MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-05-03 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] NY Times Suprise
|
May 4, 2003
Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online
piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software
programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of
people that download pirated music, according to industry executives.
The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which
some experts say have varying degrees of legality, to deter online
theft: from attacking personal Internet connections so as to slow or
halt downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution
networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music
files.
The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because
they could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being
developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the
executives said.
If employed, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet
taken by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that
the IFPI, an industry group, estimates costs the industry $4.3 billion
in sales worldwide annually. Until now, most of the industry's
anti-piracy efforts have involved filing lawsuits against companies and
individuals that distribute pirated music. Last week, four college
students who had been sued by the industry settled the suits by agreeing
to stop operating networks that swap music and pay $12,000 to $17,500
each.
The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by
spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like
KaZaA and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered
legal but has had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more of
a nuisance than an effective deterrent.
The new measures under development take a more extreme ? and
antagonistic ? approach, according to executives who have been briefed
on the software programs.
Interest among record executives in using some of these more aggressive
programs has been piqued since a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last
month that StreamCast Networks, the company that offers Morpheus, and
Grokster, another file-sharing service, were not guilty of copyright
infringement. And last week, the record industry turned a "chat" feature
in popular file-trading software programs to its benefit by sending out
millions of messages telling people: "When you break the law, you risk
legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL
MUSIC."
The deployment of this message through the file-sharing network, which
the Recording Industry Association of America said is an education
effort, appears to be legal. But other anti-piracy programs raise legal
issues.
Since the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities ?
criminal and civil ? are not easily defined. But some tactics are
clearly more problematic than others.
Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program,
considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects
users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried
to download.
A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system
for a certain duration ? minutes or possibly even hours ? risking the
loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also
displays a warning about downloading pirated music. Another program
under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for
pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives
briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and
was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
Other approaches that are being tested include launching an attack on
personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a
person from using a network while attempting to download pirated music
or offer it to others.
"There are a lot of things you can do ? some quite nasty," said Marc
Morgenstern, the chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that
receives support from several large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern
refused to identify his clients, citing confidentiality agreements with
them. He also said that his company does not and will not deploy any
programs that run afoul of the law. "Our philosophy is to make
downloading pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without
crossing the line." And while he said "we develop stuff all the time,"
he was also quick to add that "at the end of the day, my clients are
trying to develop relationships with these people." Overpeer, with 15
staff members, is the largest of about a dozen businesses founded to
create counterpiracy methods.
The music industry's five "majors" ? the Universal Music Group, a unit
of Vivendi Universal; the Warner Music Group, a unit of AOL Time Warner;
Sony Music Entertainment; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann; and EMI ? have all
financed the development of counterpiracy programs, according to
executives, but none would discuss the details publicly. Warner Music
issued a statement saying: "We do everything we feel is appropriate,
within the law, in order to protect our copyrights." A spokeswoman for
Universal Music said that the company "is engaging in legal technical
measures."
Whether the record companies decide to unleash a tougher anti-piracy
campaign has created a divide among some music executives concerned
about finding a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating its
music-listening customers. There are also questions about whether
companies could be held liable by individuals who have had their
computers attacked.
"Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a
professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright
issues. "It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage.
The law has ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's
computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."
Randy Saaf, the president of MediaDefender, another company that
receives support from the record industry to frustrate pirates, told a
congressional hearing last September that his company "has a group of
technologies that could be very effective in combating piracy on
peer-to-peer networks but are not widely used because some customers
have told us that they feel uncomfortable with current ambiguities in
computer hacking laws."
In an interview, he declined to identify those technologies for
competitive reasons. "We steer our customers away from anything
invasive," he said.
Internet service providers are also nervous about anti-piracy programs
that could disrupt their systems. Sarah B. Deutsch, associate general
counsel of Verizon Communications, said she is concerned about any
program that slows down connections. "It could become a problem we don't
know how to deal with," she said. "Any technology that has an effect on
a user's ability to operate their computer or use the network would be
of extreme concern to us. I wouldn't say we're against this completely.
I would just say that we're concerned."
Verizon is already caught in its own battle with the recording industry.
A federal judge ordered Verizon to provide the Recording Industry
Association of America with the identities of customers suspected of
making available hundreds of copyrighted songs. The record companies are
increasingly using techniques to sniff out and collect the electronic
addresses of computers that distribute pirated music.
But the more aggressive approach could also generate a backlash against
individual artists and the music industry. When Madonna released
"spoofed" versions of songs from her new album on music sharing networks
to frustrate pirates, her own Web site was hacked into the next day and
real copies of her album were made available by hackers on her site.
The industry has tried to seek legislative support for aggressive
measures. Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California,
introduced a bill last fall that would have limited the liability of
copyright owners for using tougher technical counterpiracy tactics to
protect their works online. But the bill was roundly criticized by
privacy advocates. "There was such an immediate attack that you couldn't
get a rational dialogue going," said Cary Sherman, president of the
recording industry association. He said that while his organization
often briefs recording companies on legal issues related to what he
calls "self help" measures, "the companies deal with this stuff on their
own."
And as for the more extreme approaches, he said, "It is not uncommon for
engineers to think up new programs and code them. There are a lot of
tantalizing ideas out there ? some in the gray area and some illegal ?
but it doesn't mean they will be used."
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
