News Corp. and NBC Universal have revealed the name of their new online video venture — the so-called YouTube killer, which Google had already dubbed Clown Co., will officially be called “Hulu“.
“Hulu” will launch as a private beta in October 2007, however, interested users are able to sign-up for invitation from today.
Deezer (formerly BlogMusik) is a service born in France that lets you search for mp3 files on the web and listen to them in streaming mode for free. Dezeer announced that they came to an agreement with the SACEM, clearing the service of copyright infrigement accusations. The details of this agreement are not are not being disclosed, but other deals suggest it is based on a revenue sharing mode. Deezer’s business model is relying on advertising and affiliate revenue coming from the sales of songs on iTunes and Amazon.Azureus, Shareaza and Morpheus are being sued by the music industry group Société des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (SPPF) under the new provisions of copyright law passed by the French Parliament last year, according to French blog Ratatium (English translation).
The software creators could face criminal penalties including up to three years in prison and a €300,000 fine if the case is successfully prosecuted in French courts.
Morpheus has declined in popularity since being successfully sued already, and Shareaza is entirely non-commercial. But Azureus is leveraging the popular BitTorrent client for its Vuze network which delivers authorized downloads of video and audio. Though that fact could potentially be used in its defense as proof that the software is not exclusively for illegitimate distribution.
The new copyright provisions, abbreviated to DADVSI, is similar to the DMCA in that the intention was to update laws in order to address issues surrounding digital technology, as well as bring France in line with the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty.
Amendments to the DADVSI, sponsored by then Minister of the Interior and now current President Nicolas Sarkozy and dubbed “The Vivendi Amendments,” added the criminal penalties of imprisonment and fines for makers of software that are meant to transmit copyrighted material illegally. Though the suit could become a forum for DADVSI detractors to challenge the constitutionality of these provisions.
So the SPPF can expect the full support of Sarkozy and his UMP party in their suit. As an indication of the change in the climate surrounding copyright in France, during a recent hunt for Sopranos video I discovered even the somewhat notorious Dailymotion appears to be getting more thorough in policing their site for unauthorized clips (and may soon be competing with YouTube for Francophonic users).
Hunt's successor not yet namedDesigned to tackle illegal P2P activity by university students
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has launched a website to collect payments from those accused of music piracy.
P2Plawsuits.com is designed to cut back on the number of lawsuits filed by the RIAA, which it says will reduce the legal cost to those found guilty of downloading music illegally.
The RIAA has already sent 400 pre-litigation settlement letters to 13 universities and has asked them to forward those letters to the appropriate network users.
"Under this new approach, a student, or other network user, can settle the record company claims against him or her at a discounted rate before a lawsuit is ever filed," the RIAA said.
Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the RIAA, claimed that the theft of music remains unacceptably high and undermines the industry's ability to invest in new music.
"This is especially the case on college campuses, despite innovative business models like the Ruckus offer of free legal music to any college student," he said.
"Our work with college administrators has yielded real progress, and we are grateful for the help of those who have worked closely with us.
"At the same time, we recognise that the nature of online music theft is changing, and we need to adjust our strategies accordingly."
The RIAA stated that it will now target Ares and Gnutella-based peer-to-peer networks such as LimeWire, which are gaining in popularity.
A federal court in New York will decide the question of whether downloading a song constitutes a “public performance” of a composition in response to a lawsuit brought by music publisher ASCAP against AOL, RealNetworks, Yahoo and others. The performing rights organization filed a cross-motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was met by friend of the court briefs by a flurry of concerned parties, according to BillboardBiz, which listed the RIAA, BMI, the National Music Publishers’ Association, the Digital Media Association, the Cellular Telecommunication and Internet Association.
Until now, most digital services like Apple, AOL and others have only paid royalties for “reproducing” the recorded compositions that were downloaded. Most digital services have paid public performance royalties to ASCAP, BMI or SESAC only for streaming, all of which has been governed by a non-binding agreement was made some years ago since copyright law was unclear on the subject and digital services were at a nascent stage.
Now, ASCAP and others want clarification of copyright law, especially since television broadcasts, which often include music, are increasingly being offered as downloads. The performing rights organization claims that there should be a performance royalty. DiMA, whose brief was supported by NARM, the Entertainment Merchants Association, the Consumers’ Electronics Association, is fighting ASCAP’s suit. Jonathan Potter, DiMA’s executive director, said in a statement: “For a decade ASCAP and BMI have successfully preyed on less-confident or underfinanced companies that were willing to pay double-dip royalties. Now, however, we are confident that a judge will finally end this travesty.”
LíderDigital.com, 19/02/2007
El director de los Servicios Jurídicos de la SGAE, Pablo Hernández, afirmó que las descargas de películas a través de Internet constituyen "piratería", ya que esta transacción no cuenta con la autorización del autor.
Hernández, que intervino en el I Encuentro de Creadores Audiovisuales que se ha celebrado en Córdoba, explicó que en las descargas en la Red no interviene ningún "soporte físico", por lo que se trata de "tráfico electrónico".
Así, dijo que esta práctica, que se realiza a través de programas de intercambio de archivos entre particulares (P2P), es distinta de las copias privadas en soportes como el CD o el DVD, que sí están autorizadas y pagan un canon por derechos de autor.
Según Hernández, "el 80% de las descargas que se hacen en Internet son de contenidos protegidos", por lo que, para regular esta "nueva realidad", sería necesaria una modificación de la Ley de Comercio Electrónico, que es a su vez una trasposición de una directiva europea.
Afirmó que las descargas son una práctica ilícita tanto por parte de quien las saca a la Red como de quien las recibe (pese a los argumentos de quienes opinan lo contrario), si bien reconoció que "perseguir a los particulares que se bajan películas en sus hogares es imposible". Hasta la fecha, en España sólo ha habido 'advertencias' a los usuarios.
En este sentido, Hernández abogó por que sean los operadores de telecomunicación los que asuman el pago por los derechos de autor de los contenidos que explotan a través de la banda ancha, una aspiración que ya se puso sobre la mesa hace cuatro años, aunque de momento nunca ha prosperado.
A su juicio, son estas empresas "las que se están beneficiando por las películas y los productos explotados a través de nuevos espacios de explotación y almacenamiento" como Internet y el disco duro de los ordenadores, señalaba "ElMundo.es".
Thursday, February 15, 2007
CBC News
The entertainment and software industries have found an effective tool to deter some Canadians from downloading TV programs, movies, music and software. And it doesn't involve going to court.
A number of industry groups, mostly based in the United States, are relying on e-mail to get the message out that peer-to-peer file sharing is illegal. Thousands of the e-mails are being sent to Canadian users each month under a program known as "notice and notice."
Major Canadian internet service providers including Rogers, Bell and Telus have voluntarily agreed to distribute the notices to their customers on behalf of the industry associations. Telus forwards an average of 4,000 notices every month.
Stephen Harrington received a notice late last year after downloading a computer game from a bit torrent file-sharing site. (Bit torrent sites are used to share larger files, such as movies.)
Harrington wanted to play the game with his friends, liked it, and purchased it a few days later.
"Actually, I almost deleted it. But I read through and was quite surprised. But I was initially concerned," Harrington said.
The entertainment industry has long expressed frustration with Canada, and its unwillingness to modernize copyright laws.
"Canada's copyright laws regarding uploading and downloading are unclear, and that does present a number of challenges in curbing internet piracy," said Neil MacBride, a vice-president with the Business Software Alliance, a Washington D.C.-based industry association that fights software piracy.
The Business Software Alliance sent out about 60,000 "notice and notice" e-mails to Canadian internet users in 2006. "They've been most effective," MacBride said.
'Stop this infringing activity'
"If you're somebody who's [downloading] and you receive word that you're essentially using somebody else's property without their permission, it seems to have the desired effect — namely, people take it seriously and alter their behaviour accordingly."
The notices contain terse legal language: "This unauthorized copying and distribution constitutes copyright infringement under applicable national laws and international treaties. We urge you to take immediate action to stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions," reads one of the e-mails, sent by NBC Universal to Canadian internet users who were suspected of downloading a NBC television show.
Canadian users are tracked by IP address when content is downloaded from the internet.
"It doesn't have any significant legal weight in the sense that it doesn't mean they're facing a lawsuit immediately or even the claims of infringement have been proven," said leading internet law expert Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa.
But Geist said the "notice and notice" program has been successful in scaring people to stop downloading.
"I think they've proven surprisingly effective and in fact indications are that when subscribers receive these, a significant proportion will take down the offending content if, in fact, it is infringing," he said.
Harrington says he has not downloaded material using peer-to-peer sites since he received his e-mail notice, forwarded by his ISP, Rogers Communications. But he is concerned about privacy: What information are the ISPs passing along to the industry groups?
"The ISPs are the only ones who know what individuals are doing what, so they're trying to push that thin blue line and get to individual privacy that way," he said.
No privacy issues, ISPs say
Both Rogers and Telus maintain they do not pass any personal information, such as user name or address, to any of the groups initiating the notice e-mails.
"We protect the rights of our customers and the privacy of our customers and the information about our customers quite vigorously and we do not pass the information about our customers on to third parties," said Michael Lee, chief strategy officer for Rogers Communications.
The notice program in effect in Canada is essentially a tool to alert users that they are downloading what the industry groups see as copyrighted material. Even though tens of thousands of e-mails have been distributed over the last few years, no one has been prosecuted for copyright violation as a result of the notices.
"Notice and notice" differs from the "notice and take-down" program that's in place in the United States. There, when an industry group notices an alleged copyright violation, an e-mail similar to the ones being sent to Canadian users is forwarded to the American ISP. In most cases, the ISPs are forced to immediately take down the content or face penalties.
"I think notice-in-notice is a great alternative that really respects privacy and free speech much more than notice and take-down," said Ren Bucholz of the internet advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The RIAA has now extended a new deal to ISPs, one that would allow subscribers to quickly resolve lawsuits. A copy of a letter to a specific access provider, obtained Digital Music News, offers ISPs the ability to extend pre-lawsuit discounts to targeted subscribers. "An early notification will give your customer the opportunity to settle any claims before a suit is filed against them at a reduced rate (discounts of $1000 or more)," the letter states. The early settlement offer would allow the RIAA to avoid a John Doe lawsuit, a complicated process that allows ISPs to initially protect the identity of its accused users. In order to qualify for the program, ISPs must agree to keep user logs for 180 days. "This timeframe is necessary to allow sufficient time to pursue the Doe lawsuit and subpoena if settlement discussions are not fruitful."
In the letter, the RIAA also raises a number of procedural problems. The list includes misidentified users, and the dissemination of incorrect contact information by ISPs themselves. Meanwhile, the overture received a strong rebuke from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a longtime enemy of the organization. "Before the RIAA has even verified that the user is correctly identified, it wants ISPs to send along a note saying the user might be sued and can already settle potential claims," said EFF attorney Cindy Cohn. "At the same time, the RIAA scolds ISPs for giving information to their customers that could help provide sound legal counsel."
RIAA ISP Letter (PDF)
The RIAA quickly issued a response, though its statement seemed both protectionist and out-of-step with the Jobs argument. "Apple's offer to license Fairplay to other technology companies is a welcome breakthrough and would be a real victory for fans, artists and labels," the group said. "There have been many services seeking a license to the Apple DRM. This would enable the interoperability that we have been urging for a very long time." That clearly misses the thrust of the Jobs opinion, though it may represent an intentional misunderstanding designed to cloud the larger point. Regardless of the thinking behind the response, the counterpoint indicates that the trade group remains protectionist, despite the broader call by Jobs to ditch DRM. The RIAA statement also mirrors recent comments from various major label executives, most of whom appear cool to the concept of MP3-based download sales, at least publicly.
YouTube has agreed to post copyright warnings in Japanase to assuage concerns of the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers, AP reports. The group, which represents 23 Japanese media companies and organizations, protested copyright infringement on the site last year, demanding that YouTube remove nearly 30,000 clips. YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen and Google VP David Eun met with the group Tuesday in Tokyo. One result: with a month or so (no idea why it would take so long) the English warning should be supplemented by one in Japanese.
The meeting ran for about two hours. Satoshi Watanabe, manager of JASRAC transmission rights department: “We are very satisfied with the direct negotiation realized and this should be a first step to carrying on… but their reply itself is not satisfactory today so we’d like to solve the issues.” The YouTube co-founders explained their filtering plans but with no time frame.
Interesting DMCA methodology description
**********
Post from "Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing"
Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing says "Viacom terrorizes YouTube with bullshit DMCA notices" by serving YouTube with over 100,000 take down notices. The New York Times says 'Reports have been circulating in the industry that Google had offered to pay $100 million a year for the use of Viacom’s programming." John Palfrey at Harvard takes a more balanced view. Donna Bogatin at Digital Markets sees both Viacom and Google as big corporate bullies.
UPDATE: Mark Cuban turns the tables and says "GooTube Terrorizes Copyright Owners by Witholding Filters"
Cory Doctorow cites one example of a video that appears not to be a violation, and suggests;
"And Google can take steps now to reduce that load: sue the living shit out of Viacom. We've got precedent -- the Diebold debacle -- for the idea that abusing the DMCA takedown process is illegal. Courts have been willing to punish this kind of excess by awarding fees and damages."
Cory, I don't think one video, or even 100 videos, out of more than 100,000 constitutes "abusing the DMCA takedown notice process". I am painfully aware of how the DMCA works from my days at Napster. Here is an explanation from Wikipedia. Note steps 6 and 8 to see how easy it is to put content back up.
Here's an example of how the takedown procedures would work:
1. Alice puts a copy of Bob's song on her AOL-hosted website.
2. Bob, searching the Internet, finds Alice's copy.
3. Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to AOL's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) including:
-- contact information
-- the name of the song that was copied
-- the address of the copied song
-- a statement that he has a good faith belief that the material is not legal
-- a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
-- his signature
4. AOL takes the song down.
5. AOL tells Alice that they have taken the song down.
6. Alice now has the option of sending a counter-notice to AOL, if she feels the song was taken down unfairly. The notice includes
-- contact information
-- identification of the removed song
-- a statement under penalty of perjury that Alice has a good faith belief the material was mistakenly taken down
-- a statement consenting to the jurisdiction of Alice's local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the US, to a US Federal District Court in any jurisdiction in which AOL is found.
-- her signature
7. AOL then waits 10-14 business days for a lawsuit to be filed by Bob.
8. If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then AOL puts the material back up.
This really puts the pressure back on Viacom to file thousands of lawsuits within 10 to 14 business days, in hundreds of different jurisdictions. Based on my experience at Napster, this isn't going to happen.
What will happen? The most likely scenario is that most of the 100,000 videos will be taken down without protest from the person who uploaded it, because it probably is infringing content. However, some, perhaps 1% or 1,000, will respond with a counter-notice to put the content back up. Then Viacom will need to decide which of these 1,000 responders they will choose to sue. They will pick a few high profile videos from a "prolific and frequent" posters of videos and sue them. This is the IRS approach; sue a few high profile individuals to scare the rest of the population into compliance.
What is fair and right? Creators of content have the right to decide how and where their content will be used. Some will choose to let it be shown on YouTube because they feel it will promote their brand. Others will choose to keep their content off YouTube. It is their choice, not ours, not YouTubes. It doesn't matter how short-sighted we think Viacom is, or how they don't see the potential value to their brand.
If this was software we were talking about then some of us might have a completely different view of what is fair and right. If my software was being offered for free to millions of people without my permission I would not be happy. I would feel like I was being ripped off. If I wanted to have my software available to everyone I would have posted it on SourceForge as Open Source and put a GPL license on it. It is my choice, not yours. Taking copyrighted software and putting in an the Internet for everyone to take is illegal. Music and videos are no different.
Free Enterprise and economics always win - Viacom has been negotiating with YouTube for several months on royalties or a percentage of revenue for their content. They have failed to reach an agreement, so Viacom chose to request a "Take Down" of their content. Perhaps this will get both sides back to the negotiations and a reasonable settlement will be worked out. Other content owners have settled with YouTube so it seems there should be a reasonable compromise available. It just takes time. We ran out of time at Napster. It took 3 or 4 years for the record labels to make a deal with iTunes and other music services. It will eventually happen with video too.
Top executives from YouTube are due in Tokyo next week for talks with some of Japan’s largest video content producers over copyrighted material available on the popular site.
The meeting is due to take place Tuesday, just over two months after a group of Japanese content producers sent a letter of complaint to YouTube, urging the company to do more to keep copyrighted material off its service.
YouTube CEO Chad Hurley and Chief Technology Officer Steve Chen are among those due at the talks, said a spokesman for the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC).
JASRAC sent the original complaint, which carried its signature along with that of 22 other companies and groups. Among the signatories were all of Japan’s TV networks, the Motion Picture Producers’ Association of Japan, the Recording Industry Association of Japan and Yahoo Japan.
The complainants are unhappy about the amount of their content available on YouTube. They demanded in the original letter that YouTube make it easier and quicker for content to be removed once it has been identified as violating copyright, and for the company to make it tougher for users to upload copyrighted material.
YouTube responded to the complaint in mid-December and said they could visit Japan to discuss the issue. The letter indicated that YouTube is keen to work with the content providers because it is interested in starting a business in Japan, according to JASRAC.
The December complaint followed YouTube’s deletion of just under 30,000 files that violated the copyright of Japanese rights holders. The files were discovered during a five-day audit of YouTube in October. However, as soon as the files were deleted, new unauthorized content started appearing.
There is a specter haunting Europe – and it’s poised to cause some nightmares for video and social networking companies like YouTube and MySpace. Collective licensing organizations throughout the continent have been demanding compliance in recent months, seeking their share of the potential billions generated by online video. At the forefront of this movement is GEMA – a German organization that now now has its sights on YouTube and MySpace.
YouTube executives told the Wall Street Journal a few months ago that they find clearing rights for U.S. music videos complex and frustrating. This year they might wake up to realize their biggest nightmare might just be the European market.
GEMA is one of the strongest collective licensing organizations in Europe. It represents the performance and mechanical licensing rights of 60,000 German authors, composers and publishers virtually without any competition. It’s as if ASCAP, BMI, Sesac and the Harry Fox Agency joined forces to become one big, monopolistic mega-association.
GEMA has been causing a stir in the online world in recent weeks. First, it was granted preliminary injunctions against the file-hosting platforms Rapidshare.de and Rapidshare.com. A few days later GEMA declared another preliminary victory, this time against the commercial Usenet service operator Usenext. Rogue file hosters weren’t the only targets of these injunctions, though. GEMA also wanted to flex its legal muscles to force other platforms into licensing negotiations. A press release about the Rapidshare injunctions quoted GEMA CEO Harald Heker saying:
“These rulings will also be of major significance when it comes to dealing with Web 2.0 services like YouTube and MySpace in the future. They show that the mere shifting of the act of use onto the user and the alleged non-controllability of the contents do not release the service operator from its responsibility under copyright law for the contents it makes available on its website for downloading.”
This is not the first time YouTube and MySpace have been in trouble for alleged copyright violations. YouTube purchaser Google supposedly even set $500 million aside to fight and settle such lawsuits.
YouTube has used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor provisions to shield itself from copyright violations, arguing it cannot be held responsible for the misdeeds of its users, while at the same time offering to remove any unlicensed content – a policy that YouTube also sees fit for European rights holders, according to a spokesperson:
“YouTube respects copyright and works in close cooperation with rights holders. GEMA is no exception. We will continue to provide content companies in Germany and elsewhere with tools to easily notify us of unauthorized use of their content so we can promptly remove it.”
Problem is, most European countries don’t have legal protections similar to the U.S.’s DMCA safe harbor. They do, however, have strong collective licensing organizations. GEMA has reportedly been meeting with representatives of a dozen such organizations during the MIDEM music fair in Cannes. There is no word yet whether they could find common ground for collective action against Youtube and Myspace, but chances are GEMA will move forward anyway – and in turn make Europe rough territory for online video vendors.
The MPAA, RIAA and several anti-piracy organizations are constantly trying to trap people into downloading fake torrents. These torrents are hosted on trackers that are setup to collect IP addresses of all the ‘pirates’ who try to download these files.
To make these traps more visible, Fenopy just introduced the FakeFinder. The FakeFinder lists the most popular fake torrents and the latest fake trackers. It also allows you to search for fake torrents by keyword or infohash.
The actual .torrent links for these fake files are blocked, and FakeFinder serves an informational purpose only. It is actually quite amusing to browse through these fake files and trackers. The companies that host these anti-piracy trackers came up with some interesting hostnames like “dirtydevils.cyberbox.com.br” and “bittorrent.isthebe.st“.
Although most of the IPs of these fake trackers are already blocked by blocklist software like PeerGuardian, they still manage to collect the IP addresses of thousands of users who do fall for this trap. Most torrent site admins are aware of these fakes, and remove them as soon as they are uploaded. It is kind of a paradox. On the one hand anti-piracy organizations send thousands of takedown requests to torrent sites, while they upload fake files with similar titles themselves.
Some might argue that downloading a fake file is not really a criminal offense. And yes, it is doubtful if this evidence will hold up in court. However, the job of organizations like the MPAA is to scare people, and that is often enough for them. The first thing they will probably do is send a letter to your ISP saying that you tried to download so-and-so file. And even if they take it a step further, they try to settle before these things are played out in court.
FakeFinder shows that BitTorrent site admins are trying to track down these fake torrents, and it’s a nice way to expose the darker side of anti-piracy organizations like the MPAA.
Written by Ernesto on January 28, 2007, TorrentFreak
L'industrie musicale a fait part de son intention d'attaquer les « opérateurs techniques du P2P » tout en maintenant la pression sur les internautes pirates.
Arnaud Devillard (à Cannes) , 01net., le 22/01/2007 à 18h40
Les producteurs en parlaient déjà dix jours avant le Midem, le Syndicat national de l'édition phonographique (Snep) l'a confirmé lors d'une conférence de presse lundi matin sur place, à Cannes : oui, les actions contre les pirates de musique vont continuer. Contre les particuliers, mais surtout contre les « opérateurs techniques », c'est-à-dire les fournisseurs de solutions, logiciels de peer to peer en tête, permettant de mettre en circulation illégalement des fichiers musicaux protégés par le droit d'auteur. Sur les cibles et les moyens d'action, le Snep reste flou. Il ne dit pas, par exemple, comment il va s'y prendre pour épingler les auteurs de logiciels de P2P, bien souvent organisés en communautés sur Internet et non pas en sociétés commerciales.
Le Snep s'appuie sur la loi droit d'auteur et droits voisins votée et entrée en vigueur a l'été 2006. « Les internautes ne peuvent pas et ne doivent pas être les seuls » à être en ligne de mire, a estimé Christophe Lameignère, président du Snep et de Sony BMG France. Car la filière du disque en France doit toujours faire avec un contexte difficile où le peer to peer continue de grever les chiffres de ventes, selon le bilan de l'année 2006 présenté par le syndicat. Le nombre d'albums vendus en magasins a baissé de 16 % entre 2005 et 2006, les ventes de singles de 30 % et, en valeur, le marché est passé de 1 459 à 1 287 millions d'euros, soit 11,8 % de moins en un an.
Dans le même temps, les ventes dématérialisées sur Internet se sont accrues. Le chiffre d'affaires a en effet augmenté de 44,6 % et le nombre d'albums téléchargés sur les boutiques en ligne a fait un bond de 57 % (hors téléphonie mobile). Er cela ne represente que 1,1 million d'albums. Bien trop peu pour compenser les pertes sur le marché du CD.
Le Gouvernement interpellé sur la TVA et sur les DRM
Le Snep a tenu aussi à faire passer quelques messages aux pouvoirs publics. Il demande d'abord un moratoire sur l'application de la TVA à 19,6 % sur les ventes de fichiers musicaux, pour aider le marché à décoller. L'idée étant qu'à terme cette TVA soit définitivememt ramenée à 5,5 %. C'est-à-dire ce que la filière n'arrive toujours pas à obtenir pour le CD. Son autre réclamation concerne l'Autorité de régulation des mesures techniques de protection (les DRM), que crée la loi sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins pour arbitrer de futurs litiges concernant ces systèmes placés sur les fichiers et sur les CD pour limiter leur copie.
Les décrets d'application ne sont toujours pas parus depuis la publication de la loi au Journal officiel en août 2006. Ce qui, de fait, empêche cette autorité non seulement de fonctionner mais également d'exister, tout simplement. Et le sujet devient pressant puisque, cela n'a échappé à personne cette année, les DRM font l'objet de vifs débats et d'une nette remise en question. La voix de ceux qui appellent à leur suppression se faisant de plus en plus entendre.
« Aucune piste n'est à négliger, a commenté Christophe Lameignère, mais celle-ci est extrêmement dangereuse et glissante. Il n'est pas question aujourd'hui d'y revenir, il est trop tôt. » Les producteurs veulent d'abord voir quel impact sur les ventes auront les initiatives récentes de VirginMega et de Fnacmusic, consistant à proposer respectivement 200 000 et 150 000 fichiers en MP3 et sans DRM issus des catalogues de labels indépendants.
« S'il n'y a plus de DRM, il faut trouver autre chose pour protéger les fichiers, a précisé Jean-François Cecillon, PDG d'EMI Music France. Car dans ce débat, il y a deux choses différentes : la protection des fichiers et l'interopérabilité. » C'est cette dernière qui poserait surtout problème. Sauf que, de fait, techniquement, les deux choses sont bien souvent liées.
¤ Digital music sales estimated to double to around US$2 billion in 2006
¤ Single track downloads estimated up 89% at 795 million
¤ Available tracks double to four million, via 500 online services in over 40 countries worldwide
¤ Portable music players help drive digital music consumption
¤ New revenue streams and business models emerge
¤ Lawsuits impact illegal file-sharing, but "gatekeeper" ISPs must act to curb digital piracy
¤ Record companies' digital music sales are estimated to have nearly doubled in value in 2006, reaching a trade value of approximately US$2 billion (up from $1.1 billion). The split between online and mobile remains fairly equal, but varies substantially across markets. Digital sales are estimated to have grown from 5.5 % in 2005 to around 10 % of industry sales for the full year 2006.
¤ Single track downloads are estimated to total 795 million in 2006, up 89 % on 2005. Single track downloads and mastertones remain the main digital music formats, but other formats, such as mobile downloads, digital albums, music videos and ringback tones all saw healthy growth
¤ The number of tracks available online doubled to reach over four million in the last year. This compares to around 150,000 CD albums available in the biggest 'bricks and mortar' music stores.
¤ There are nearly 500 online music services available in over 40 countries worldwide, offering consumers a wide variety of choice and great value
¤ Portable music players help drive digital music consumption. Portable player sales totalled around 120 million in 2006, an increase of 43 % on the previous year (Understanding and Solutions). Portable player owners are more likely to buy music legally than general internet users; but the amount of purchased music stored on devices is still low.
¤ New revenue streams and business models emerge. Social networking sites exploded in popularity while advertising-supported models such as video licensing on Yahoo! Music and MSN emerged as a potentially exciting revenue stream for record companies. Music video has become a revenue stream in its own right.
¤ Advertising-funded models have become a new revenue stream for record companies. Advertisers diverted budgets from conventional broadcast and print to the Internet in 2006. Internet advertising is forecast to overtake traditional radio advertising in 2009 (Zenith OptiMedia).
¤ Digital is boosting classical music. Classical music was the fastest-growing music genre in the US, growing by 23 % in the US. There have been exceptional digital sales on particular classical titles
¤ Lawsuits are having an impact. Legal action was taken against more than 10,000 uploaders in 18 countries in 2006 including Brazil, Mexico, Poland and Portugal for the first time. The average legal settlement is now €2,420. Recent research from Jupiter shows that illegal file-sharing in Europe has been contained in the last year, in the context of a 30 % increase in broadband household penetration.
La SCPP, présidée par Pascal Nègre, n’a pas l’intention en 2007 de cesser de poursuivre les adeptes du peer-to-peer. Elle s’en prend également aux serveurs P2P et aux sites de téléchargement étrangers qui ne respectent pas les ayants droit.
Un déjeuner avec Pascal Nègre est toujours un moment truculent: la petite réunion d'avant-Midem organisée par la SCPP (Société civile des producteurs phonographiques), qu'il préside, n'a pas échappé à la règle. En grande forme, le patron d'Universal Music est revenu, à coups de petites phrases bien senties, sur les événements de l'année 2006.
Et le discours n'évolue guère d'une année à l'autre: «Tant que cela sera très facile de télécharger un titre gratuitement sans aucun risque, il y aura toujours un problème». À l'entendre, les ventes de CD continuent à baisser, sans être compensées par les ventes en ligne, à cause des pirates. Pourtant «nous avons mis à disposition [des plates-formes légales] tous nos catalogues». Mais rien n'y fait, martèle Nègre, il faut s'en prendre à la source du mal, le pirate. «Pas avec de la prison, bien sûr, mais avec des amendes.»
Pourtant, les producteurs disposent d'un nouvel arsenal pour défendre leur droit face à la contrefaçon: la loi Dadvsi, qui a accaparé une grande partie du calendrier parlementaire en 2006. Un texte que de nombreux observateurs estiment être grandement en faveur des ayants droit que sont les producteurs de musique. Toutefois, rappelle Pascal Nègre, il a fallu attendre six mois pour que paraisse le premier décret, et l'on attend encore celui instituant l'Autorité de régulation des mesures techniques.
De plus le texte n'a pas instauré de riposte graduée, qui aurait permis aux ayants droit de faire parvenir automatiquement aux pirates pris sur le fait, des messages d'avertissement, et de mettre en place une gradation des sanctions, poursuit le patron d'Universal. Les autres tentatives des producteurs en matière d'envois automatisés sont pour l'instant bloquées par la Cnil (commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés), qui a refusé de donner son aval à un projet de «radar automatique» installé sur les réseaux peer-to-peer. C'est le Conseil d'Etat qui devra trancher cette affaire courant 2007.
Des serveurs EDonkey fermés
Mais la SCPP n'est pas privée de tout moyen de répression: pour preuve la dizaine de condamnations qu'elle a obtenue depuis septembre 2006, contre des internautes accusés de télécharger et de mettre illégalement des fichiers musicaux à dispostion. Avec, à chaque fois, une amende et des dommages et intérêts de plusieurs centaines ou milliers d'euros à payer à la SCPP.
La dernière décision en date, celle du tribunal de Bobigny, qui a relaxé un internaute pour vice de procédure, n'inquiète pas outre mesure la société. Elle affirme que ses relevés d'infraction ont déjà tous été validés par la justice, et qu'ils ne nécessitent pas d'autorisation spéciale de la Cnil, garantit Marc Guez, le directeur général de la SCPP.
Par ailleurs, elle continue à réclamer environ une dizaine de coupures d'accès internet chaque mois.
L'organisme vient également d'envoyer 29 mises en demeure à des personnes exploitant en France des serveurs sur les réseaux peer-to-peer EDonkey et DirectConnect. Ces serveurs permettaient de faire transiter «plus de 23 millions de fichiers contrefaits», affirme la SCPP. Elle exigeait de leur propriétaire un filtrage, mais seize d'entre eux, ont préféré mettre la clé sous la porte.
L'objectif, avec cette démarche, est clair: «Em... bêter au maximum ceux qui téléchargent illégalement», sourit Pascal Nègre. Car même si les serveurs sont transférés à l'étranger, cela ralentira les téléchargements en France, poursuit Marc Guez.
Dernière initiative, dont le résultat est certainement plus aléatoire: la SCPP a porté plainte contre les sociétés russes Media Services et X-Media Limited, qui exploitent les sites Allofmp3.com et Mp3Sugar.com. Ce sont des sites de téléchargement payant, qui proposent titres et albums à prix cassés, sans aucune autorisation des ayants droit. La plainte a été déposée devant le tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre et transmise en Russie.
Estelle Dumout, ZDNet France, 11 janvier 2007
It is no secret that the MPAA and other anti-piracy organizations track down alleged pirates by uploading fake torrents. Up until now it was always unclear where those files came from, and how to identify them.
The MPAA and other anti-piracy watchdogs try to trap people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP addresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. They hire a company to put up fake copies of popular movies, music albums, and TV series. They even use pirate like filenames such as “Battlestar Galactica S03E07 REPACK DSR XviD-ORENJi” and “Miami Vice[2006]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo“.
One of the btjunkie admins has found a unique way to identify trackers that host these fake files, which makes it easy to efficiently remove them.
Virtually all the servers that spread these fake files are located in Southern California and Las Vegas. The administrators of these servers follow patterns that make it easy to identify them. The content of the trackers and seed amounts make them stand out. There are more unique characteristics, but we wont reveal all the tricks because they could take counter measures.
The MPAA and friends use a variety of tactics. The tracker will either stall everyone at around 90% or the content will just be a blank monochrome screen.
Note that it’s not only MPAA material that is hosted on these fake trackers. It is more likely that the servers are owned and operated by an organization that logs IP addresses for several copyright owners and or anti-piracy organizations.
Update: according to one of out readers these ip-ranges belong to “Media Defender“, a company that is hired by copyright owners, to log IP-addresses. This reader, who worked for Media Defender until recently, confirmed that some of the torrents that were mentioned, are indeed on the MPAA’s list.
Full story:
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-caught-uploading-fake-torrents
