UK Law Firm Tries Suing As Many People As Possible For File Sharing

from the is-there-a-guinness-record-on-this? dept

The UK law firm Davenport Lyons has made a name for itself in being incredibly aggressive in threatening and suing anyone that it suspects of being involved in file sharing, no matter how flimsy the evidence it has. In face, Davenport Lyons relies on the increasingly questionable evidence provided by the firm Logistep, whose evidence is so shaky that the company has been found to have broken the law in both Italy and Switzerland. And, oh yeah, another lawyer who relied on questionable Logistep evidence has been banned from practicing law in France for six months, after the Paris Bar realized that this questionable "evidence" was being used more for extortion-like "pre-settlement" letters that demand money to avoid getting taken to court.

However, that's not stopping Davenport Lyons, who has found the business to be so lucrative that it wants more people it can threaten. It's now suing over 100 people it believes shared a pinball video game. Once again, you can rest assured that this has little to do with the actual legal merits of the case, and quite a lot to do with simply trying to frighten as many people as possible into paying up on those "pre-settlement" letters. For example, there are numerous misstatements made by Davenport Lyons, including the false claim that these lawsuits are about downloading, rather than uploading. In fact, all the lawsuits are about whether or not someone uploaded the game -- but the lawyer notes: "There is no difference between stealing a DVD from a high street retailer and downloading it from a peer-to-peer network."

Of course, the lawyer is also wrong there. There is a tremendous difference between stealing a DVD from a retailer and downloading it from a P2P network: most notably that in the first case, something is missing and in the second it is not. That doesn't mean it's not infringing, but the two things are quite different. The same lawyer goes on to claim that video games can't continue being made if there is widespread file sharing -- despite evidence from some video game companies that embracing file sharing as a way to gain attention does wonders.

Reality, though, doesn't keep the money coming in. Expect plenty more lawsuits from Davenport Lyons, as the company claims that a recent legal decisions means ISPs need to start handing over names of suspected file sharers so it can send out its nastygrams in short order.

Filed Under: downloads, file sharing, pre-settlement letters, uploads, video games
Companies: davenport lyons

If You Block Your P2P App From Sharing Files, Are You Still Guilty Of Making Files Available?

from the it's-going-to-need-to-in-this-case dept

Contrary to popular opinion (partly due to a misunderstanding press that will often repeat this myth), the various lawsuits regarding file sharing have never been about an individual downloading unauthorized copyright-covered works, but in uploading or sharing them. Amusingly, there are some legal experts who point out that a clear reading of copyright law in the US actually suggests that uploading is perfectly legal, while downloading may not be. Either way, the entertainment industry has focused on going after people for uploading (specifically: distributing) unauthorized materials. And that has resulted in an ongoing legal debate over the question of whether or not simply making something available is the equivalent of distribution under the law. There have been a few court rulings on either side of this question, but the trend seems to be leaning towards the fact that making available is not the equivalent of distributions. That would be a problem for the recording industry, as it would then need to prove actual unauthorized distribution, which could be quite difficult.

That said, in one case, it may be facing an even bigger uphill battle. That's because it charged someone with distributing/uploading content, despite the fact that he'd modded his file sharing software to not allow any uploads. It's difficult to see how they can get him for even "making available" given that he set up the software in a way to not actually make anything available at all. But, of course, given how much the entertainment industry relies on flimsy evidence, it's probably no surprise that it didn't even check to see if this guy was making any files available before charging him with doing so.

Filed Under: distribution, downloads, file sharing, making available, uploads

California Can't Resist: Wants To Tax iTunes Downloads Again

from the keep-on-trying dept

There are some states that already include a sales tax on internet downloads for things like iTunes purchases (even if the rationale for the tax doesn't seem to exist beyond "the state needs money"). Every so often various other state politicians start itching to add an iTunes download tax. The latest is California. Some state politicians made a bunch of news back in April for proposing just such a plan, but the resulting publicity and anger from California residents made sure that proposal was quickly shot down. So what did the main sponsor of that proposal do? He waited less than two months and proposed a nearly identical tax on digital downloads. Of course, all this will really do is push more people to look at alternatives, legal or not, because of the greater expense associated with digital downloads (a product that should get cheaper over time, rather than more expensive).

Filed Under: california, downloads, itunes, sales tax, taxes

Trent Reznor Continues To Show How Free Music Works In A Business Model

from the smart-guy dept

After his Ghosts I-IV experiment that proved to be a huge success, Trent Reznor wasted little time in releasing the next Nine Inch Nails album as a completely free download. And, of course, he didn't just give it away and pray. At the same time as he released the album, he notified fans of his latest concert.

Now, in an attempt to make that concert (whose tickets are a scarce good people will pay for) even more valuable, he's giving away free tracks of all of the opening acts on the tour. In other words, he's giving people even more reasons to pay to go to the concert. He's giving away that infinite good (the music) to make those scarce goods (the tickets) more valuable. This fits with the model we were discussing just a few weeks ago, of bands giving free downloads to anyone who buys a concert ticket, to boost the value of that ticket. Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

Filed Under: business models, concerts, downloads, free music, nine inch nails, trent reznor

Blockbuster Thinks You'll Drive To A Store To Download A Movie?

from the our-dumb-ideas dept

While I do think Blockbuster is trying a few interesting ideas in its ongoing effort to adapt to a rapidly changing market, some of its ideas are just flat out bad. For example, new Chairman and CEO James Keyes actually spent time at the company's recent shareholder meeting to unveil and talk up the possibilities of a special movie download kiosk that can be placed in stores. It sounds like someone got "kiosk fever." For those who don't follow the e-retailing space, I guess you can be forgiven for actually thinking digital kiosks make sense (though, barely). But the concept of in-store kiosks for digital content has been around for over 20 years, and shows up like clockwork every two years or so -- and fails miserably every time. People just aren't interested -- especially when they have the best, most useful "kiosk" they could ever need at their home in the form of their computer. The idea that people will want to go to a Blockbuster store to download a movie seems preposterous.

Filed Under: brick-and-mortar, downloads, kiosks, movies, video
Companies: blockbuster

Metallica Tries To Embrace The Online Musical Experience -- Gets Halfway There

from the it's-a-step dept

Among folks who follow the news about copyright issues and online music, the band Metallica is rather infamous. After all, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich was the first (and most vocal) musician to come out swinging about how evil Napster was. The band was the first to sue Napster (and some universities for failing to block Napster) back in 2000. It also spent many years complaining about iTunes -- though the band eventually gave in two years ago.

However, this isn't to say that the band hasn't been willing to at least experiment with online music, often in somewhat creative ways. Way back in 2003, while other musicians were jumping on the iTunes train, Metallica did a surprising deal with DSL provider Speakeasy, offering Speakeasy customers who bought a Metallica CD access to other special content including "live recordings, demos, b-sides and other content." In other words, they actually gave people a reason to buy the CD -- but oddly targeted only at the small number of Speakeasy customers.

Given that, perhaps it isn't that surprising that Metallica has now come out with a new website that tries to embrace online music. The new site, Mission Metallica, actually comes out of Ethan Kaplan's group at Warner Brothers Records. Kaplan is the guy we were talking about last week who is hopefully leading Warner in the right direction on music.

As Kaplan notes, the important thing with the new site is that the music is part of the overall experience. The site (in some ways similar to their old deal with Speakeasy) offers a ton of additional content concerning the making of Metallica's latest album and various other things, like contests to win tickets to shows. It also puts in place many of the other aspects of the business model we've been discussing, including a tiered offering a la Trent Reznor and Jill Sobule. That is, the band is offering a variety of options to let people pay for actual value beyond the music.

But... of course, it stops just short of actually making it all the way there. That's because the band isn't releasing any of the digital downloads for free. It still wants people to pay for the downloads -- even though freeing up those downloads would likely attract more people to all those other options (the band, obviously, would disagree, but given Metallica's reputation as being the slayers of Napster, they might be surprised at what a total shift would do for them). It's encouraging that the band has adopted many of the important aspects of recognizing the importance of the experience surrounding music, but it's disappointing that they haven't made it all the way through to the logical conclusion of where that model leads.

Filed Under: downloads, experience, metallica, music

No, iTunes And Amazon Downloads Are Not The Answer For The Recording Industry

from the not-going-to-happen dept

Over the past few years, you started to hear people in the recording industry claim that they were now "embracing" online music, but they were doing so in the form of iTunes. Even though they hated Apple's dominance in the market, they still felt that selling downloads was the key to the future. Not so fast. As plenty of folks have been pointing out for years, free downloads have always been the ones really dominating the market. No, it may not be legal, but to ignore that market reality is simply asking for trouble. So, it should come as no surprise that despite whatever "advances" have been made in pay-for-downloads lately, the percentage of music listeners paying to download is shrinking, while the number using file sharing systems (despite all those lawsuits and bogus "education" campaigns) has remained constant or grown. Given that we're seeing musicians both big and small use free music to make themselves plenty of money, isn't it time that the industry as a whole started to recognize the opportunities?

Filed Under: business models, downloads, free, music, piracy, recording industry
Companies: amazon, apple

Hollywood Shoots Itself In The Foot Yet Again With Netflix Set-Top Box

from the customers-are-the-enemy dept

When I started reading CNet's write-up of Roku's new Netflix set-top box, I was beginning to think that the movie industry might finally be getting its act together. The price ($99) seemed reasonable, and the subscription rate (as little as $8.99/month) seemed about right. After years of missteps, I thought, maybe they were finally starting to figure out this Internet thing. Then I read this sentence: "Thanks to Hollywood's byzantine licensing system, less than 10 percent of Netflix's 100,000-plus library of titles is available for streaming to the Player." Even worse, only two of Netflix's 100 most popular movies are available for streaming. It's almost as if Hollywood doesn't want its customers' business.

Apparently, three other manufacturers, including LG, are working on competing set-top boxes. They should be careful not to put all of their eggs in the Netflix basket, given that Netflix may or may not succeed in getting the studios to release more of their titles. And as we've said before, the last thing the video streaming market needs is yet another pointless standards battle. What's needed is an open platform that supports free and paid downloads from a variety of different sources. Some of the Netflix boxes will reportedly include DVD or Blu-Ray drives, which is a smart move. Device makers should also be exploring more open content-delivery options, either in conjunction with existing video sites like YouTube, or developing a new, open platform where anyone can share their videos. In the long run, a lot of video business models will likely involve giving away free content, and a company that provides the set-top boxes for delivering that free content is likely to make a bunch of money. That market will grow especially fast if Hollywood continues its campaign to make its content as difficult to purchase as possible.

Filed Under: downloads, movies, proprietary, settop box
Companies: netflix, roku

Collapse of Music DRM Continues; DRM Customers Still Screwed

from the we're-shocked dept

Support for DRM in the recording industry is in freefall. On Tuesday, Napster released a new version of its music store offering 6 million DRM-free tracks. Napster is a relative latecomer to this party, joining Apple, Amazon, and Wal-Mart, all of whom have had at least some DRM-free, major-label music available for about a year. One difference, though, is that Napster is coming out of the chute with support from all four major labels and thousands of smaller labels as well. At this point, any music store that doesn't offer DRM-free tracks is going to look like a real laggard. This story wasn't too surprising given the way things have been going over the last year. But even less surprising is the fact that customers who were foolish enough to purchase DRMed content from previous versions of Napster are stuck with their decision. They don't get to update their content to MP3 format, and while Napster has decided to continue running its "license servers" for now, it's only a matter of time before Napster decides running those servers is more trouble than it's worth and shuts them off, cutting customers off from their music libraries entirely.

Filed Under: downloads, drm, mp3s
Companies: napster

Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Tyler Hellard writes in to alert us to the bizarre and self-destructive plan of a company called Letterhead that sells different fonts. The super paranoid company apparently includes the name, email and account ID of each purchaser with the font itself. One font buyer shared the font with a company making a sign for him (which seems reasonable enough) and that company ended up sharing the font on a file sharing network. That's the point at which Letterhead went ballistic. It claimed that every single download was "stolen" (which, of course, it was not) and then sent the original purchaser a bill for $944 for all of those downloads (Update: Apparently the folks at Letterhead aren't happy about this post -- they've blocked anyone coming from this site, so if you want to see the article, you need to copy and paste the URL, rather than just clicking the link. Apparently, they don't deal with criticism well.). How many downloads were there? A whopping 32 copies. But Letterhead falsely assumes that all 32 would have purchased the font (no, they would not have) and then thinks it can change its original deal with the guy so that they can charge him for those downloads. The company also published his name and his contact info (which would appear to be a violation of a customer's privacy).

Then, to make things even more ridiculous, Letterhead decided to punish all its own customers for its own inability to put in place a business model that recognizes basic supply and demand. So, along with publishing the story and this guy's name, it's significantly raised the price of the font from $30 to $40 -- saying that it will keep the price up until the full $944 is paid off. This is doubly stupid. Not only are they making it even less likely that anyone will buy the font, they're now competing with the fact that this font is already out there available for free. That's not the time at which you raise prices. Obviously, they're trying to shame the guy into paying $944 -- but the real problem is the company doesn't understand its own market or the products its selling.

In fact, it goes out of its way to admit that it doesn't understand digital goods by claiming:

"Fonts are tangible goods around here and will forever be treated as such. Theft always affects the price of fonts and there are some costs that must be recouped. (1) The time that Duncan Wilkie spent in creating the fonts (2) The time Letterhead Fonts spent in helping Duncan to refine his fonts (3) The time and advertising dollars Letterhead Fonts spent to promote LHF Garner (4) The time Letterhead Fonts spends removing LHF Garner from the file-sharing websites."

This shows a fatal lack of understanding of basic economics. First, fonts are not tangible goods. They never have been, and to say that the company will always consider them to be suggests that it will probably go out of business well before businesses that understand what they're actually selling. Then, claiming that there are specific costs that need to be recouped, again is a misunderstanding of economics. Yes, costs need to be recouped, but that's the responsibility of those setting up the business model -- not the customers. Furthermore, the company falsely includes fixed costs with the marginal costs in figuring out how to "price" the fonts, again insuring that other companies will be able to create much more reasonable business models.

Basically, the company is advertising its ignorance of basic economics and its own products and market, while punishing customers for its own incompetence. It may think it's going to shame one of its customers into paying, but all it's really doing is convincing a lot of folks never to buy anything from Letterhead fonts in the future.

Filed Under: downloads, economics, fonts, punishing customers, tangible goods