Copyfutures

Corporate Labels Still Not Getting It

OK, so a few major record labels have decided to embrace the peer to peer file sharing format, however they fail to embrace the reasons why the format has been so successful. That is, it’s been free.

According to an article on CNET and Wired News, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group have hooked up with Wurld Media and agreed to distribute with their music via Peer Impact, Wurld’s legitimate p2p file distributing service.

"Sony BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group have signed a deal, announced this week, with Wurld Media to provide music for its peer-to-peer service called Peer Impact. The company is also negotiating with EMI to add its content.

Peer Impact is scheduled for launch in the first quarter of 2005. The company also plans to offer a legal way to download movies and games in addition to music, according to Wurld Media CEO Greg Kerber. ‘We hope to be the consumer's one-stop platform for digital media,' Kerber said. 'If it can be digitized, we can monetize it.’"

They have the program set up to allow consumers to download files from one another, utilizing the p2p format, yet still charging a dollar a song.

"The download itself is free and resides on a user's desktop. Unlike Kazaa and other P2P services, Peer Impact will distribute only licensed and public-domain content. It will seed the network with its authorized files, and customers who pay for the track will download it from those who have already paid for the file.

Like iTunes and Napster, songs will cost a dollar each. The company is also looking at offering subscription services. The catalog will exceed a million tracks by the end of the first quarter, Kerber said."

Something's not adding up here. What they are offering is the ability to download music via a peer to peer network, like Kazaa, while still being allowed to pay for it. The seed files may be of better quality and the risk of downloading a spoof greatly reduced, however, I think I’ll pass. I already have iTunes with a catalog greatly exceeding that of Peer Impact. And apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way.

"Von Lohmann [an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation]said at this point there's no real benefit to the new service from the customer's point of view.

‘Basically you're picking the pockets of your customers for the same price that they can get on iTunes,’ Von Lohmann said. ‘Your customers are paying for your bandwidth and your storage.’

Instead, the recording industry should be looking to services like Weed and Altnet, which put authorized files on open networks that people are already using..."

Weed seems like a viable alternative. I posted last week on the Weed service and it's potential benefits to the music community. It allows for free downloads and three free plays, after which the user is prompted to pay for the song. This would allow for the sampling of music and still guarantee that copyright holders get paid for anything beyond sampling. Right now only independent labels and artists are taking advantage of this service.

Internet Labels Take a New Approach

Today marks the day that the first on line all digital record label is launched from a major record label.  Universal Music Group has launched its UMe Digital label.  It offers individual songs, EPs and full length albums exclusively on line.  This may prove to be a major success, especially for bands who are up and coming or in the process of getting a record deal.  Check out the Magnatune blog.  It has a lot of good info on on line record labels like Magnatune and what they have to offer.

It will be interesting to see how new labels of this kind affect p2p use.  Here is my concern.  As discussed many times previously, some bands like the fact that their music has been traded via p2p programs.  These are typically bands who are not getting much support or attention from major record labels.  They are not opposed to the fact that their music is being distributed out there amongst the massses, even thought they are not getting paid for it.  However, with the birth of on line labels, bands and artists in this position will find it much easier to get record deals.  And the musicians that once found their music being traded on line for free will now be trying to sell their music on line.  Many people who support p2p use say that downloading a song often convinces them to go out and buy the entire album.  But how many people actually say that downloading a song makes them go and download the song again and this time pay for it?  Musicians who once supported p2p will probably grow to resent it when their music has been made so easily accessible.

By selling and promoting strictly on line, record companies will cut a substantial amount of the costs associated with producing a record.  First and foremost, record companies will not have to front the necessary cash for the physical, rivalrous, medium to distribute music, ie the cd, the liner notes, etc.  This means that record labels will be more and more willing to sign musicians who are lesser known because the financial risks associated with signing lesser known acts whose profit potential they are unsure of will be lessened.

A recent article over at Designtechnica contains some reactions from those involved.  And they all seem to be positive. 

It's really encouraging to see Universal Music Enterprises embrace and advance the digital format in such a unique way. A digital-only major label will provide a new point of entry for artists into the market as well as a viable distribution alternative for those without traditional record deals." - Michael Abbattista, VP Content & Label Relations, Liquid/Anderson

"This is a great initiative that will help artists put new music in fans' hands more quickly. The advent of digital-only labels like UMe demonstrates that on line retailers like RealNetworks are providing new and unique avenues for connecting artists and their fans. We applaud Universal's vision in recognizing the opportunity to reach today's savvy music consumers through music services like Rhapsody." - Julie Wright, Manager of Label Relations for RealNetworks

This could have a serious impact of copyright legislation in the future.  If this does create a huge shift in the way that music is recorded, sold and distributed, record companies will see in store retail sales decline and decline as they see on line (where some of these artists are made available exclusively) increase.  And furthermore, this will make it easier for smaller record labels to begin and grow.  The record industry could no longer be dominated by massive corporations whose money can fund extensive lobbying.  This could have a huge impact on the legislation that is proposed in Congress.  But is all depends on which side of the fence these labels fall on.  We may see a surge in smaller on line labels who are less concerned with making a profit and more concerned with distribution of music.  But I guess that even then, in reality, those record labels will lack the money to have any real impact on legislation. 

It seems more likely that the exact opposite will happen.  The more and more that music becomes widely distributed on line, the more and more record labels, large and small, will have to fight to protect their interests.  These labels will not have any revenue from in store retail sales and will have to rely on internet sales exclusively.  Therefore, if people choose to illegally download songs instead of buy them, these labels will have a real problem.  This could result in an even larger divide between the music industry and the consumer electronics industry.  As noted in the above articles, UMe music will be available for purchase through current on line music sellers such as iTunes.  With this obviously comes the problems that all record labels are experiencing.  Even the music being bought there is finding its way onto the computers of countless others due to hackers.  However, I think that ultimately, because the cost of music production and distribution can be cut so greatly, there will be less of an incentive, or need, to push for such strict copyright protections as the RIAA is pushing for these days.  Plus, since production and distribution costs will be so low, songs can be made available on line for a fraction of what they cost now. 

Grokster Going Straight

According to an article on CNET.com Grokster is attempting to go straight with a new way for it’s clients to sample new music. Grokster is teaming up with Mercora, an internet streaming radio company, to offer customers streaming new music. This service doesn’t allow for downloads but rather offers streaming high quality music, and the rightful owners of the music are payed royalties.

Because it is a streaming Web radio service, which pays copyright fees for every song that somebody listens to, Mercora executives say their service abides by the mandates of copyright law, even though it comes much closer to offering on-demand music than do most previous Webcasting services.

Grokster sees this as a means of distributing new music as it always has without incurring any further resentment from the music industry. In fact the company may be looking to begin a mutually beneficial relationship with the industry.

The new service could be a sign that the file swapping company, one of several that has topped the record industry's most-wanted list for several years, is hoping to put hard feelings behind it.

Grokster will continue to distribute its own peer-to-peer software, which allows people to search for and download music without permission from, or any payments to, the record companies. The separate Mercora peer-to-peer radio service will let record companies get paid for use of their music, however.

However this team up could have the opposite affect. Instead of helping Grokster’s image it may only taint Mercora’s. This move may bring undue scrutiny to Mercora’s business. It may only stir up resent towards Mercora instead of helping Grokster’s relationship with the already bitter record industry.

They Just Keep Getting Younger ...

When I was 10, I didn't even know what a computer was. Kids nowadays are so tech-saavy that their parents may not be able to keep tabs on their internet habits. Here's proof of that:Copyfight blogs that the RIAA has sued a 10-year-old boy for sharing over 1,000 songs. They also sued a 15-year-old boy for sharing 600 songs. When the parents found out about the lawsuits, they were shocked, and some didn't even know it was illegal. In at least one case, the parents discarded the RIAA letter, thinking it was a scam. The RIAA has taken the position that these suits are necessary to deter filesharers, and to educate the public that downloading copyrighted songs are illegal.

The results of the suits are questionable at best; P2P traffic has continued to grow, despite the increase in the number of suits the RIAA has brought lately. Most users already know it's illegal, they just don't see anything wrong with it or are willing to take the risk. So far, the RIAA has only pursued active uploaders, those who share lots of songs. A huge problem, I think, is with the way most P2P software clients are set up. By default, any file you download is automatically shared (it's even worse with BitTorrent, where you can't even disable uploading). Unfortunately, this exposes these children who may think it's cool to download songs and who may not understand the legal consequences. The RIAA would say it's the responsibility of the parents to watch what their children do with their computers. But parents can't monitor the computer all the time, and some parents, like those whose children were recently sued, have no clue KaZaA and other P2P clients enable their children to engage in illegal activities. P2P software companies, or at least some of them, generate revenue from running advertisements. Payment is proportional to traffic. More traffic, more money. An easy way to get more traffic is to have more popular [and illegal] files available for download. And so, they continue to have their software enable uploads by default, and at the same time, blaming the RIAA for not licensing their P2P client to provide legal downloads. The unsuspecting P2P kid, is caught in the middle.

Saddening, isn't it? Problem is, the RIAA has no way to tell who it is they are suing. They have an IP address, from which they can get a name and an address. But they have no idea who was doing the uploading. If they did, they might be able to avoid the PR nightmare from suing these 10-year-olds. We've seen headlines like, "RIAA Squeezes $2K out of 12-year-old," and "RIAA bloodlust not satisfied with 12-year-old Briana, sues 10-year-old downloader."

It almost seems unfair, at least for the unsuspecting users, especially children, that they bear the liability when the P2P software companies bear none of it, considering the way they've structured their software. The RIAA should be pushing these companies to disable uploads by default, so that it would take an affirmative act to share files. This might save them from the embarrassment of squeezing money from more 10-year-olds.

You Too?

I had planned on posting on quite a different topic this week, but upon reading this story on CNET News I became really interested. I decided I’d rather blog on this topic and save the other for a rainy day.

It appears as though U2's new album "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" has just started to pop up on file sharing services. This is the bands first release in four years, and is highly anticipated. I had no intention of downloading the album, but I was rather intrigued as to how this will affect the release and sales of the album. I went on LimeWire’s file trading service and entered "U2" as the artist and "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" as the album. I had 611 files returned. About 200 of these were the new single, "Vertigo." I had anticipated a large amount of this track, there being a high demand for it in particular. After a cursory overview of the names of all the files returned I estimated there were about seven tracks off the new album. It is unlikely this number of tracks could comprise the entire new album. I decided to see how much of this new album I was capable of extracting through a fairly common file sharing network such as LimeWire. Of these seven songs I was able to successfully download only four. All four tracks seemed complete and of decent quality, some better than others. I downloaded no spoofs, it is likely the record label has not yet sent them out.

After reviewing these tracks I have to say they alone would not be enough to supplant my desire to have the complete album in it’s fully produced and mastered quality. More likely they would only wet my appetite for the entire album. After checking the quality and quantity of the tracks I was able to obtain from my attempts I erased them from my hard drive.

I’m sure that after the release of the album these file sharing services will be flooded hundreds of more files from the new album, many spoofs and many real. The band had a tape with several of the new tracks stolen from the studio earlier this year, this could be the source of these new tracks. The article on CNET stated that "Earlier this summer, a tape containing rough tracks from the upcoming album went missing from a studio in Nice, France where the band was recording. At the time, the band said it might move the release date if the tracks appear online first."

Apparently the leak of new material has recently pushed up the release dates of a couple major hip hop acts, "In the past month, release dates for American rap artist Eminem and hip-hop star Snoop Dogg, both signed to Universal's Interscope Records, has been pushed forward by a few days due to the appearance of pirated tracks online."

There is no word yet as to whether or not this will affect the proposed release date in the U.S.

Terry Fisher Guest-Blogging At Lessig Blog

Okay, Okay…I know that we already killed Musical Socialism, but I’m going to resurrect it for a moment. Why? Because Professor Terry Fisher is guest-blogging this week for Larry Lessig. Anyway, I think that the name “Musical Socialism” just has a bad connotation, so instead I will refer to it, as Fisher does in his book Promises To Keep, as an Alternative Compensation System (Ch. 6). This chapter was actually a class topic that we were going to discuss until we [killed it]. However, I discussed this chapter very briefly in a previous post. And with Fisher’s book coming out and his guest-blogging appearance, this chapter has been a hot topic.

Fisher begins by discussing some of the problems with the current system and the effects music sharing has had. The responding comments quickly turn into a discussion forum for Ch. 6, and Fisher has essentially spent the week on this topic alone. The discussion has been very interesting and informative, with readers asking numerous questions about the proposed system, many of which being identical to questions posed in our class. Fisher has responded to the questions thoughtfully and has some pretty good suggestions regarding the feasibility of his Alternative Compensation System. I will highlight a few of the questions that were similar to those raised in our class and include Fisher’s response.

(1) Does such a system “scale” internationally (see John Allsopp’s post)? This is definitely one of the weaknesses of an ACS. If adopted in only one country (say, the U.S.), it would “leak” across national boundaries – in the sense that French artists whose creations are downloaded in the U.S. would be paid portions of the tax revenues collected by the American government from American consumers, while French consumers would gain free access through the Internet to the creations of American artists, and American artists would not collect anything from French taxpayers. … Modification of the pertinent international treaties (most likely, the TRIPS Agreement) to force other nations to adopt similar regimes is extremely unlikely in the near future. Harmonization thus would have to occur through voluntary adoption of ACSs by other countries.

(2) Would artists really be compensated in proportion to the frequency with which their creations are consumed? The ability of the system to assuage both concerns depends on the quality of the sampling system used to count consumption rates. In Chapter 6, I devote a fair amount of space to a discussion of how one might design an effective sampling system.

3) Won’t unscrupulous artists and third parties “game” the system, artificially inflating the number of times their works are supposedly “consumed” and thus depriving deserving artists of their fair shares of the ACS fund? The primary answer to this serious source of concern is that, once again, a great deal depends upon the quality of the sampling system used to estimate consumption rates. A secondary response is that the “gaming” problem is most serious with respect to downloads and is much less worrisome with respect to streamed works.

Many comments raised the concern of how to implement the system. Fisher acknowledged this difficulty, but stated that the system did not have to start full scale. Instead, a small-scale experiment could be attempted using a particular genre of music. As far as actually attempting this and whether Congress would buy it, he went on to say:

We’re beginning work along these lines at the Berkman Center. But, to be frank, I’m not optimistic that even complete success in launching a small-scale entertainment coop would be enough to persuade Congress, in the face of continued opposition from the record companies and film studios, to adopt the plan in the near term. Real hope lies in countries that either are more desperate for a workable system (e.g., China) or have a less deeply rooted tradition of suspicion of “big government” (e.g., Brazil) or both. Demonstrated success in such a venue might then prompt Congress to follow suit. That, anyway, is my hope.

It appears to me that Fisher believes in his proposed system; he believes that it offers a innovation-friendly improvement to the current Copyright regime, that consumers will benefit by paying less overall (on average) than they do now while having access to legal entertainment media at their fingertips, that the current distributors will actually buy into this new system because they still profit (perhaps, this system may actually save them), and that implementing such a system is possible over time and will eventually completely overtake the current regime. He admits his proposed system has faults, and details still need to be worked out. Fair enough. No law is perfect, and as my Con Law professor constantly stressed, every law will affect someone negatively in some way.

This whole copyright mess that we’re in as a result of newly developing technology has to be great for law professors. The way it goes in academia, so I’ve heard, is “publish or perish,” and at the very least, p2p technology has given many professors something to write about. They’re all coming up with their own solutions, some just modifications of the current system, while others propose a complete over of Intellectual Property law. Sometimes I have to wonder whether they really believe in their proposed solutions, or just write them for the sake of publishing and to give people something to talk about. Well, I think Fisher really believes, and with his system he’s at least attempting to please all the parties involved. So, who knows, maybe his ACS is a real solution to the current dilemma.

Consumer Input on INDUCE

As discussed in class, changes in copyright law are often drafted by industry groups, and adopted by Congress once the industry leaders agree on the terms and conditions they want included. While libraries and other non-commercial entities are sometimes consulted, Prof. Solum mentioned that consumers' rights groups have never been invited to the table.

It appears that some people are trying to change legislation from outside the negotiating room. SaveBetamax.org is organizing a Congressional call list to provide organized feedback on the INDUCE Act... a call in day on Sept. 14th. The organization hopes to preserve the decision of Sony v. Universal (a.k.a. the Betamax decision), which it feels is threatened by the INDUCE Act.

From their site:

Why We Need a National Call-In Day
We need to make sure Congress hears from the public. There's been plenty of opposition on the internet to the INDUCE Act and its more recent drafts. But this general dissatisfaction hasn't quite come together into a real demonstration of how strongly people feel about protecting the Betamax decision. At Downhill Battle, we've organized people to send faxes to Congress before and there's been lots of emails flying around, but telephone calls take it to the next level. A big, one-day mobilization to swamp these members of Congress with phone calls could make a huge impact on the debate. If you care about keeping Betamax intact but haven't felt compelled to act before, now's the time to get involved. You can sign up on the top right of this page.

Since the site has been slashdotted, it will be interesting to see if the number of registered callers spikes over the next day (about 2100 were registered as of this post).

DMCA Complaint Received by a Student

The following DMCA complaint was received by a student living in the dormitories at the University of Michigan. Interestingly enough, the student never had any file sharing programs on their computer or the file itself. Notice the difference between what Warner Bros requested from the University, and what the University requested from the student.

To: xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx From: xxxxxxxxxx, Network Administrator Date reported: 4/19/04 Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Complaint Incident #: xxxxxxxx

*Note: You must respond to this message _within twenty-four hours_.
*
The University has received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint alleging copyright infringement on your computer and website. I have attached (below) the relevant parts of the complaint, which alleges that you are distributing copyrighted MP3s through a public download server[1] <#_ftn1> or that you are displaying copyrighted images on your website-both in violation the complainant's rights under
U.S copyright law. This is a serious matter.**

Copyright infringement is a direct violation of the Rescomp Conditions of Use policy, the full text of which is here: http://rescomp.umich.edu/Residential.Ethernet/NetGuide/Registration/Conditions.of.Use.php.

You are also subject to the U of M Responsible Use policy:
http://www.umich.edu/~policies/responsible-use.html .
Future DMCA complaints may result in the loss of your account privileges or other sanctions.

Neither the University nor I assume that you have done anything intentionally wrong. Rather, as this is the first DMCA complaint about your computer and website, I hope to help you understand the issues, fix
any problems, and avoid similar complaints in the future.

Because the University has received a DMCA complaint about your computer and website, the University is required to notify you of the complaint and to take one of several actions based on your response. There are four common responses.

*_RESPONSE 1:_** * _I hear back from you within twenty-four hours that
you understand the complaint and that you have rectified the situation._ Then, I will confirm that you have appropriately "fixed the problem" and I will follow up with you to explain how to avoid these problems in the future. If you have not appropriately rectified the situation, I will assist you. (This is the most common response.)

*_RESPONSE 2:_* _I hear back from you within twenty-four hours that you dispute the complaint._ Specifically, you assert that you are making a lawful use of the materials in question or that the complainant has misidentified you. Then, I am required to inform the complainant that you dispute complaint, and I must also apprise the complainant of your identity and contact information. The complainant may elect to pursue this matter via the courts.

*_RESPONSE 3:_* _I hear nothing back from you within twenty-four hours of this message._ Then, I am required to use the most expeditious method to rectify the situation. Ordinarily, I will shut down your account, website, and/or IP address. If this happens I will continue to try to contact you by other means so I can get your site or service up and running again shortly (for which there will be a $25 charge), and I can explain to you in detail about how to avoid these problems in the future.

*_RESPONSE 4:_* _I hear back from you within twenty-four hours that you are confused or have questions._ Then I will work with you to clarify the situation and to explain in detail about how to avoid these problems in the future.

Please contact me as soon as possible */within the next twenty-four
hours/*, so we can put this complaint behind you as quickly as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> NOTE: Information on disabling sharing in most popular
clients is available here: https://security.uchicago.edu/peer-to-peer/no_fileshare.shtml

--Original Complaint--
To: "James L. Hilton"
cc:
From: MediaSentry Copyright Infringement
Date: 04/19/2004 12:28:01 PM
Subject: #xxx-xxxx(xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)[Case ID xxxxxx - Notice of Claimed
Infringement](jimbo)

Monday, April 19, 2004

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
503 Thompson Street
3060 Fleming
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 US

RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Motion Picture Entitled Starsky & Hutch

Dear James L. Hilton:

We are writing this letter on behalf of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ("Warner Bros.").

As you may know, Warner Bros. is the holder of rights under copyright, including exclusive distribution rights, in and to the motion picture(s) listed above.

No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work(s) without the express written permission of Warner Bros., which permission Warner Bros. has not
granted to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.

We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.

The attached documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.

The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.

Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the
following:

1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.

On behalf of Warner Bros., owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section
512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Warner Bros., its respective agents, or the law.

Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that MediaSentry is authorized to act on behalf
of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.

Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions.

We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID xxxxxxx.

Your prompt response is requested.

Respectfully,

Mark Weaver,
Director of Enforcement
MediaSentry, Inc.
(212) 925-9997
------------------------------
Infringement Detail:
Infringing Work: Starsky & Hutch
Filename: Starsky and Hutch 2004.asf
First Found: 19 Apr 2004 12:05:48 EDT (GMT -0400)
Last Found: 19 Apr 2004 12:05:48 EDT (GMT -0400)
Filesize: 220,358k
IP Address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
IP Port: 6346
Network: Morpheus
Protocol: Gnutella

Even if the student had the file, why would Warner Bros waste their resources and those of the University to go after a user who had only one file on their computer? The problem here is that most of these companies have no idea who they are going after and end up making similar mistakes. Based on the response by the University, it is clear that they have recognized this problem and don’t have the same level of concern that the Motion Picture companies do. Are the motion picture companies actually accomplishing anything in this effort? If you were a college student, would complaints such as this stop you from downloading?

Colleges Attempt to Curb Illegal Downloads...But at What Cost?

In an effort to reduce illegal downloading on college campuses, at least 20 universities across the country are providing students with free or low cost online music. As CNN reports here, several universities have reached agreements with RealNetworks' music service Rhapsody to provide this service. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) supports this program and contends it is not only beneficial for the recording industry, but for universities and students as well. Supporters of the program say students will be able to download music without fear of being sued and universities will have reduced bandwidth usage and be protected from outside viruses.

Two questions immediately came to mind when I read this article: (1) how much does it cost and (2) who is paying for this? The article does not specifically state the cost to the universities, but it is likely a relatively high sum given the amount of music supplied to the students. This cost will undoubtedly be passed onto the students. In a time when colleges are receiving less and less funding due to budget cuts, should schools really be worrying whether the music industry is losing profits from students downloading music? It appears the music industry has been made a priority over education to some extent. Tuition prices will inevitably increase as costs increase and this could result in fewer students being able to afford the cost of education. This might be an extreme hypothetical, but it does appear the ability to download music legally has been given priority over other aspects of a college education.

It would seem there are less expensive alternatives for the Universities. If the school wants to save on bandwidth usage then why not just limit the amount of bandwidth that may be used? Especially since giving away free music will likely increase bandwidth use as this will attract individuals who were afraid or against downloading illegal music.

Also, if the school wants to curb illegal downloading, then why not prevent certain programs from working on the network. This latter method has been employed by many schools. While every program might not be stopped, preventing use of the more widely used programs would likely lessen the amount of downloads. Further, limiting bandwidth use would again lessen the amount of downloads made.

Having schools pay for the music is likely a great win for the music industry, but is possibly a major defeat for the educational system.

Conference Announcement: Layer One

LayerOne
June 12th and 13th, 2004
Westin Los Angeles Airport Hotel

LayerOne is a technology conference and social event being held over the days of Saturday June 12th and Sunday June 13th at the Los Angeles International Airport Westin. We will be covering everything from information security and cryptography to the sociological impact of technology.

Here is the schedule.