot put food on the table or pay rent with exposure.

British Parliament - image courtesy of Flickr.com

Britain is taking the newest crack at Internet regulation, making a swipe at video games and human rights in the process. Cheers!

And Here……We…Go, Again

It’s no secret that the US has struggled to regulate both Internet content and usage. Without giving too much of a law history lesson, all previous attempts have failed. You can check out examples such as the CDA or COPA, but just take my word for it. So how is the rest of the world faring?

The UK just outlined its plans to deal with illegal file-sharers (those damn pirates!) as part of its Digital Economy Bill. According to the government the bill will:

“ensure ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting.”

Sounds awesome, right? As a future communication professional, it’s like a dream mission statement – so it probably won’t surprise you that the bill is a fail.

Digital Economy Bill – An Outline

For starters, you can read the entirety of the bill on Parliament’s website – here. Unless you’re accustomed to reading legal documents, I’d stay away.

According to the BBC the main points of the bill are:

• Legal framework for tackling copyright infringement by education and technical measurement
• New duties and powers granted to Ofcom (Office of Communication)
• Increased investment in mobile broadband and switch to digital radio by 2015
• Updating Channel 4 functions on TV and online
• Age ratings for all video games aimed at children 12+

Basically, the UK wants to protect creative content by punishing pirates and provide measures to introduce a thriving digital entertainment industry. I’d get more into it but for purposes of the blog, I’m only concerned with the bill’s problems.

Protecting Your Rights By Taking Them Away

For starters, the bill allows an entire household to be cut off from the internet if a single member is accused of copyright infringement. I say “accused”, because apparently there is no need for proof, evidence and/or trials. Although I doubt that is entirely the case, punishing everyone for the actions of a single person is unacceptable.

Additionally, the bill is intended to stimulate the digital economy yet doesn’t outline improvements to broadband infrastructure. Simply stated – many areas in the UK are without internet access, and this bill has no plan to fix it.

It also appears officials will be monitoring what users do on the internet. Shielded by the law, officials will be allowed to spy on a network and impose penalties wherever inappropriate actions are perceived.

Wrong Direction, Please Turn Around

I don’t have a problem with the video game rating system, because it’s already been established. I’m not going to debate why government deems one form of creative content appropriate over another – maybe another day.

The problem here is the wrongful application of law. You cannot promote a healthy online environment by stripping law-abiding citizens of basic rights. Piracy is an issue facing many industries, and governments are still failing to solve it.

As the video game industry moves deeper into the online and digital spaces, laws like this will continue to affect both professionals and their audiences. With globalization happening at an unprecedented rate, laws in one country will affect us all. As a PR professional, stay updated on legislature that stands to change your communication landscape. You can track the progress of this bill – here.

Source

Article that talks about the bill and its effects – here.

by Tamera H. Bennett

When will the music industry develop a “Got Milk?” style campaign to educate consumers on illegal downloads?

I presented that question at the International Esq, / Variety sponsored Media and Entertainment Law Series panel discussion in Beverly Hills on November 19, 2009.

I was somewhat surprised that the majority of my co-panelists, both from the tech industry and music industry, felt that anti-piracy education was ineffective in deterring music piracy.

After talking with panelists and attendees following the event, I believe the real distinction is between education and enforcement.  The RIAA’s actions in suing end-users was an unsuccessful campaign in stopping piracy. The RIAA claims it was successful as an education tool because “Awareness of the illegality of downloading without permission surged from 35 – 72 percent” during the end-user lawsuit campaign.  Most in the industry, and consumers of music, would probably argue that enforcement is an not an effective method of education.

I guess I look at things at the most basic level. I understand education will not stop music piracy.  Yet, it is a valuable tool in the tool box that should not be overlooked.

Both the software industry and the movie industry have embraced anti-piracy education.  The Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) has re-worked and “spoofed” their own 1980’s video on anti-piracy with the new 2009  “Don’t Copy That 2.”  For the last few years, the Motion Picture Association of America in conjunction with Students In Free Enterprise has sponsored a national college campaign for submissions of anti-piracy videos.

As I stated above, education is not the solution to stopping illegal downloads — it is part of the tool box.  There is a certain level of music piracy that will always exisit as a “cost of doing  business.”  The industry is on the right path of meeting consumers’ demads for music that is portable between devices and easy to access.  Consumers want an experience and connection with their favorite music and recording artists. Labels and artists are beginning to deliver that much demanded “digital” consumer experience.  Deliverying the consumer experience is the most powerful tool in the tool box.

More Coverage of Historic Los Angeles Raid

Pair jailed over scam on eBay (UK)

Intellectual Property Protection Increasingly Critical for All Business Centers, ABCN Says

Treasury secretary defends government’s online piracy plans (UK)

$105,000 Counterfeit Goods Seized at Anderson, SC Jockey Lot

RCMP, Border Services join international effort to eradicate fake drug trade

Fake hairstyling irons pop up in Regina

What’s being done to combat online piracy

Spanish Police Seize 6,000,000 Counterfeit Viagra Pills in “Operation Woody Woodpecker” (SATIRE)

Sale of fake festival wristbands could boom in 2010

Man arrested in Calhoun for alleged trademark counterfeiting

Counterfeit DVDs and CDs seized

OECD confirms Canada among lowest sources of counterfeiting

After luxury bags, counterfeit luxury wines

CD sales in the US saw a decrease in 14% in the year 2008. The drop was largely due to “Internet piracy and competition from other forms of entertainment, namely video game” (Music News Net, 2009)

Despite the decrease in CD sales, digital music sales reaped a 32% increase (65.8 millions units) in 2008.

Welcome to the world of music.

What was once only for Aristocrats and church-goes has become something that is so common in our everyday life. Switch on the television, you hear a band’s music video playing on MTV. Step into the shopping mall, it will be hard to find a store that does not play music in it. Take a look at an average teenager’s bag, you would very likely be able to find an iPod or MP3 inside.

The music industry has come a long way. From vinyl to cassette tapes to compact discs (CDs), the digital form seems to be the way to go.

Just check out the number of music streaming sites out there! (and I don’t think that’s all of them!)
However, even as more people purchase digital albums/singles on online music stores like the iTunes store, I believe that there are still people out there who still prefer purchasing the physical album.

“Sigh, if albums cease to exist. Then what about album photos and signatures. Digital media revolution is unpredictable.” -@kellinachin

“maybe its just me, but i’d prefer to have a physical album.. its like a little collection i suppose? =/ #nct” -@leejii
(@kellinachin & @leejii are avid K-pop fans. )

I suppose consumers who like a particular music personality would prefer having a physical album because it contains lyrics and photos of the singer/band. It also serves as a medium where artistes sign on during fan meetings. They are able to collect these albums and I suppose each new album comes as a surprise to these with fans when it’s packaged differently/ the album includes hidden tracks.

Personally, I do not particularly like any music personality. I like singers or bands, because I like their songs. I admire them because they make, in my opinion, good music. (Some of my favourites are Rachael Yamagata and Kings of Convenience!) Hence it doesn’t really affect me much whether I purchase a physical or digital album. To me, I just want to get my music easily at an affordable cost. With the popularity and convenience of MP3s, I transfer songs from the CDs into my iPod and CDs that I’ve bought in the past have become white elephants at home; they are left on my shelf and collect dust.

This brings to my next point- Piracy.

A funny comic about the Internet & Piracy

I’m sure nobody who is tech-savvy can ever deny that they’ve been a pirate before.

No, I don’t mean that pirate!
Let’s face it. Piracy will never be gone. Even with affordable music up for purchase, many would still prefer to get free things. In fact, there has been debate on whether the easy access of digital music leads to more piracy. But I beg to differ.

There was an increasing trend of US teens purchasing music online, from 20% in 2004 to 36% in 2006. Peer-to-peer network (where people share music illegally) dropped 8%.

For me, I wouldn’t mind buying music online if its available to me easily at an affordable price (Oh, iTunes, why aren’t you available in Singapore? I want to be able to get music singles instead of buying one whole album!☹ ) Most artistes create music not only for passion, but for a livelihood. I seriously wouldn’t mind paying for good music, to honour the effort & talent of these artistes. Piracy is as bad as shoplifting, it IS stealing! (even though it’s done on cyberspace) Moreover, paying for music means I won’t need to risk for the fear of getting caught. I don’t have to feel guilty. If digital music is easily available, I believe that there will be people like me with the same mindset; switching from sharing music illegally to purchasing digital music.

Artistes must know how to ride on this digital music wave for their benefit. One example would be Radiohead. In 2007, the band their 7th album, In Rainbows as a digital download. Anyone could order the album and pay any amount that they wanted to.

Guess what happened?

“Upon its retail release, In Rainbows entered the UK Album Chart and the U.S. Billboard 200 at number one; by October 2008, it had sold more than three million copies worldwide in both digital and physical formats. The album earned widespread critical acclaim, and was ranked as one of the best albums of 2007 by several publications. In 2009, the record won two Grammy Awards for Best Alternative Music Album and Best Special Limited Edition Package.”
(extracted from Wikipedia: In Rainbows)

I really admire this approach that the band was willing to take. At the risk of profits, I feel that Radiohead really gave fans the credibility and trust that they’re not out there just to earn fan’s money, but to really produce music that consumers love.

What would the future of music be like? Will CDs die in a couple of years’ time? Will Piracy be more rampant, or would it be less common? I do not know, but one thing I know is that: the demand for music will always be there. No matter what- CDs, digital music or illegal downloads, music will not, and will never die.

Interesting presentation about the future of music, I think it’s the topic most of us can relate best with being pirates ourselves. HEH. I guess piracy is really the biggest obstacle facing the music industry; it’s not that bad with the movie industry although undeniably it is being affected by increasing number of people watching movies off their computer screens instead of the big screen. But the thing with the movie industry is that there will always still be people willing to pay to watch movies in cinemas due to the clearer visuals, booming speakers and dimmed lights. It’s all about atmosphere and the company; popcorn and nachos play a relative important part in going to movies too IMO.

However there just isn’t enough ‘incentives’ for us to go out and buy albums. The only album i would probably buy is that of my favourite boyband! And I buy those only because  I want the CD album with their faces on and the lyrics booklet inside with their faces! I don’t even take out the CD and play it because I already have all the songs in my iTunes and seriously who uses a CD player nowadays? My mom’s an exception.

Anna’s group brought up a really interesting point. Music might in the future become ‘free’ for all – which means that you can download it legally off the net and there might not be any physical CDs. Possible? I personally don’t think so as what will the people behind-the-scenes in the music industry survive on? Artistes could probably still be fairly well-off surviving on sponsorships, endorsements, concerts, merchandise, going on television shows etc but who is going to pay songwriters, producers, stylists… The list goes on and I’m pretty sure recording companies will not/will not be able to pay these people.

I think it all comes down to money and profits so music will unfortunately not be free afterall as the bottomline is that recording companies want to earn money; singers,songwriters,producers all want to earn money and the only way to do so is to sell music and earn OUR money. ):

But despite all the negativity, I still think we should support good music! LEGALLY, if I may add. (:

A Chinese navy flotilla will depart from the Zhoushan Islands on Friday to escort merchant vessels and protect them from pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden, a spokesman with China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) said Thursday.

The flotilla will be the fourth task force China has deployed to the region since the end of last year.  (source)