Techcrunch has a very interesting article today that speaks about “new DRM,” the embedding of personal info into tracks purchased from major retailers such Apple and Wal-Mart.
Here is their post from an anonymous music industry ‘insider’:
Hidden in purchased music files from popular stores such as Apple and Walmart is information to identify the buyer and/or the transaction. You won’t find it disclosed in their published terms of use. It’s nowhere in their support documentation. There’s no mention in the digital receipt. Consumers are largely oblivious to this, but it could have future ramifications as the music industry takes another stab at locking down music files.
Here’s how it works. During the buying process a username and transaction ID are known by the online retailers. Before making the song available for download their software embeds into the file either an account name or a transaction number or both. Once downloaded, the file has squirreled away this personal information in a manner where you can’t easily see it, but if someone knows where to look they can. This information doesn’t affect the audio fidelity, but it does permanently attach to the file data which can be used to trace back to the original purchaser which could be used at a later date.
Retailers aren’t talking, but there’s ample proof of what’s transpiring. Using simple file comparison tools it’s possible to verify this behavior by purchasing identical songs using different accounts and see if they match. I emailed support departments for several retailers asking if they would acknowledge these actions and inquiring about what specific information they are embedding. Only 7digital responded saying they don’t use any watermarks. What retailers won’t say publicly is that the major record labels are requiring this behavior as a precondition to sell their music.
[More]>>
Result for: music files
Yesterday we reported that the once infamous P2P client Kazaa was set to make a comeback, this time as a legal net music store.
The timeline was unclear, but the store has gone live today.
Reads the site:
“Kazaa is a subscription-based service brought to you by Brilliant Digital Entertainment (BDE) a leading online distributor of licensed digital content. BDE provides the means for record labels, film studios and software developers to market and sell their products to a worldwide audience of 70 million users
. With the Kazaa service you get unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of CD-quality tracks for one low monthly fee.
For just $19.98/mo, you can download unlimited music files, and play those files on up to 3 PCs that you own. The subscription package is for PC only, which means that you won’t be able to play those files on a portable music player. The files will remain playable while your subscription is active – once your subscription ends, you will no longer be able to play those files.
The subscription package also enables you to download unlimited ringtones to a single cell phone.
Unlike other music services that charge you every time you download a song, Kazaa allows you to listen to as much music as you want for one low monthly fee. This allows you to explore all the music you want without having to pay for every single track or album.”
Result for: music files
On Thursday, Jammie Thomas was found to have “committed willful violation” of the copyrights of 24 songs she shared via P2P and the jury awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million USD, equivalent to $80,000 for each song.
Quite obviously, the RIAA will never see that full amount, but thanks to a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the group may not see a cent.
Ira Rothken, the US-based lawyer who in the past has represented public torrent indexers TorrentSpy and Isohunt says Thomas may be able to get out of the debt through bankruptcy court, something that was not an option until that recent San Francisco decision.
The case, Barboza vs. New Form, made it clear that “willful violation” is different in civil court than in bankruptcy court. “Now her conversation must be ‘Hey, if we can’t settle, I’m going to go forward and file for bankruptcy,’ and they’ll say ‘Well, you’ll have to have another trial,’”added Rothken.
Now, in copyright cases, “willful” must imply the defendant’s intent was to cause harm, a point the RIAA did not prove in their case against Thomas.
Kathryn Bartow, a lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, works for the major film studios, but also agrees it will be hard for the RIAA to collect the money:
“(Barboza) serves as a warning to trademark and copyright owners as well as the counsel who represent them in willful infringement cases. When presenting evidence and crafting jury instructions, beware. In willful infringement cases, to prevent an individual defendant from having its debt discharged in bankruptcy, the plaintiff should consider introducing sufficient evidence and including additional jury instructions to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code’s definitions of ‘willful and malicious.’”
[More]>>
