"Ripping" Vs. "Sharing"

The debate about strict copyright laws, digital downloading, and the illegal "sharing" of music has gone on for some time. You shouldn't be able to make a back-up copy of a CD, say some, because that's copyright infringement. You shouldn't be able to download music from a legal Website and then burn it to more than one disc because, again, that's copyright infringement. Apparently digital downloading has caused this horror in the music industry. Yet today, I witnessed something that had me scratching my head. After lunch with a couple of colleagues, they wanted to pop into HMV to grab some "new" music for their iPods. Sick of the same old, same old, they decided to swap: you buy a few CDs you like, I'll buy some I like, and then we'll trade. Hmm...makes sense, right?

To the pro-copyright camp, they just violated the very sanctity of music. How dare you buy CDs and trade music like that? Essentially, that means you got every CD half-price, right? But from the pro-digital, evolution of music standpoint, what they've done is just opened each other's eyes to new music they may never have bothered to buy, in physical format or otherwise. Now not only is there a greater appreciation for different types of music, but there's also the increased chance that they'll like what they hear, and add a new artist to their radar for future purchases. What a concept!

On that note, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there were new CDs available for as little as $12.99, and even $10! The last time I recall, new releases were, at best, $13.99 or $15.99. There were even some pretty good CDs selling "two for $12" or $25. Not bad. Still, I hesitated to buy anything, thinking that I'd just download the specific tunes I want and make a "mixed" CD (only one, of course. God forbid I make one for a friend as well). But at the prices they're at, it's almost worth it to buy the media (especially for the potentially better quality) and save myself the time.

I can't believe I'm saying it, but maybe CDs will return to profitability as people decide that they can't be bothered, or don't have the time, to compile a list of tunes, download them, and burn them to a CD as normal practice. If it isn't a hobby, it can certainly get time-consuming. And iPod owners know how expensive it can also get buying tune after tune, not realizing how much they add up until you get the dreaded credit card bill!

I could be way off base here, but it's food for thought, nonetheless.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving to all of our readers in the U.S. We wish you all the best on this wonderful holiday. Eat, play, and be merry!

Victory in Cablevision DVR Case...For Now

Several cable networks filed a suit two years ago that attempted to stop U.S. cable operator Cablevision from creating a network digital video recorder (DVR). The product would allow Cablevision customers to record programming onto a central network in the home rather than to the cable box itself. Naturally, the protests echo two words we've heard many times before in the consumer electronics arena: unauthorized reproduction. Not to mention that customers will continue to be able to skip through commercials, making it that much more difficult to sell advertising between programming.

The argument that such a DVR would be "reproducing" work is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The customer would be storing and/or "reproducing" the content for use in his own home; maybe to watch at a later date, maybe to watch two or three times, and yes, probably to watch while flipping past the commercials. Either way, it's like he's taking a CD in playing it in the stereo in his living room versus his portable Walkman. Does it really matter where or how he enjoys the content if he's paid for it?

The latter point about skipping over TV commercials is one that has become a real bone of contention in the TV world. But many networks have, rather than sit with their arms folded and bottom lips in the pout position, picked up on new and more clever ways to incorporate advertising within the actual content rather than in between it. This ranges from blatent product placements (even more so than usual), to in-show, one-minute rants about a product. I've even seen entire movie trailers being shown during a TV program, and touted as an "exclusive first look". Really, you're being tricked into thinking that by watching this show, you get to see this trailer while no one else does. But in actuality, you're watching a commercial without even knowing it!

The reality is that, despite the pushback from networks who insist upon getting rid of new technology devices like the DVR in question, traditional TV advertising as we know it simply won't continue forever. While some might frown upon the in-show ads, we do need to understand that someone or something needs to pay the bills. Some actors, like daytime talk show host Ellen Degeneres and nighttime talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, have even been said to add humour to the product pitches so that they become part of the program in a seamless and entertaining way.

We can certainly expect the networks involved to appeal the New York court's decision that overturned the ruling, and will essentially let the product be made. Nevertheless, the Financial Times cites Cablevision as saying that it will "waste no time in rolling out the technology."

While this case only pertains to laws in the U.S., it could certainly spill over to places like Canada, where we have our own battles with copyright law, DRM restrictions, and unauthorized (or perceived to be unauthorized) content reproduction.

Music File Sharers: 1, RIAA: 0

In the continuing battle to shut down illegal peer-to-peer music sharing Websites, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the U.S. recording industry, has been dealt a blow. The District Court of Arizona has ruled in the case of Atlantic vs. Howell that simply keeping music in a "shared" folder on one's PC doesn't constitute illegal file sharing. In addition, the court called the act of downloading content from someone's PC "secondary copyright infringement" rather than "primary", since that person would be taking a copy of a copy, and not a copy of the original. Do you follow? The Court adds that the definition of "distribute" within the Copyright Act is not made clear enough to determine if simply making music available to others in itself can be considered "distributing" it.

At the end of its decision, the Court stated that it "is not unsympathetic to the difficulty that Internet file-sharing systems pose to owners of registered copyrights. Even so, it is not the position of this court to respond to new technological innovations by expanding the protections received by copyright holders beyond those found in the Copyright Act."

This makes sense. If someone steals something from me, how is it my fault? The owner of a stack of CDs in his car isn't considered at fault if a thief breaks in and steals them, even if he accidentally left the door unlocked. So why should someone be considered at fault if he fails to protect his PC hard drive, and others steal content from it?

It's true that, in some cases, people will purposely leave music in a "shared" folder in order to ramp up P2P site offerings. But in other cases, it could be an honest mistake. I'll bet that my parents make all their music available through a shared folder and don't even know it!

In this particular case, the Howells had over 4,000 music tracks available through the online P2P site KaZaA, many of which were digitally ripped copies of original recordings. However, although they admit to purposely sharing other content via KaZaA, they claim not to have intended to share the original recordings.

This could be a groundbreaking case in the issue of music distribution online and P2P sharing, which has plagued the music industry for years. Many artists have been taking the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" stance as of late, doing things like offering music tracks for free online in hopes of gaining consumer support. What's your stance on this issue?

IFPI Grasping at Straws to Deter Illegal Music Industry

Discussing issues related to illegal music and movie downloading, and the high-definition DVD format war in this industry is like a Hollywood gossip blog writing about Britney Spears. You read the same stuff over and over again, yet can't help but cover it because it's such a hot topic. Here's another one for the roster: the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI), which works in tandem with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), hopes to help deter illegal music downloading by urging Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take action against its guilty customers. Huh?

Yes, the Federation says that ISPs should take a "far bigger role in protecting music on the Internet". By "far bigger role" it means cutting off any Internet user that frequently uploads copyright material using the provider's service. In November, the French government put such an action plan into play.

Although this might be an effective way to deter illegal uploaders (and thus downloaders), at what point will blame stop being placed on anyone and everyone? Should Microsoft or Apple be held liable because they provide the software for the computers to work? Or how about PC manufacturers? Should they be deemed guilty by association if an illegal uploaded is using one of their products to engage in his activity?

Perhaps the efforts should be placed on figuring out why people are sourcing content in this way in such large numbers, and find out how to sway them toward legal content rather than away from illegal versions. Illegal music downloading has become such a widespread problem, in part, because consumers don't see an acceptable alternative in the digital arena. Now that DRM-free tunes through legitimate sites are surfacing, we might see more support move toward legal activity, and away from "free" stuff.

Also, the IFPI blames a lack of interoperability between services and devices for hampering progress in the legel digital download space. Yet other associations and groups try to lobby for levies to be placed on portable audio players to compensate for the ability to record tunes from one device to another. So we should be able to download tunes and use them on a multitude of devices, but if we use them on a multitude of devices, then we're illegally "copying" them.

When will it end? We likely have a long way to go.

On a related note, the IFPI says that digital downloads account for about 15% of the global music market, up 4% from last year. In the U.S., that number spikes to 30% in revenue. In 2007, 20 illegal tracks were downloaded for every legally downloaded one.

Uproar About Possible Canadian Copyright Changes

There has been an uproar in Canada as of late regarding potential new Canadian copyright legislation that could mean major changes to the way we consume digital content. Many feel that we could be plagued with laws that mirror the American DMCA (Digital Milennium Copyright Act) which strictly forbids the copying of any media that’s locked or “protected” (like music protected by DRM restrictions). Remember a slew of lawsuits against college students and little kids back in 2003 when the U.S. began its rampage against illegal music downloaders? Well, this is what a change in copyright legislation could lead to here in Canada: illegal copying being deemed punishable by law.

Don't get me wrong: I don't condone illegal behaviour, and I think this could help when it comes to busting large piracy rings. But where we need to draw the line is at individual, personal use. A ruling like this could result in innocent Holly homemakers and Little Billies being deemed criminals because they want to use content they've purchased in a certain way. For example, if you make a copy of a CD or DVD to listen to in the car; or transfer a movie from a physical DVD to your nifty, new media server.

The Sling Media Slingbox is a perfect example of this. If you aren’t familiar with the Slingbox, it's a device that can be connected to a video source, like your cable set-top box, and a high-speed Internet connection at home, then allows you to watch your cable from your notebook PC (or compatible PDA) anywhere in the world where there’s a high-speed Internet connection. The key word here is your cable service on your notebook. This is great if, say, you’re in Hong Kong on business, but don’t want to miss the Leafs play-off games. Why is this so wrong? You’ve already paid for the cable, and you’ve paid for the notebook. Even if you have a friend join you to watch the game on your tiny notebook screen, how is this any different than having him over to your home to watch it on your big-screen TV? Yet copyright laws could indeed make this act a criminal offense!

There are even more shady areas, like recording programs onto a TiVo, loading up an iPod with ripped tunes, and even watching a TV program that you saved to a flash memory card in your PC. What's next? An officer waiting outside the bathroom to write me a ticket for infringing on artist copyrights because i was singing his song in the shower?

The problem with things like the DMCA is that they attempt to limit what one customer can do with things he’s already purchased, and this simply isn’t fair. I have made analogies before, like giving a friend a pair of jeans or jewelry. Technically, doing so means she isn’t going to go out and purchase the item herself, and I’m using the clothing or jewelry for means other than for what I purchased them. Should this be considered illegal? Of course not. The very thought is ludicrous. Yet if I purchase digital tunes and give a copy of them to my friend, that’s considered illegal.

I’m not naïve to think that people could, and would, take advantage of illegal copying. And these are the people that the law needs to go after: those who are producing items in mass quantities and selling them at a profit. But to consider the everyday Holly Homemaker or suburban family with a media server as criminals is quite simply, nonsense. Not to mention that it wouldn't solve anything; it would more likely cause an even bigger backlash against the broadcast industry than we’ve already seen.

The new copyright legislation was to be announced this past week, but the decision has been postponed until the end of the year, likely due to the amount of consumer attention that has arisen over the rumoured changes. Let's keep our fingers crossed that we won't be restricted any further in how we enjoy our own digital content.

YouTube Works on Copyright Video Filtering Technology

In an effort to ward off evil, copy-written videos from being posted on YouTube, Google says its working on some sort of video-recognition technology that would be able to detect content that infringes upon copyrights before it is actually posted.

Although I don’t think it’s right to leave a problem to fend for itself, I also wonder how well such a technology would work. It’s no secret that every time a technology is introduced to prevent illegal copying or distribution of content online, some tech geek hacker finds a way to crack it, and we’re back to square one again.

In some ways, the current method of waiting until illegal material has been flagged and promptly removing it might be the most successful way to go. Sure, some content ends up leaking to a small portion of visitors that manage to catch the video in time (like in the case of the movie Sicko, where about 600 people saw it before it was removed). But is preventing this worth the possibility that the new technology could wrongfully identify a personal video and prevent someone from posting their own stuff? What’s more, if someone is anxious enough to view leaked content online, he’s probably just as anxious to get out there and watch the actual movie/show as well.

Trying to control the behaviour of millions and millions of users will indeed be difficult; especially since YouTube sees thousands of videos posted on its site per day. But it’s a move Google must make in order to protect the rights of content owners. This is especially important since several lawsuits have been made against Google/YouTube, claiming that the company allowed thousands of unauthorized clips to be posted.

According to Times Online, a Viacom lawyer (one of the firm’s named in the suit) said that if the filtering mechanism helps, they’d be "very grateful" for it. But, all plaintiffs in the suit feel that YouTube should have acted sooner.

Google says the new filtering technology should be implemented by September. I can’t wait to see how it pans out!