Major bands sue Sony Music and Tunebite now supports removal of DRM in video files ...Worst DRM laws in the world

File sharers - 10 years in jail

p2p news view / p2pnet: Ed Felton recently pointed out that under the proposed extensions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA 2.0 as it is becoming known as), non-commercial copyright infringement such as file sharing would carry a bigger penalty than manslaughter - up to ten years in the big house.

Compared to the average sentence for manslaughter (33 months in jail), one really does have to wonder if Lamar Smith has actually thought about his proposed bill, or if the rush of campaign contributions from Hollywood has gone to his head, because under the DMCA 2.0, you'd be better off going old school and just stealing CDs from Wal-Mart.

That's larceny and will get you a whopping 8.3 months in jail if the Wal-Mart rent-a-cops catch you on the way out.

The same goes for the increased anti-circumvention provisions that are on the table. DMCA 2.0 would make it illegal to simply have anti-circumvention tools in your possession with intent to distribute them, and it's easy to imagine a federal prosecutor arguing an internet connection serves as proof that an unlucky researcher was planning to share their 133t h4xor tools with the world.

I can see the headlines now: "File sharing Down 2%, Petty Theft up 862%", followed closely by "IP Laws Backfire On U.S., Smart Yanks Flee Country".

So what happens if you can't be bothered cracking it yourself and just go find the guy who designed the copy protection and point a shotgun at him until he posts the source code online? Well, that would add up to about 20 years. So you'd be better off just sending anonymous threats about his family - that's only worth about seven years on average, and it'd be easier to argue you weren't actually serious about the whole thing if you were to be caught.

Even if you did get sent down for it, you'd still come in three years under sentences being handed out to geeky researchers.

And Hey! If you only get five months inside for telling eBay's ceo you're going to "haunt and hurt you and your family," I'm sure there will be some one out there willing to sacrifice themselves so that everyone can enjoy unencrypted HD movies.

Or more likely, someone driven to insanity by overly restrictive DRM (and I understand "temporary insanity" goes down well with the judge). Just. Copy. Damn. Thing. To. Ipod. Ahhhhhh!

go here to read it all
http://p2pnet.net/story/8664

GO HERE TO READ THE TECH NEWS OF THE DAY

http://dvdxcopy.afterdawn.com/forum_view.cfm/74

 

Worst DRM laws in the world,

p2p news / p2pnet: Early next month, the French Senate will consider proposals to make major changes to the country's copyright law.

Hijacked by entertainment companies and DRM vendors, it could become, "one of the worst DRM laws in the world," states Cory Doctorow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

French DRM law gets ugly - protest May 7/2PM Place de la Bastille
By Cory Doctorow - Boing Boing

Previously, we wrote about the new French DRM law proposal, which held out the promise of being the first real attempt in the world to balance the legal protection of anti-user technology with the public interest. The activists of EUCD.info were concerned that the proposal was being hijacked by Universal/Vivendi, and this has come to pass.

EUCD.info's Jérémie Zimmermann sent us the following, shocking account of how the French law went from being fair and balanced to being a one-sided gimme to entertainment companies and their arms-dealers. Don't miss the last paragraph, where Jérémie announces EUCD.info's planned street-demonstration on May 7, at 2PM at the Place de la Bastille:

Jérémie writes:

The French Senate will consider a major revision to its copyright law on May 4th, 9th and 10th. This law will implement the EUCD (the European equivalent of the DMCA) and change French author's rights and copright. It was voted by the first chamber on Feb 21st. This will be the final parliamentary step of the examination process, as a shortened "emergency procedure" was called on such a crucial subject.

The Senators are grouped by commissions. The "Commission of Cultural Affairs" that is in charge of this law voted for proposed amendments. They were made public a few days ago, and the "rapporteur" (overseer/project leader) of the law, M. Thiollière will defend them so they can be examined and voted during the public debates.

There's bad news for a revolutionary proposal (Article 7) that requires DRM makers to allow anyone to build interoperable technology. This was strenuously objected to by Apple and the US Department of Commerce but it was unanimously voted in at the last moment during the first meeting. Now it stands to be completely neutered:

* Gone is the requirement that anyone may ask a regular court of justice to force a DRM publisher to give information needed for interoperability. Now a "high regulation authority of technical measures" will have sole discretion as to whether this information will be available.

* Previously, "information needed for interoperability" covered "technical documentation and programming interfaces needed to obtain a copy in an open standard of the copyrighted work, along with its legal information." Now this has been changed to "technical documentation and programming interfaces needed to obtain a protected copy of a copyrighted work." But a "protected" version of the work can't be played back in a different player, which means interoperability won't be attained with this clause.

go here to read it all
http://p2pnet.net/story/8675

 

Record label 'restrictive pricing'

p2p news view / p2pnet: Recent reports say that US authorities have started an investigation into the online music industry, looking into, "possible anti-competitive practices".

This issue resonates in Australia, where consumers may be paying almost three times more for digital music downloads than they should be.

In 1998, the parallel-import amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 were enacted, allowing retailers to import compact discs and sell them, provided they were legitimately manufactured overseas under licence. The major record companies opposed these changes, claiming they'd destroy the local recording industry.

The record companies lost the argument, and in 2001 the Federal Court found Warner Music, Universal Music and a number of executives had misused their market power by engaging in exclusive deals to prevent parallel imports of CDs.

Music CD consumers have two options: they can purchase locally made CDs or they can buy cheaper ones imported legally by Australian retailers. While Australian record companies have complained about these "$10 CD stores", these outlets are not breaking the law.

Record companies harbour animosity against parallel importers, refusing to help them if they have any queries regarding the legitimacy of overseas-sourced products, for example. The basis of the animosity is that when an imported CD is purchased in Australia, the profit is recorded by the affiliate in the place of manufacture, rather than here.

Parallel imports are unavailable in the Australian digital market, however. Australian consumers can't buy downloads from iTunes or Wal-Mart in the US, which are often cheaper than downloads available here, without a US-issued credit card.

And restrictive licensing conditions imposed by copyright owners also limit the sale of digital downloads across international borders. For both reasons Australian consumers miss out. And retailers cannot buy downloads from overseas and resell them here, even if it is worthwhile for them to do so.

In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300% more expensive.

If these savings were available in the digital market, consumers would be paying as little as 67 cents for a digital download, instead of the $1.69 to $1.89 a track they pay at present. Similarly, consumers could be paying as little as $6.91 per digitally downloaded album, instead of the present $17 to $20.


GO HERE TO READ IT ALL
http://p2pnet.net/story/8677

 

Tunebite now supports removal of DRM in video files
Posted by Jan Willem on 27 April 2006 - 21:50 - Source: Rapid Solution

The following text is a complete press release, unmodified by CD Freaks. If you don't want to view these kind of news posting you can disable them in your preferences page once logged in. Please send your press releases to news@cdfreaks.com

RapidSolution Software today announced the release of Version 3 of its popular Windows software Tunebite. The product, which protects consumers from the frustrations of copy-protection formats, creates unprotected private copies of music and audio book files by recording them as they are being played. The new version, which now also offers support for copy-protected video clip formats, is available at Tunebite.com.

Increased Consumer Protection within the Letter of the Law

Since 2004, RapidSolution has helped responsible consumers exercise their legal right to be able to play music they have purchased online on all of their playback devices, free from the limitations of copy protection. To this end, previous releases of Tunebite allowed users to play copy-protected music and audio book files on the PC in software players supporting copy-protection formats, and to simultaneously record them for the purpose of creating unprotected copies for private use. Tunebite 3 Platinum now also supports the ability to record copy-protected video clips while they are being played.

Tunebite Frees Music, Audio Book and Now Video Clip Files from DRM Problems

go here to read it all
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13353

 

EFF: New Legislation Will Kill Net Radio
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
April 27, 2006, 3:23 PM

The Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that proposed legislation now making its way through the Senate might put an end to music webcasts that use MP3 or other non-protected streaming formats. Services like Live365, Shoutcast, and smaller radio stations would be affected, and may be forced to use DRM technogy.

It would also mean an end to the streaming radio stations in iTunes as well. The iTunes stations also use DRM-less formats, the EFF said.

Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Introduced the provision as part of a larger bill Wednesday aimed at ensuring that copyright holders are compensated as satellite radio allows its users to save programming.

"I believe our laws must strike the proper balance between fostering new businesses and technology and protecting the property rights of the artists whose music is being played," Feinstein said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue Wednesday.

Called the PERFORM Act, short for the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006,"

go here to read it all
http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_New_Legislation_Will_Kill_Net_Radio/1146163425

 

Major bands sue Sony Music

p2p news / p2pnet: With word of the huge Canadian pro-musician-led revolution echoing everywhere but (predictably) in the entertainment cartel controlled media, two major US bands are suing Big Four Organized Music gang member Sony Music "in the amount of millions of dollars " for failing to pay what it owes.

In a class action, "Sony Music is not paying its recording artists 50% of the net licensing revenue received by Sony Music in connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple and other third party providers of digital downloads, as Sony Music is contractually obligated to do," say lawyers representing the Allman Brothers (top) and Cheap Trick.

"Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads (after deducting payments to music publishers), the suit alleges that Sony Music wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape), only paying on 85% of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is breakage of product), deducting a 20% fee for container/packaging charges associated with the digital downloads (although there are none), and reducing its payments by a further 50% "audiofile" deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per digital download.

"According to the complaint filed, The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick and other members of this class action have been damaged in the amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty payments which Sony Music has retained for its own benefit in breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions."


go here to read it all
http://p2pnet.net/story/8683