[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html]Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy[/url]

May 4, 2003
Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy,
are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs
that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people that
download pirated music, according to industry executives.
The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which
some experts say have varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft:
from attacking personal Internet connections so as to slow or halt
downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution networks with
potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.
The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they
could be illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed
and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the executives said.
If employed, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet taken
by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that the IFPI,
an industry group, estimates costs the industry $4.3 billion in sales
worldwide annually. Until now, most of the industry's anti-piracy efforts
have involved filing lawsuits against companies and individuals that
distribute pirated music. Last week, four college students who had been
sued by the industry settled the suits by agreeing to stop operating
networks that swap music and pay $12,000 to $17,500 each.
The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by
spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like
KaZaA and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered legal
but has had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more of a
nuisance than an effective deterrent.
The new measures under development take a more extreme - and antagonistic
- approach, according to executives who have been briefed on the software
programs.
Interest among record executives in using some of these more aggressive
programs has been piqued since a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last
month that StreamCast Networks, the company that offers Morpheus, and
Grokster, another file-sharing service, were not guilty of copyright
infringement. And last week, the record industry turned a "chat" feature
in popular file-trading software programs to its benefit by sending out
millions of messages telling people: "When you break the law, you risk
legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL
MUSIC."
The deployment of this message through the file-sharing network, which the
Recording Industry Association of America said is an education effort,
appears to be legal. But other anti-piracy programs raise legal issues.
Since the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities -
criminal and civil - are not easily defined. But some tactics are clearly
more problematic than others.
Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program,
considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users
to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to
download.
A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for
a certain duration - minutes or possibly even hours - risking the loss of
data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a
warning about downloading pirated music. Another program under
development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated
music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on
the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being
reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
Other approaches that are being tested include launching an attack on
personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a
person from using a network while attempting to download pirated music or
offer it to others.
"There are a lot of things you can do - some quite nasty," said Marc
Morgenstern, the chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that
receives support from several large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern
refused to identify his clients, citing confidentiality agreements with
them. He also said that his company does not and will not deploy any
programs that run afoul of the law. "Our philosophy is to make downloading
pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without crossing the
line." And while he said "we develop stuff all the time," he was also
quick to add that "at the end of the day, my clients are trying to develop
relationships with these people." Overpeer, with 15 staff members, is the
largest of about a dozen businesses founded to create counterpiracy
methods.
The music industry's five "majors" - the Universal Music Group, a unit of
Vivendi Universal; the Warner Music Group, a unit of AOL Time Warner; Sony
Music Entertainment; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann; and EMI - have all
financed the development of counterpiracy programs, according to
executives, but none would discuss the details publicly. Warner Music
issued a statement saying: "We do everything we feel is appropriate,
within the law, in order to protect our copyrights." A spokeswoman for
Universal Music said that the company "is engaging in legal technical
measures."
Whether the record companies decide to unleash a tougher anti-piracy
campaign has created a divide among some music executives concerned about
finding a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating its
music-listening customers. There are also questions about whether
companies could be held liable by individuals who have had their computers
attacked.
"Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a
professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright
issues. "It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage.
The law has ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's
computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."
Randy Saaf, the president of MediaDefender, another company that receives
support from the record industry to frustrate pirates, told a
congressional hearing last September that his company "has a group of
technologies that could be very effective in combating piracy on
peer-to-peer networks but are not widely used because some customers have
told us that they feel uncomfortable with current ambiguities in computer
hacking laws."
In an interview, he declined to identify those technologies for
competitive reasons. "We steer our customers away from anything invasive,"
he said.

-- continued --

Internet service providers are also nervous about anti-piracy programs
that could disrupt their systems. Sarah B. Deutsch, associate general
counsel of Verizon Communications, said she is concerned about any program
that slows down connections. "It could become a problem we don't know how
to deal with," she said. "Any technology that has an effect on a user's
ability to operate their computer or use the network would be of extreme
concern to us. I wouldn't say we're against this completely. I would just
say that we're concerned."
Verizon is already caught in its own battle with the recording industry. A
federal judge ordered Verizon to provide the Recording Industry
Association of America with the identities of customers suspected of
making available hundreds of copyrighted songs. The record companies are
increasingly using techniques to sniff out and collect the electronic
addresses of computers that distribute pirated music.
But the more aggressive approach could also generate a backlash against
individual artists and the music industry. When Madonna released "spoofed"
versions of songs from her new album on music sharing networks to
frustrate pirates, her own Web site was hacked into the next day and real
copies of her album were made available by hackers on her site.
The industry has tried to seek legislative support for aggressive
measures. Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California,
introduced a bill last fall that would have limited the liability of
copyright owners for using tougher technical counterpiracy tactics to
protect their works online. But the bill was roundly criticized by privacy
advocates. "There was such an immediate attack that you couldn't get a
rational dialogue going," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording
industry association. He said that while his organization often briefs
recording companies on legal issues related to what he calls "self help"
measures, "the companies deal with this stuff on their own."
And as for the more extreme approaches, he said, "It is not uncommon for
engineers to think up new programs and code them. There are a lot of
tantalizing ideas out there - some in the gray area and some illegal - but
it doesn't mean they will be used."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

won't work

the piracy nerds will find a way around it like they do everything else

I'm with Red_Beard.  The record companies still don't understand the power of the internet.  The people that download music {i]will[/i] learn about it, and quickly figure out how to avoid it.

- Matt

You  can never stop the Spanish Inquisition!!

"A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for
a certain duration - minutes or possibly even hours - risking the loss of
data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted."  Oh my, im shaking in my boots![:O] too bad windows does that for me already.

So they fire the first "bullet," they better be sure that bullet won't turn around and hit them in the ass.

I'll never buy another Dixie Chicks cd...
...kazaa-m exercising ma freedom of speech.[rofl]

Bullshit.
There's more of us and we are better than they.

yup

Hackers aren't gonna be too happy with this crap...

What these idiot record companies need to do is use the resources and money they are using to prevent and sabotage users' computers to advance their own distribution methods.

They are so behind the technology curve and got caught out.  Downloading music is so much easier and allows an almost unlimited access to less popular recordings.  There is a segment of the population that is tired of paying huge margins on media and limited access to desired recordings that are not distributed to the media outlets and they are giving payback.

Instead of fighting the techology, why not join them?  IMHO, these record companies are too lazy to capitalize on the technology and give the consumer what they want.  Instead they have been telling the consumer what they want and a very poor way of doing business.

-934  

If a Trojan were massively distributed with intent on f*ing up a computer, then it is ILLEGAL.

Yep, you're right. The record companies have to have doing this for years and they plan to do it for more years. In the past if a musician or band didn't go thru the big music labels they were pretty much out in the cold.  The record companies today are on the verge losing control of the market they so tightly controlled since the beginning of the entertainment industry.

ColonelKlink: It is not just the cost of the blank CD/LP etc. The record companies have people, studios, taxes etc they have to pay etc, and lot of times they hit some real bombs, so the hits have to make-up for the bombs. I forget exactly but the record labels put out something like 10 CDs, only 1 to 2 will actually make money, and a few will break-even, the rest will lose money.

yep, just like the time they shut down napster to end music theft. that sure worked for um, 10 programs (all better than napster) have filled the vacume. im with red beard. the guys behind the sharing software will remain 3 steps ahead.

The world revolves around money. If you really want to make them cry, don't let anyone buy any music....thats what the radio is for.

For every encryption, there is a decryption.

For every bullet, there is a vest.

What costs the record companies millions to develop will be undone for free by the open source community.

They need to spend their millions putting out better product, because the catalog has absolutely been for shit the past couple of years.

Apple seems to be do(iTunes)ing pretty well selling tracks for $.99 each - they sold just under 300,000 tracks in the first 18 hours. Granted, it's a pilot project, but that's a perfectly reasonable price, and remember that's only the Apple market they're targeting at this point.

This figure is [b]GROSSLY[/b] over estimated. Just because I downloaded the song does not mean I would have bought the CD. These company's can rot in hell for all I care. Metallica can go with them.

EXACTLY!  Of all the 1000 or so dollars worth of music I have, I would not have purchased ONE SINGLE CD if I hadn't downloaded it.  Number one I don't like most of it that much, and number two the bands that I do like and [i]might[/i] buy I would have never even heard of them otherwise.  They aren't losing any money on me....

I'll tell you why their losing money. It's because their used to putting out cd's that have one hit and a shitload of filler and costs $20.00. Everyones getting tired of it. For years I borrowed cd's and recorded just the song(s) I wanted instead of buying them(with some exceptions). I'm still doing basically the same thing it's just a little easier now.

By the way anyone hear about Madonna's website getting hacked? In response to her faked songs on Kazaa that said "What the fuck do you think your doing?" when downloaded, someone captioned her site with "This is what the fuck I think I'm doing" and provided links to real quality downloads to her newest releases. LMAO!

Like that sony copyprotecion that was defeated by a magic marker.

In theory at least, I’m sympathetic to the music industry over this.  Imagine spending weeks or months on a project, just to have someone steal it!!

However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the music industry abounds with miserable and selfish low-life’s that will themselves do anything for money (I think someone already mentioned Maddona!).

So, even though it’s wrong, I’m delighted to see what’s happening to them and I hope it continues!!  [:D]

We've finally found a way to hurt these holywierd types.  Hit them in the pocket.  I for one will sleep soundly knowing I am depriving record execs/bands with political agendas of much needed cash to fund their little "disarmament" campaign.

But seriously, I have bought MORE music now that I can get a good preview before I drop 20 bucks on a CD.

I agree that the value of the downloaded music actually doesn't actually cost the industry as much as they think it does.  They're taking the estimated number of songs/cd's downloaded and assuming that everyone who downloaded a song would have purchased its cd if they hadn't the means to download it.  Anecdotally, I know that simply can't be true for a large portion of the file swapping public.  

While there are probably many who look at it as a cheap way to get all the music they'd endeavor to acquire regardless of the means, someone here has already mentioned and I fall into the category of people who download MP3s, but wouldn't have bothered to buy the cds otherwise.  Just because I bothered to download them doesn't mean I would have paid for them.

Idiots.  Besides, they'll never be able to totally eradicate piracy.  The hardcore bootlegging junkies view this kinda thing as their mission in life to defeat.  If they'd spend half the effort they are lobbying the government to restrict the capabilities of consumer electronics and sabotaging online networks they could have already had a good new business model worked out.  Personally, I think 99 cents per song is a bit high, but I'd certainly pay for cd quality MP3s.  

I agree that the value of the downloaded music actually doesn't actually cost the industry as much as they think it does.  They're taking the estimated number of songs/cd's downloaded and assuming that everyone who downloaded a song would have purchased its cd if they hadn't the means to download it.  Anecdotally, I know that simply can't be true for a large portion of the file swapping public.  

While there are probably many who look at it as a cheap way to get all the music they'd endeavor to acquire regardless of the means, someone here has already mentioned and I fall into the category of people who download MP3s, but wouldn't have bothered to buy the cds otherwise.  Just because I bothered to download them doesn't mean I would have paid for them.

Idiots.  Besides, they'll never be able to totally eradicate piracy.  The hardcore bootlegging junkies view this kinda thing as their mission in life to defeat.  If they'd spend half the effort they are lobbying the government to restrict the capabilities of consumer electronics and sabotaging online networks they could have already had a good new business model worked out.  Personally, I think 99 cents per song is a bit high, but I'd certainly pay for cd quality MP3s.  

Fucking outstanding, I was thinking about DLing American Life just to make sure ANYONE can get a free copy.

Fuck the recording industry (who support anti gun measures) and fuck liberal millionaire celebrities crying about "lost profits."

They don't care about me, I don't care about them.

Yep. It will identified and blocked by anti-virus software, then those companies responsible will be liable for spreading an illegal virus.

But hey, maybe the Republican-controlled congress will push for an amendment making it legal for Big Media to create and spread viruses? They seem more than willing on giving big companies more and more legal access to your personal info, etc.

[url]http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index.html[/url]

Embrace File-Sharing or Die

Long, but interesting article on file-sharing with an different point of view.