Ares for Windows 7

Recent lawsuits against file-sharing consumers have attracted high profile headlines around the world, but many industry insiders believe that the Recording Industry Association of America is deliberately using scare mongering to frighten consumers away from file sharing networks—and back into the CD stores.

Whilst the RIAA claims that their lawsuits are simply to protect the industry from those wanting to download music for free, many think that the real reason behind the multi million-dollar campaign of intimidation is more about propping up the dying CD industry than protecting artists’ interests. CD sales have fallen considerably in recent years as consumers choose to buy individual tracks from online stores rather than pay for traditional CD albums.

Critics believe that the RIAA needs to wake up and accept that the industry is changing, with online music now the way forward. Instead of penalizing a hapless few, the RIAA needs to consider new business models such as a Voluntary Collective License as suggested by the Electronic Freedom Foundation. But until then, filesharing networks will continue to be unfairly penalized and consumers will keep paying the price for downloading music instead of buying an old fashioned CD.

While UK ISP’s and music rights holders argue over who should bear the cost of illegal peer-to-peer filesharing, PRS for Music has published a paper calling for a piracy tax on UK broadband providers which will fine them based on the amount of illegal music downloads they allow on their network.

PRS is hoping that by introducing this fine against ISP’s, illegal filesharing through broadband networks will end forever. The Digital Economy Act has already stated that illegal filesharing is a problem that needs to be measured, and since the technology is already available that can accurately track users who download files via peer-to-peer networks, PRS thinks that piracy levies are the next logical step in the process.

The PRS for Music report, “Moving Digital Britain Forward Without Leaving Creative Britain Behind”, claims to offer an economic framework for use in structuring a sensible resolution to the problem. Any money raised via fines would be paid to the state or to the rights holders. This amount would be entirely dependent on filesharing traffic over the ISP networks.

Once the two industries stop arguing, it looks likely that file sharers will soon be subject to prohibitive fines.

In a recent high profile file sharing case initiated by the music industry, Joel Tenenbaum has been made an example of and fined a staggering $675,000 for downloading 30 songs over a period of 8 years.

How the jury, comprised of his own peers, came up with such a ludicrous figure for such a relatively paltry crime is anybodies guess. Even the judge commented that the amount was “unconstitutional”. In recognition of the fact Tenenbaum had obviously not realized his act was illegal or intended to make any financial gain, the Judge took the decision to reduce the fine to the lesser amount of $67,500. Tenenbaum was understandably relieved at her decision, but he says he will still have trouble paying the debt, based on his income. However, the music industry still plans to appeal the Judge’s decision.

In view of other recent cases, the real question should be why is the music industry targeting such small time individuals when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that, in many cases, file sharing actually helps to market new and existing artists on the Internet. Instead of making an example of individuals like Joel Tenenbaum, perhaps they should look at the bigger picture.

Courts in Washington D.C. must be having a difficult job of controlling the ridicule that they’re feeling towards the U.S. Copyright Group right now. The Group is attempting to sue 15,000 defendants who have, allegedly, downloaded copies of certain recently released movies. Wow. You may ask: 15,000 people? How’re they going to get around to suing all of those? It’s a good point.

The “solution” as far as the U.S. Copyright Group see it is to lump all 15,000 defendants together and deal with them in one tidy case. The only problem is, well, there are many. Think of the practicalities of these 15,000 people defending themselves in courts. Where are their rights if this happens.

Fortunately the request is due to fail. A similar request by the RIAA for similar filesharing related ‘crimes’ was quickly rejected, with the RIAA ordered to sue individually. Naturally U.S. Copyright Group isn’t going to have the time or resources to bring court cases against 15,000 people, so hopefully this will be a victory for commonsense, something which is sadly lacking in the courts recent approaches to filesharing matters. Don’t hold your breath, though.

LimeWire has gone and done what a lot of people expected – and probably a decent number feared – they would. They’re trying to do a Napster and change to a subscription (and presumably a legitimate) business model. We sincerely hope that they won’t “do a Napster” and almost immediate have to close down, but we dear the worst.

So why has the filesharing giant decided to go on this rather odd path? Why the sudden change in heart? Well, multimillion dollar lawsuits certainly don’t help their cause, nor do the many more that are threatened by the RIAA and its minions. To say LimeWire’s digital hand has been forced is understating the issue: they have absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly no choice in this particular matter.

The plan for this service seems complex. It is a cloud based service with several integrated features… whatever that means. It will combine the best aspects of iTunes and Spotify, apparently.

We may sound a little cynical about this whole thing, but this cynicism is tinged with a resounding sadness. LimeWire represented all that was good and exciting about filesharing. LimeWire WAS the wild west. To see it pandering to the whims of big business is a little sad. We really hope that they pull through.

But this yhis time it is the lesser known NMPA that is taking LimeWire all the way. The NMPA – National Music Publishers Association – is the younger sibling of the RIAA. Obviously it shares with its older brother a willingness to go after what it perceives to be perpetrators of copyright crimes against humanity. In this case, however, it looks just like the NMPA is piggy-backing on the (very) recent success of the RIAA in getting a judgement against LimeWire.

Kicking someone when they’re down? Definitely.

LimeWire will rise again. Of that there is no doubt. There is a good, strong precedence for it in the filesharing industry, too. Change name, adapt, move on. So many groups have done it, and for someone with LimeWire’s experience and contacts, it would be surprising if they didn’t. With resolutions in favor of filesharing services coming out in countries like Spain, there may even be a ’safe haven’ for these new companies.

As always, only time will tell what will happen. No doubt the battle between filesharing services and publishers will continue to the end of time: certainly we can’t see the filesharers giving up any time soon.

In another blow to the Spanish music industry, a court in Madrid dismissed a landmark filesharing case. Egeda, an audiovisual collection society, brought the case in conjunction with Columbia Tristar, against website cvcdgo.com. The site doesn’t host shared content on its website directly, but links to other sites that host torrents and files. Inevitably the sharing website does not have permission to post this shared content.

The court’s opposition to the case was mainly in respect of the p2p content was stored on multiple computers around the world. This lack of direct responsibility on behalf of cvcdgo.com was the deciding factor.

Also playing a role in the dismissal was the lack of financial interest that the site had in the torrents. This despite the fact that the site contains advertising to raise money.

US and UK courts are increasingly moving towards the view that sites linking to content that infringes copyright are themselves culpable, and this move in the opposite direction by the Spanish courts is interesting.

Everyone has different views on this subject, and it needs a global concord to be truly effective: UK and American filesharing companies could quickly move to Spain to get around any restrictions. Don’t expect filesharing to stop anytime soon.

The Digital Economy Bill has been passed as law in the UK, and it brings with it the famous “three strikes” rule for filesharers. Ofcom is working on proposals that would FORCE ISPs to keep records of people accused of illegal filesharing. If any one user is accused three times then they will be placed on a black list. Once a user is on this filesharing blacklist, interested parties can apply by court order to find their true identity. From there the obvious step is to take legal action against the filesharer.

The rule looks like it would be more efficient as a deterrent or scare tactic rather than as a legal ‘cure’: it doesn’t seem likely that publishing giants will want to bother themselves with the many lowly people that are likely to appear on this list (although, having said that, the lawyers involved really, really love to sue people). I guess it’s possible that the publishers will send letters asking for a quick out of court settlement of a fairly small sum of money. The majority of victims will likely pay up out of fear.

Is this is victory for filesharing? We don’t think so.

Sweden’s filesharing laws have been the subject of international interest lately. From being a safe haven for all sorts of filesharing ventures, to being one of the most highly regulated countries on the planet. Think of the rise and fall of The Pirate Bay as one example of this trend.

The fall of The Pirate Bay – and many others – and the decrease in interest in filesharing all come down to one law passed in April last year. The Ipred law says that copyright holders can demand that ISPs give to them the personal details of people downloading their material. Understandably ISPs are reluctant to take a part in this breach of privacy and trust towards their customers.

Particularly reluctant, it seems, is telecoms giant TeliaSonera. The company has just announced its intention to challenge in the Swedish supreme court the decision to hand over these details to one claimant. The company’s lawyers are keen to point out that judges across the country are having difficult reconciling the aims of the Ipred law with the basic principles of privacy and data protection. It believes this ambiguity in the law will give it a good chance of victory.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here it is: is the future of filesharing in jeopardy? It could well be following the ruling of Judge Kimba Wood in a landmark case between the RIAA and LimeWire, the popular filesharing service.

LimeWire, and notably its owner Mark Gorton, stands accused of facilitating filesharing. It is interesting in this case that Wood has actually named Gorton as being personally responsible for his company’s alleged misdemeanors, and this cannot bode well for owners of other filesharing services.

But will the RIAA be interested in open-source operations like Ares? Is there any one person to blame for a piece of software that has been contributed to by hundreds, even thousands of years. Can it legislate against downloads that take place across literally thousands of different locations? Unlikely.

LimeWire and Mark Gorton have responded with strong opposition to the Judge’s decision, and has claimed that it continues to develop innovative products for users, and is committed to working with record-labels – amongst others – to achieve this.

Both sides of this battle, and the many people they represent, will be watching this space with baited breath.