Crave

Peer-to-peer file-sharing generally involves free software, and much of the technology is certainly still legal in the United States (for now). However, once you start trading copyrighted material like music and movies, that's where legal problems arise. If you're trafficking, uploading or downloading copyrighted digital material without consent of the owner, you are infringing. You are also risking the possibility of massive penalties, more if the work in question has not yet been released.

This weekend, a company called Qtrax made a big splash by announcing "the world's first free and legal peer-to-peer digital music site." It turns out that line of marketing nonsense was only the beginning of the company's misdirections.

Qtrax didn't give me free music downloads, but it did teach me a bit about the Oracle Application Server 10g.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

After announcing deals to provide music from Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, and EMI Recorded Music at the Midem music conference in Cannes, France, Qtrax CEO Allan Klepfisz told CNET News.com on Sunday that there may not be agreements "written in stone." With such shenanigans involved, it's unlikely those agreements will ever be signed.

What's most unfortunate about the whole affair is that the name of a fine open-source project gets dragged through the mud. Songbird is a Firefox analog that adds media playback and library-management features to the popular browser. It's very cool, with tons of potential, but it's still unstable and in need of much development.

Qtrax simply grabbed the Songbird code, slapped in a few of its own extensions, added a big advertising banner on the top and a bookmark to the Qtrax Web site, and then launched this version of Songbird as its own. Qtrax didn't even write a new license or even rename the installer. Shenanigans, Part 2.

In essence, if you download Qtrax, you will get a beta application, hijacked by beta advertising modules, and offering zero free content. Sorry. Not good enough for me, and not yet good enough for CNET Download.com. Forgive me if I feel the need to sic Netdisaster on the Qtrax Web site.

I would love to see a viable, advertising-supported digital-music model, but I would be very surprised if Qtrax is the one to provide it.

Would you use a "free," advertising-supported P2P file-sharing client? If not, what's on your list for the perfect digital-music delivery system? Tell me about it in the comments.

UPDATE: 7:12 A.M. (1-28-08): Qtrax continues to delay the launch of its much awaited legal file-sharing site as more record labels confirm that the startup doesn't have permission to sell their music.

For weeks, Qtrax, an ad-supported P2P site, had promised to offer free and legal music downloads from all four of the major record labels when it opened for business.

But despite earlier reports, Qtrax's Web site will apparently not feature legal downloads from any of the majors when it debuts. On the eve of the site's launch, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group said that Qtrax was not authorized to offer their music.

Both companies said they continue to negotiate with Qtrax, but emphasized that they don't have a done deal. A spokesman from Sony BMG echoed the other two companies by confirming on Monday morning that the label has not signed on to Qtrax either.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that New York-based Qtrax is also without a final agreement with the EMI Group. The blog, Silicon Alley Insider, was first to report on Qtrax's troubles.

Meanwhile, Qtrax has missed it's launch time of midnight Monday morning ET. More than eight hours later, visitors were still not allowed to download music. Robin Kent, a Qtrax marketing executive said that it might be another 24 hours before the company can enable downloads.

Qtrax CEO Allan Klepfisz acknowledged in an interview with CNET News.com late Sunday evening that his company may not possess agreements "written in stone," but that it doesn't mean Qtrax is without the labels' consent to feature their music.

"This is a tempest in a tea cup," Klepfisz said from the Midem music conference in Cannes, France. "It's true, some of the deals may not be locked in ink, but it's also true that we had understandings. In some cases, we had endorsements."

Klepfisz said it was likely the Qtrax Web site would debut featuring music from all four labels despite the public comments by UMG and Warner. Is he worried about a lawsuit?

"The answer is nobody has threatened us with a thing," Klepfisz said. "We plan to release music the way we said we were."

Qtrax's business model is based on offering people an attractive and legal file-sharing site.

The company's music offering sits on top of the Gnutella file-sharing network. Once a user downloads Qtrax's software client, they can look for songs with the help of the company's finger-printing technology.

Qtrax guarantees to protect customers from spyware or viruses that plague illegal sites. The way Qtrax makes money is by placing ads on its Web pages. The company then splits the ad revenue with the labels.

Recently, the labels have embraced ad-supported models. What they don't seem keen on are ad-supported sites that offer downloads.

For example, services such as Imeem and Last.fm, which stream music to listeners but don't allow them to download it to a computer or portable device, offer songs from all four top labels.

SpiralFrog, one of the best known services and one that enables people to download to a PC and some portable devices, has been toiling in the sector for nearly two years and has only managed to land one of the biggie labels: Universal Music Group.

An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a computer.

National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled consumers.

Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their computers.

Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications repeated Fisher's claims.

But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law.

"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about putting them into a shared folder."

The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music files via peer-to-peer networks.

Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial," Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days later.

It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any problems.

"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a legal right."

Here was an opportunity for Sherman to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements. He did state that there is one foolproof way of discovering the RIAA's policy on personal use: check the record.

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single claim has ever been made."

In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case scenarios.

Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued? If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in this case.

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

It's late on Wednesday evening and the Washington Post has yet to correct a story that accused the recording industry of trying to paint law-abiding music fans as criminals.

But the paper should make things right and soon.

Marc Fisher, a Post columnist, wrote on Sunday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserted in a legal brief that anyone who copies music from a CD onto their computer is a thief. The document, filed last month, was part of the RIAA's copyright suit against Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona resident accused of illegal file sharing.

Quoting from the brief, Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law. If it were true, the move would represent a major shift in strategy by the RIAA, which typically hasn't challenged an individual's right to copy CDs for personal use.

The problem with Fisher's story is that nowhere in the RIAA's brief does the group call someone a criminal for simply copying music to a computer. Throughout the 21-page brief, the recording industry defines what it considers to be illegal behavior and it boils down to this: creating digital recordings from CDs and then uploading them to file-sharing networks.

A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

The Post story, which followed similar pieces in Ars Technica and Wired.com, has spurred scores of other media outlets to repeat the paper's erroneous assertion. Ironically, even typically anti-RIAA blogs, such as Engadget, Gizmodo and TechDirt have jumped in on the side of the RIAA.

"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

After reading Lamy's statement, Fisher didn't back down.

He responded in an e-mail to CNET News.com: "The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."

He took one more shot before signing off: "Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."

Still, Fisher received little support from respected and independent copyright experts. William Patry, the copyright guru at Google--not exactly known as a lackey for copyright holders--wrote on his blog that the RIAA is being "unfairly maligned" in the Post story.

Patry does, however, caution that recent statements made by the RIAA and included in Fisher's story reflect the group's growing tendency to use language as a means of control.

Fisher quoted Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, who testified recently in court that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

Patry disagreed.

"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

FrostWire hopes to breathe some new life into the much-maligned P2P file-sharing client LimeWire.

LimeWire has become the Web 2.0 equivalent of Kazaa and the late 1990s Napster. What you think is last night's episode of Heroes turns out to be a villainous chunk of malware, and litigation issues have forced its programmers to include a license filter, warning you if you're about to grab something without proper copyright information attached. Plus, the interface is ugly.

... Read more

The RIAA's justification for its strong-arm tactics against alleged file sharers is simple: file sharing acts as a substitute for music purchases and is directly and primarily responsible for plummetting CD sales (which are down 14 percent from last year). I've argued in the past that the entire drop can't be blamed on piracy, and one Harvard study suggested that piracy is having no effect at all.

This week, Billboard published an article about a study commissioned by the Canadian government that investigated the connection between file sharing and CD sales. The surprising conclusion: the most active file traders on P2P networks actually buy more CDs than their less active counterparts. This seems to suggest that the recording industry should abandon its crackdown and embrace P2P networks.

But wait: economist Stanley Leibowitz at the University of Texas, Dallas, has posted a well-reasoned critique of the Canadians' methodology. Essentially, the more active file sharers are the same people who are most interested in music, and therefore the most likely to be buying large volumes of CDs. So, of course you'll see an increase in both measurements--CD purchases and file-trading activity--simultaneously among the same users. To correct for this "simultaneity effect," you have to measure the overall volume of file sharing over time across all types of users--casual to extreme music fans--and compare it with CD sales over the same period. If you do that, Leibowitz claims, you'll see a direct correlation between file sharing and reduced CD sales.

Another problem that seems obvious to me: by focusing on P2P networks, these studies (and the RIAA) ignore other types of file sharing that I think are much more prevalent, such as burned CDs and flash drives. Ten years ago, very few CD collections included music recorded on CD-Rs. Today, almost every collection does.

Also, these studies strike me a bit like investigating why the horse escaped and arguing whether it's because somebody left the barn door open by accident or on purpose. The industry knows its predicament--it's very easy for customers to get recorded music for free. The interesting question is how (and whether) they can adjust their business models to stay viable and relevant under these new conditions.

Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman ordered earlier this month to pay the recording industry $222,000, is pulling out the stops in her bid to defend herself in court.

The 30-year-old woman has begun selling men's and women's undergarments, coffee mugs, canine apparel, and baby bibs to raise money to pay her legal fees. All the merchandise is stamped with the new "Free Jammie" logo created for her by one of her supporters.

The logo features a music note superimposed on a globe and the words: "Free Jammie. Free Everyone."

Thomas is the first person accused of illegal file sharing by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to present a defense before a jury. She denied the RIAA's accusations that she attempted to share 24 songs online and maintained that someone must have spoofed her IP address. The jury didn't believe her story.

Her lawyers have asked for a new trial and will likely file an appeal. To many file sharers, Thomas has become a symbol of RIAA heavy handedness for going after a single mother of two who makes less than $40,000 a year. Those who support copyright law say Thomas was caught sharing files and isn't worthy of pity because she had an opportunity to settle with the RIAA for a few thousand dollars.

Thomas was unavailable for comment Monday, but one has to wonder whether she's taken to selling merchandise as a result of lackluster donations.

Soon after losing her court case, Thomas' supporters began sending her money. In the past three weeks, according to the Web site freejammie.com, she has raised only $16,000. Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney, was reluctant to say how much an appeal could cost, but said it would be a minimum of $30,000 to $40,000.

Jammie Thomas is hard to rattle.

Jammie Thomas

She doesn't raise her voice or get angry when a reporter asks her to read a story where she is called a "liar" by a member of the jury that found her guilty of copyright violations and ordered her to pay the recording industry $220,000 in damages.

She calmly reads the quotes by juror Michael Hegg that appeared Tuesday in a story by Wired.com. She then draws a bead on where Hegg said he is a father, former snowmobile racer and has never been on the Internet.

"I don't need to say too much, obviously," Thomas told CNET News.com on Wednesday. "They admit that they are computer illiterate. This person (Hegg) has never been on the Internet, so how can he say whether my story is possible? I've been contacted by Internet security experts who said that spoofing my address would have been trivial. Internet illiterate people are not going to be able to understand that."

Thomas was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for sharing 24 songs online and infringing on intellectual property. Instead of settling for a few thousands dollars like most of those sued by the group, Thomas is the first to take her case to a jury.

In the interview with Wired's David Kravets, Hegg, a steelworker from Duluth, Minn., said that during deliberations, the jury concluded after only five minutes that Thomas was guilty. They then spent five hours trying to decide what to award the recording industry. Hegg, 38, said the jurors did not believe her story that someone spoofed her IP address.

"She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars," Hegg told Wired. "Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.' She's a liar."

Thomas, 30, has announced that she intends to appeal the case brought against her by the RIAA. She said she is seeking to argue her case before someone who is more tech-savvy.

But if Thomas can produce experts that can prove its possible her IP was spoofed, why didn't she present them in court?

"We didn't have the money to put those experts on the stand," Thomas said. "(Hegg) can say my story is not true, but at the same time you're talking about a person with no technology background whatsoever. He said his wife is an Internet guru, but his wife wasn't on the jury."

Thomas also was disappointed that the jury may have been punishing her for crimes committed by others.

"We wanted to send a message," Hegg said in the Wired interview, "that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

Thomas doesn't believe the law allows that.

The jury "saw those feeds that showed 2 million people shared using (file-sharing service) Kazaa and they want to hold me responsible for that," Thomas said. "The law states that you can't hold me responsible for the actions of another. This is one of the reasons why I'm appealing."

On a separate issue, a Web site created to accept donations from Thomas' supporters has crashed after receiving more than 500,000 visitors, she said. Freejammie.com is being moved to a new host server and should reappear in a few days.

Thomas said the site has raised more than $9,000 and the money will go to pay her legal bills.

Peer-to-peer company BitTorrent is set to announce on Tuesday morning the availability of a new enterprise content delivery product, BitTorrent DNA. Designed for companies that use streaming video, large downloads or games over the Web, the launch of BitTorrent DNA marks yet another conscious move by the San Francisco-based software brand to move beyond its roots as the creator of file-sharing protocol that became nearly synonymous with digital piracy over the past few years.

BitTorrent described the new BitTorrent DNA product in a statement as "the ideal solution for publishers seeking ways to overcome the obstacles associated with centralized content delivery, such as slow downloads, choppy video streams, and inefficient use of network infrastructure." The inaugural client for the new content delivery network (CDN) is online video start-up Brightcove, which powers a number of large companies' broadband media operations.

BitTorrent DNA will be used to "accelerate" the delivery of the video hosted on Brightcove's platform.

With the rise of online video and large-scale media downloads, content delivery has become a crowded niche in the market. BitTorrent DNA will square off with industry leaders like Akamai Technologies--the force behind CBS' video distribution network as well as a host of others. BitTorrent is hoping, however, that its massive following (150 million downloads of its client, according to the company) will help give it an edge.

In addition, the peer-to-peer format has become increasingly popular in the streaming video space, with recent entries like Joost and Babelgum touting P2P technology as the backbone for their professional-quality video content.

In February, BitTorrent announced that it was creating a digital download store that would use that robust user base as a way to legally transfer large movies, games and other files. The company has also forged alliances with major movie studios for legal film downloads.

Meanwhile, the exhaustive battle over online piracy wages on.