Google just thinks that you have a right to know what your ISP is doing. If your ISP won't tell you, you should have the tools to figure out. In fact, according to one article cited by Hot Hardware, when net neutrality first started becoming an issue, at first Google considered just going along with ISPs: "We would come out fine—a non-neutral world would be a good world for us." Do no evil, eh? [Hot Hardware via /.]

According to their data, "the results show a significant enough difference in the level of resets from one network operator to another, to warrant asking certain network operators to describe their network management practices," and AT&T, Cablevision and AOL are at the top of the heap. In our feature on ISP network management, while AT&T directly stated its "techniques don't include degrading or blocking traffic," they did decline to elaborate on what they did do.

While in Comcast's case, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a Senate committee they lied about throttling torrents only during periods of congestion and never issued a flat denial, AT&T's repeated, direct counters incline us to believe them. But we still agree with Azureus's goal, to push ISPs to be completely transparent about how they manage their network—we'll leave whether the FCC should mandate net neutrality up to the policy wonks. Besides, it's looking like the FCC is moving toward transparency regulations anyway, if not neutrality. [PC World]

Other features include support for DLNA, NFS and SMB multimedia sharing and a 1TB single SATA hard drive on the TS-109 (2TB with an external eSATA or USB drive) or 2TB for the TS-209. Unfortunately, No pricing or release date information has been announced.

From the press release:

QNAP Announces Next Generation 500MHz CPU+256MB DDRII TS-109 Pro/TS-209 Pro II Turbo NAS Series

Taipei, Taiwan, April 2008 - The leading network-attached storage (NAS) provider QNAP Systems, Inc. today unveils the next generation Linux-embedded one-bay and two-bay NAS: TS-109 Pro II and TS-209 Pro II for power users, SOHO, and business users. The TS-109 Pro II and TS-209 Pro II series adopts high performance Marvell 500MHz CPU and 256MB DDRII large memory, which is a double of the memory size of the previous generation (TS-109/209 series) and becomes the best hardware specifications in the present SOHO NAS market. The Turbo NAS maintains superior system performance even if there are multiple accesses to various network services of the server concurrently. The new models are equipped with enhanced software functions, including the new BitTorrent download engine, built-in Joomla! CMS 1.5.1 for ease of PHP/MySQL-based web server hosting and upgraded TwonkyMedia version 4.4.4 for DLNA compliant media playing. Other professional features such as HDD S.M.A.R.T., complete log system, schedule backup from NAS to external storage device, etc. are also available. TS-109 Pro II and TS-209 Pro II series is the ideal choice of high performance and energy-saving NAS for modern business and home users.

Upgraded BT engine for high-speed download
Besides the outstanding hardware specifications, the BitTorrent download performance of TS-109 Pro II and TS-209 Pro II series is largely enhanced. The high-speed DHT mode and TCP/UDP tracker protocols are supported to overcome the drawbacks of slow download of general embedded systems. You can now enjoy the level of P2P download speed as PC-based BT download. The optional firmware with encrypted BT is also provided on QNAP website for users who are suffered from traffic shaping by ISP to increase the download speed! QNAP also provides the remote management software-QGet to allow you to manage the download tasks of multiple NAS servers remotely over the local network or the Internet. According to Mr. Laurent Cheng, Product Manager from QNAP, "Most power users are used to using PC for BT download. However, PC-based BT download is energy-consuming and the fan is always noisy. As the performance of embedded system improves and evolves, we strongly believe that QNAP's energy-saving Linux embedded NAS will become an alternative solution to replace PC as a download server."

Supports DLNA, NFS, SMB multimedia sharing to set up the home multimedia centre
QNAP NAS is the NAS device with the highest compatibility with tens of different DLNA media players, Sony PS3, and Microsoft Xbox360 gaming consoles. With the upgraded TwonkyMedia version 4.4.4, the popular DivX video can be streamed to Sony PS3 from NAS. Users can enjoy more of the music, photos, and video sharing function in the home network. Moreover, the Turbo NAS Pro series works well with NFS supported High-Definition (HD) DMA for HD video streaming. They can also be connected to XBMC (modded from Xbox gaming console) via SMB for media playing. The high compatibility, energy-saving and reliable features have made QNAP NAS the first choice for setting up the digital home multimedia centre.

Feature-rich NAS for modern business
The advanced functions which are only available in enterprise-level NAS models are now supported in QNAP Turbo NAS series. The HDD S.M.A.R.T. (Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology) is supported for users to monitor the status of hard disk drive and check the potential problems. The comprehensive log system allows administrator to track the file-level connection logs and the status of all online users. The Turbo NAS provides numerous built-in functions which can be easily managed via the web interface, e.g. network storage, file server, encrypted FTP server, encrypted remote replication, printer server, etc. The intelligent backup software NetBak Replicator is also offered for users to back up data from multiple Windows PCs to the NAS. Also, Windows AD authentication is supported for efficient user account management and reduced maintenance cost.

About QNAP TS-109 and TS-209 Turbo NAS
QNAP TS-109 series supports up to 1TB single SATA hard drive. The total storage capacity can be expanded to 2TB with an external eSATA or USB drive. With the unique fanless design and aluminum alloy case, the noiseless TS-109 is suitable for operation in digital home environment. Moreover, the power consumption rate of TS-109 is less than 14.4W under normal operation. This energy-saving design enables the server to run 24x7 non stop. TS-109 series supports 12-in-1 complete functions and high transfer performance. TS-109 Pro was honored the "The Best NAS Box" from MAXIMUMPC (US), "Lord of NAS" from Hexus (UK), and "Golden Bear Award" from Bjorn3D (US) etc.

QNAP TS-209 series is the only 2-bay, RAID 1, hot-swappable NAS model in the current SOHO NAS market. With 12-in-1 functions, the maximum storage capacity supported is 2TB. TS-209 is a perfect large-storage and high security solution for home, SOHO, and SMB users. TS-209 Pro was honored "Gold Medal Award" from ComputerGEIL.dk (Denmark), Golden Award from InfoMods (France), and "Product of the Year 2007" from Hardware-TEST.dk (Denmark) etc.

He continues that "Based on testimony we've received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system, and is not even capable of knowing when an individual ... segment of the network is congested."

Honestly, the Comcast/P2P/net neutrality story is a bit played out, and frustrating, because nothing material has really happened, and I'm actually sort of tired of it. The major reason I'm posting this is because I was specifically told something by Comcast PR—which I gave the benefit of the doubt, because while PR cajoles and spruces, they rarely intentionally deceive—which the chairman of the FCC is stating to be categorically untrue. That's unfortunate, and disconcerting.

While we should always fact check, we shouldn't have to worry about being lied to. I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and I hope there's just some mixed signals going on here, but their response to Computerworld, that doesn't flat-out deny Martin's accusations, isn't very reassuring. [Computerworld via /.]

No, p2p is no longer the single biggest traffic whore, responsible for only 20 percent of total traffic. It's streaming video, like YouTube and Hulu, which is now 50 percent of total traffic. During peak congestion—the times when Comcast will slow you down for hitting the pipe too hard—70 percent of it is http.

Which explains Comcast's flip on network management and why it's a total smokescreen. P2P is no longer the number one leech on networks, it's streaming video across regular old http. So they don't need to throttle p2p exclusively anymore—they need to slow the whole pipe down, hence the new "protocol agnostic" scheme. But they can look good showing off how much they love p2p. It remains to be seen how much of it the FCC will eat up. [GigaOM]

If they're able to win, they plan to use the money for good, not evil.

We will demand an amount of cash that we feel will be reasonable (Not counting like Ifpi themselves, we actually understand economy a bit more). With the money (when/if we get it) we will start a Danish grant if possible. The grant will give out money to Danish aspiring artists for making music and releasing it for free. And all will be sponsored by Ifpi since they tried to fuck those people over. Poetic justice.

Michael Arrington points out that a $5 tax—besides essentially turning music into a service requiring us to perpetually suck on the industry's teat—would double its size, from $10 billion to $20 billion. So of course the labels are all for it. It's guaranteed revenue that would flood their coffers like never before. Warner's plan calls for the cash stream to flow into a pool that'll be split between copyright holders and artists. But we all know how hard labels want to screw artists.

And as Arrington points out, it would basically freeze innovation in the industry, meaning labels would be able to ream them that much harder. Not to mention, thanks to the fine print, we'd probably no longer own our music. But that's the whole point. [Portfolio via TechCrunch]

"Protocol agnostic" sounds a lot like net neutrality, treating all data equally, be it P2P or FTP. Except in this case, it means slowing all packets equally when traffic reaches an unacceptable volume. Under the current system, which was described as "surgical" in its precision when we talked to Comcast about it just a few days ago, only the torrent uploads of super traffic hogs (something like the 5 percent worst abusers, similar to Time Warner's estimation) are delayed, and only when and where there's heavy congestion. So, you could be hammering the shit out of your connection on FTP, and you wouldn't see the kind of management being applied to someone on the block using torrent if the network was congested.

Now, it doesn't matter how you're raping the connection—they slow your whole pipe down if you're "disproportionately" swallowing bandwidth when the network's congested (I'm repeating that phrase to emphasize that's the only time they hit the nuke button), whether it's BitTorrent or you have 100 YouTube vids running at once. It's a nice marketing move: Comcast actually gets to engage in stiffer throttling while gaining credit for easing off BitTorrent. What's good is that it's promising to be extremely upfront and transparent about how and why it manages traffic, which takes the evil bite out of the practice.

But it also makes it more acceptable to the average Joe, clearing the way for every ISP to do so: "Hey, we told you we might do it."

Another reason they made the switch? To try to keep the FCC from laying down net neutrality rules, which no ISP seems to want. Head honcho Kevin Martin has a huge hard-on for reaming the cable industry, in particular Comcast, and the recent dustup with BitTorrent had the FCC seriously considering laying down net neutrality rules for the first time. In my dealings, Comcast and BitTorrent execs actually seem pretty friendly toward one another; presumably they wanted to work it out without the government stepping in.

The people who want net-neutrality regulation may get their wish in the end, since Martin still isn't impressed with the show of friendship:

"While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn't stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.

Adelstein half dodged that with a question: "The problem is, how can you ever tell what's illegal?" Well you can't, not without some serious filtering and snooping by ISPs, and a lot of wrangling over whether uploading or downloading is deemed piracy. And what about telling the difference between illegally sharing a movie from a big studio, and sharing an independently-produced movie designed for P2P sharing? Clearly, the FCC isn't comfortable going all in for content filtering, at least not yet.

We'll just have to watch to see what this implies for the final net neutrality guidelines. [Ars Technica]

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

[Wired via Ars Technica]

AT&T has also participated in tests like this one, but is trying to find a way to block pirated content and only allow "legal" content such as NBC's officially delivered shows to make it through the network. Verizon, on the other hand, says they do "not accept the role of network police agency," which means filtering for pirated content is unlikely. Time to sign up for Verizon! [Yahoo]

Tests have been carried out, and they have worked a charm. However, before you guys go nuts about downloading completely legal torrent files, there are some things you should know:

• This is a command line client at present, and although someone will chuck a GUI on it in the near future, steer clear unless you can handle messing with terminal.
• EDGE and P2P will screw your shit up. If you plan to get your download on, it's WiFi all the way.
• If you start a download immediately before having sex, your iPhone's battery will be dead before you are finished; i.e. torrenting will drain your battery extremely rapidly.
• You won't see this up in installer.app, hit through on the link for further instructions.

All that aside, this is a neat development and bodes well for the post-SDK era. If anyone does give this one a go, let us know how you get on. [Wickedpsyched via TUAW]

"The time has come for a specific enforceable principle of nondiscrimination. This principle should allow for reasonable network management, but make crystal clear that broadband network operators cannot shackle the promise of the Internet."

Here's why I'm a Kevin Martin fanboy: He called out Comcast for selling tiered bandwidth packages while crapping up the service at the same time, saying "it's a little odd" before asking, "Doesn't it undermine your arguments and isn't it inconsistent?"

Topping it off, the NY Attorney General just subpoenaed Comcast for information about its non-neutral network practices, so we might be looking at even more regulatory beatdowns.

It sucks to be Comcast right now, but I've never been happier with the FCC. [NYT, NYT]

Luckily, the provision doesn't have much in the way of teeth right now, but an amendment to safeguard schools' federal funding if they don't comply was pulled yesterday, so it could quickly grow some. Just another reminder of why gov't peeps who know tech and aren't easily confused by slick lobbying are important. [Ars Technica]

Andrea Monti, an Italian copyright attorney, said all music sold on major music download sites is degraded. As such, exchange across P2P networks of these files, and any equivalent type of recordings, would seem to be legal under the new law. The law does restrict the sharing for "educational or scientific" use, but prosecuting offenders will nevertheless be more problematic because of it. The president of the RIAA counterpart in Italy was said to be confident in the restraints of the new ruling, but we imagine he crapped his pants as he said that. [Ars Technica]

Ross, a Giz reader, managed to download the software while it was still available and writes to tell us about his experience. As you can see from the gallery below, the software seems pretty basic, and includes a player and a web browser (surfing Giz no less). However, when he tried to download a song, all he got was a message saying "Downloads coming soon!!".
He also tells us that the program came with a few bookmarks, including Skreemr, a web search engine for MP3s, and a section that promotes an add-on to make the songs iPod compatible. These links scream "dubious legality" to us, and the Qtrax program itself simply looks like a skin on the open-source Songbird API, where the iPod add-on comes from.

So what is the real story behind Qtrax? Were there ever major deals in place? Is someone getting fleeced? If you have any info, send it to us. [BBC]

Thanks for the help, Ross!

Blizzard, like The Pirate Bay, implements a P2P system. Instead of avoiding issues of copyright, the developer utilizes P2P as an inexpensive way to distribute WoW updates and patches. And the last time we played WoW, which was admittedly some time ago, Blizzard's P2P updater was pretty much mandatory to play the game. So if you're thinking what we're thinking, The Pirate Bay may have jumped the gun with their announcement. And Blizzard may actually be the sleeper king of P2P. [slycknews via slashdot]

The system will run an (optional) $500 premium when it's unrolled, and obviously, such a system can only be as good as its network. Eventually, CarTorrent could be a whole lot more that a way to share small amounts of information—it could be a way for cars to communicate in times of crisis, allowing car computers to sync in split-second decision territory where individual drives could fail.

Of course, many of us realize what CarTorrent really is: a means for cars to eventually assemble into a giant Megatron and destroy all of mankind (pending oil prices stay in check). [guardianunlimited via digg][image: gettyimages]

EMI is a business just like any other company, and its new owners must have realized that spending $132 million a year to alienate their customers was providing them with a really poor return on investment. I mean, it's just not good business sense. Will any of the other major labels follow suit? Time will tell, but if they do you can pretty much wave goodbye to the era of the RIAA having influence. A bittersweet victory it would be, as I'd need to find something else to bitch and moan about every day, but it'd be worth it in the end. [Ars Technica]

Comcast maintains it only "delays" traffic and is "not blocking anything," swearing stuff will get to where it's going eventually—traffic shaping, which a lot of ISPs do. But according to the AP and EFF, they're actually forging packets telling both ends of a connection the other side doesn't want to play, killing it like innocent children on a playground.

Hart's seeking class-action status for the suit, disclosure of traffic shaping—or blockage, as it were—in ads and a ban on blocking applications. All reasonable, though if goes class action and prevails, it won't probably won't look so reasonable to Comcast's coffers. [Ars Technica, Flickr]

The setup would work a lot like GooTube's—the networks would hand over a bank of material that AT&T/Vobile would run traffic on the network against, looking for positive IDs. If it matches the "video DNA" on file, it gets the hammer. Supposedly Vobile's ID tech is tops, at least among "a dozen or so other systems" tested by the MPAA. AT&T's reportedly been testing it since spring, though it'd launch until late 2008 at the earliest.

In order to keep consumers and net neutrality advocates from flipping out, one marketing strategy AT&T might use is to emphasize the filter as a way to catch child porn, since no one can really argue against stopping predators. On the flip side, an effective monitoring program is loaded with business propositions, from helping them net content distribution rights to being able to "offer far more detailed information on [customers'] likes and dislikes, in turn enabling AT&T and its partners to land lucrative deals with advertisers hungry for such data."

I could act all shocked and appalled like Wilson about AT&T being so disinterested in customers' privacy (to put it lightly), but it wouldn't be genuine, and I'd feel dirty in the morning for lying to you. [BusinessWeek via Broadband Reports]

Basically, if a school gets enough subpoenas in the mail from the MPAA and/or RIAA to make the top 25, they go on "probation." At that point they have to prove to the Secretary of Education that they're going to foist a "technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property" upon its hapless student body.

Naturally, provisions aren't laid out in the amendment for how the data provided by copyright holders is collected or verified at all. But it's not like the RIAA's ever been wrong or anything. [Ars Technica]

Why should Sony's bandwidth bill matter to you? Well, if it means you can download or stream a movie faster through P2P compared with just plain downloading, then you should care. If Sony's serious about making the PS3 a multi-media center, then they're going to have to start putting real HD movies on there to compete with the Xbox 360. With Sony's big bucket of movies thanks to their film division, it's only a question of whether they want to. – Jason Chen

Sony's P2P Network [Sony Protection Group]

The Vudu hard drive will be automatically pre-loaded with the beginning portions of several different movies. The choice of which movies to send down the ethernet pipe will be based on predictions about what you are most likely to watch (new releases, for example). That media will also be seeded, via the Vudu network, to other boxes. That makes it much easier for the network to meet the potential demand for a new release. This would work with both full-length features or just the beginning of a movie. By seeding the first, say, 30 minutes of a film, Vudu can ensure instant access while the rest of the film is downloaded. And that download will be much faster thanks to the peer-to-peer distribution system. This could also reduce Vudu's operational costs significantly. Instead of paying a huge sum of money to a company like Akamai, which is what Apple does in order to quickly send you media files, Vudu relies on the network to share its load. The catch is that Vudu has to sell untold thousands of boxes to make this work—which at least ensures that the cost of the box will stay in the $300 range.

PBS' resident tech-head Robert X. Cringely described all of this in a column he wrote back in February.

Say Disney releases Cars 1.5 — a direct-to-DVD release expected to sell millions of copies in its first few days. There is no way iTunes could even hope to participate in a launch like that simply because there isn't enough bandwidth at a good price — or any price. Even BitTorrent would have troubles handling a small part of such a launch until enough seeds were populated and running. But what if the movie was effectively pre-seeded — loaded over a few days on a distribution tree of thousands of Apple TV boxes which could then deliver the movie locally at high speed if purchased. Or if not purchased the seeded copies could still work together to serve other Apple TVs on the same ISP subnet.

What do you think?

Finally, lots of people have been complaining that there are too many boxes cluttering the entertainment cabinet, and that Vudu is going to be the latest victim of the glut. But this argument has been proven wrong time and again in consumer electronics. There were plenty of great MP3 players on the market by the time the iPod came out, scads of hip cellphones available before the RAZR, and six gaming consoles to choose from when along came the Wii. Vudu is going to be priced attractively. Add in a killer user experience and this box could live up to all the big sentences Brad Stone wrote on Sunday. –Noah Robischon

This is a pretty lousy move by OU. There are plenty of completely legit uses of P2P services such as BitTorrent, as many large (legal) files are easier to distribute that way. By simply banning it completely they're putting the wishes of the RIAA above the freedom of their students. Boo to you, Ohio U.

Hit the jump for the entire letter OU sent to its students.

Dear OHIO Students,

Ohio University's computer network is central to many academic,
research and university-life activities, providing reliable
communications not only on campus but also across the world. Because
this network is a shared resource, we must ensure that it is available
to all campus users equally. Peer to Peer (P2P) file sharing
currently consumes a disproportionate amount of campus technology
resources, including both bandwidth and technical support. It also
poses risks to the security of our network by opening ports on
individual computers that can be used to spread viruses and spyware
or to launch attacks against other computer systems. Finally, it
often is used for illegal distribution of copyrighted works over our
network.

In accordance with OHIO's Computer and Network Use policy 91.003, we
will begin restricting P2P file sharing on our campus network at 12:01
am on Friday morning, April 27, 2007. Beginning then, any campus
computer that we detect in violation of this policy will have its
Internet access disabled until its owner or primary user contacts the
IT Service Desk at 740-593-1222 and agrees to work with us to resolve
the problem and to abide by the university's Computer & Network Use
policy in the future. A second violation on the same computer will
result in that computer's Internet access being disabled until further
action is taken by the appropriate disciplinary body. Students will
be referred to University Judiciaries. Other network users will be
handled in a manner consistent with established university disciplinary
policy.

This approach applies to all users of our campus network and will be
enforced consistently.

To learn more, visit: http://technology.ohio.edu/help/blocked-faq.html

OHIO's Computer & Network Use policy can be found here: http://www.ohiou.edu/policy/91-003.html

If you have any additional questions or need help with the
configuration of your computer, please contact the Service Desk at
740-593-1222 or .

There will be an information session about this new policy for all
campus network users at noon on Thursday, April 26 in Baker Center 230.

Sincerely,
Mr. Brice Bible, Chief Information Officer
Dr. Kent Smith, Vice President for Student Affairs

Thanks, Chris!

NSA: File-Sharers Unfit to Spy on Americans [Danger Room]

"File-sharing, P2P—call it what you like. When you asked a customer why he wasn't buying anything, 9 times out of 10 it was 'BitTorrent this, LimeWire that'. Add that to the fact that huge numbers of PC users have burners and fast broadband and its obvious why I had to get out and earn a living another way. We had it good for a while but I don't think those days are coming back."

Say it with me: get rid of DRM and we'll buy more music, get rid of DRM and we'll buy more music, get rid of DRM and we'll buy more music. Music fans are not inherent criminals. –Adam Frucci

TorrentFreak [via BoingBoing]

The watermarks identify both the "network operator distributing the content" and the individual device. A spokesman said that people "should not be upset about this unless they are widely redistributing content." Thomson sees it as a way to "slow down piracy without limiting the use of the consumer."

So, if you feel upset or limited, that means you're a pirate. – Matt Buchanan

DSL gateways will watermark video to catch pirates [Computer World]

It's 80 pages long and I am far too busy/lazy to read through the entire thing, but it looks like the general gist of it is that file sharing supports terrorism and corrupts our children. It claims that peer-to-peer networks increase the chances of government workers sharing sensitive data, which is kind of a stupid argument (let's ban phones, while we're at it, so they can't call people and tell them secrets).

An even more backwards argument is that by exposing kids to P2P software they are at a higher risk to pirate music, therefore be sued by copyright holders. The bad news about all this? It will make people protecting their copyrights seem antagonistic. Actually, the copyright holders that are being antagonistic are the ones making themselves seem that way, chief. If any of you out there with too much free time on your hands wants to comb through this beast for some fun quotes, pass em along and we'll post the best ones. –Adam Frucci

Shadowmonkey [via Fark]

First off, we want to be clear that this battle won't be over on March 31st. We declared March the Boycott the RIAA month to draw a line in the sand and to make a strong statement, but this is merely the beginning. Everything we're going to lay out here will still be true in April, in May, in June, and in the months that follow. March will be not the entirety of our efforts, but rather a kick off of our organized campaign to make a difference. We'll be posting tips for how to get the word out, ways to support artists without supporting the RIAA, and keeping you updated with everything that's going on throughout the entire month. With your help, we can educate people about how important this issue is and really make a difference.

Who We're Up Against
The RIAA is the industry group that represents the four major record labels — Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal, and Sony BMG — and all of their subsidiaries. They work on behalf of their members, and they have been accused of a wide range of offenses, from price-fixing to stifling innovation. They're able to perpetuate these crimes due to their huge bankroll, but that happens to be the one aspect of their organization we have control over. As consumers, we are the ones who stuff their coffers. By buying albums released by RIAA labels, we're giving them the money they use to sue our peers, stifle innovation, and force DRM down our throats. By cutting off their income stream, we can help make the RIAA less effective and therefore less damaging.

We're huge music fans here at Gizmodo, and that's why it's really hard to advocate not purchasing albums from artists we love. However, what everyone needs to understand is that we are in no means advocating piracy or not supporting musicians. The fact of the matter is, the RIAA's practices do not, in the end, support musicians or put money into their pockets. A fraction of the money from album sales actually makes it to artists, and not a single penny that the RIAA has received from their series of lawsuits has actually made it back to the artists that had their "copyrights infringed" in the first place.

Piracy Lawsuits: Extortion and Privacy Invasion Under the Guise of Copyright Enforcement
The goal of the RIAA's lawsuits is to make people so afraid of being sued that they will stop downloading music. However, in their lawsuits they circumvent the law and extort money from people who haven't been given the benefit of a legal trial.

The process that the RIAA has in place to find and sue plaintiffs is designed not to provide a fair trial and prove guilt, but rather to confuse and intimidate people into settling out of court. What exactly happens is too detailed and lengthy for me to go into here, but Grant Robertson's Layperson's Guide to Filesharing Lawsuits is a must-read for anyone interested in what exactly happened in the 20,000+ lawsuits (so far) the RIAA has brought upon the citizens of this country.

Recently, the RIAA began looking to streamline the entire lawsuit process by cutting courts, lawyers, and any semblance of due process out altogether. Their new plan is to have ISPs point people to p2plawsuits.com (catchy!) and offer to discount their settlement by $1,000 if they pay up without going to court at all. By avoiding the court system, the RIAA can avoid paying those pesky lawyer's fees. Even better for them, they plan to require ISPs to retain all of their customer records for at least 180 days in order to be eligible for the $1,000 discount. This would make everyone's surfing and downloading history available to a non-governmental organization in order to make it easier for them to gather evidence for their intimidation lawsuits.

Smothering Innovation: If You Can't Access the Internet, You Can't Pirate Music
Beyond the harassment, extortion, and privacy invasion that the RIAA commits under the guise of lawsuits, they also stifle innovation by treating any open Internet source as a potential way for people to violate their copyrights. Recently, they filed a "motion for reconsideration" in a suit claiming that anything downloaded via an Internet connection is the responsibility of the owner of said connection. While the RIAA is trying to make it easier for them to get money out of the parents of kids they sue, the precedent that it would set would make it difficult, if not impossible, for open WiFi hotspots to exist. That means that the RIAA would make it impossible for you to connect to the web for free while out in a city that provides Internet access merely because you might use it to download music.

DRM: Pay More, Get Less
Digital Rights Management, or DRM, is the software that makes it so music you buy from the iTunes Music Store can't play on any other player other than the iPod, such as a Zune or Sansa. In an effort to keep people from sharing legally purchased music, DRM actually goes much farther than copyright law dictates, denying paying customers the fair use of the music they buy. You should be able to do what you want with an album once you've paid for it; like a CD or a record, you now own it for life.

However, music wrapped in DRM software cannot be played on devices other than those explicitly tied to the store you brought it from. Furthermore, listening to your music across multiple computers, or moving your music to a new computer when you upgrade, is often a huge headache that ends with you needing to repurchase your songs.

In effect, the RIAA's insistence on strict DRM takes value away from legally purchased music. People have a choice: they can either pirate unrestricted MP3 files that will let them use them however they'd like, or they can pay for files that won't allow them the freedom to listen where and how they choose. It only makes sense that many tech-savvy people choose to download MP3s rather than pay for crippled files. The RIAA wants people to pay for restrictions and like it.

Rescuing Artists From Those Claiming to Support Them
As we're a technology website, we're most in touch with the RIAA's actions in response to music downloading as opposed to their history of poor artist management and unfair retail tactics. However, it's worth noting that issues such as the underpayment of artists and album price-fixing are quite serious and should be considered as good a reason as any to keep your money from going to their pockets. Two articles worth reading to study up on how major labels screw over the artists they claim to represent are Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference and The Problem with Music by Steve Albini. Both are written by artists who have first-hand knowledge of just how badly major labels take advantage of musicians, and both are guaranteed to change how you view the music industry.

Out With the Old, In With the New
So what would we like to see happen? First and foremost, we want the lawsuits to stop. Treating normal people like common criminals and using fear tactics and intimidation to extort thousands of dollars from them goes against everything that this country stands for. Secondly, we want them to stop insisting that DRM software be used on all of their music being sold online. People are willing to pay for their music, but they deserve to be able to own that music and use it however they'd like once they purchase it. And lastly, we want the RIAA to stop trying to stifle innovation and control the future of the Internet merely because the possibility exists for piracy to happen using upcoming technologies.

But all these things, in the long run, are temporary solutions to a problem that will eventually end with a permanent solution. The fact of the matter is, the RIAA is becoming more outdated and unnecessary by the day. Their seeming inability to grasp the reality of today's music industry has doomed them, and there will come a time when they will cease to exist.

That's because the era of the major label is over. Why should a new band want to sign with one? They no longer need a $50,000 recording budget; more sophisticated and powerful home recording equipment and software is released every day. Music videos are cheaper to shoot and edit as well due to the lowered costs of cameras and computers. Promoting for radio is increasingly unnecessary, as more and more bands are discovered via blogs rather than through traditional channels. And manufacturing is slowly being erased from the picture altogether, allowing artists to distribute their music online with little overhead costs.

While twenty years ago a band needed a record label to discover them, help them record, help them shoot a video, manufacture and then distribute their album, a resourceful band can do all of those things themselves. Eventually, bands will be able to sell their music online direct to fans with minimal reliance on a record label. The RIAA is teetering on the edge of irrelevance, and it's our job to give it a hearty shove. They can still do a hell of a lot of damage on their way down, and that's what we need to try to stop. Stay tuned. –Adam Frucci

Movie content is provided by Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., and MGM, and will sit alongside free videos uploaded by users. Exceedingly lame, however, is that all of the studio movies are rentals only, imploding 30 days after you download one or a day after you start watching it.

New flicks go for $3.99, older ones for $2.99. TV show stuff is standard—$1.99 to buy (and keep). Since they're wrapped up in Windows Media Player DRM, you can guess where, how and on what they'll play (or not). Observation: Microsoft must be making a killing licensing their DRM to people, since most of the big digital movie distributors other than iTunes use it.

While overall I find these services to be ill-conceived, limiting and wholly unsatisfactory, if you do decide to buy crippled, overpriced content, a NYT test showed that thanks to BT's p2p setup, it took less time to download a movie than it did from Wal-Mart. Moreover, it seems to solve the issues that the Xbox 360 download service ran into on the first day.

The real question is: "Can BitTorrent compete against itself?" The BT network already offers a vastly superior catalog of content without restrictions (or cost), albeit not so legally. Something else to consider: since they're using your bandwidth to distribute content users pay for, why aren't purchases subsidized according to how much someone uploads?

Verdict: Call us when someone launches a store that offers content worth paying for. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't seem so keen on making that happen. – Matt Buchanan

Software Exploited by Pirates Goes to Work for Hollywood [NYT]

The Times claims that the move shows the "recording industry is recognizing that it might have to loosen its control to attract the giant audience found in largely unregulated corners of the Internet." Wrong.

I don't see how freely distributing what amounts to unprotected ads, taking advantage of users' bandwidth for distribution, is loosening control or "rethink[ing] the rules of distribution."

Nothing has changed, other than that the ads are no longer fake files from MediaDefender which promote Coke—now they're just promotional material for the labels themselves. Utter garbage. – Matt Buchanan

Music Labels Offer Teasers to Download [NYT]