Ares Connect

Fans of the hit game, Halo, were recently amazed to discover that the eagerly awaited sequel, Reach, had been uploaded on to many popular file sharing sites for fans to download. Once news of the leak spread across the internet, popular file sharing sites were inundated with opportunistic fans seeking an illegal copy of the much awaited game.

Although the game is not scheduled for release in the UK until September 14th, there was an advanced copy available to press and reviewers on the Xbox website. Unfortunately, hackers managed to find their way through the security blocks and steal a copy of the game.

Initially, the game hijackers claimed they had no intention of releasing copies over the Internet, but since it is now available to all and sundry on file sharing sites, it appears they have since changed their minds.

Microsoft have been quick to come forward and remind users that they take a dim view on the game leak and will be leaving no stones unturned in their investigation into what happened and who was responsible—the implication being that those who might have downloaded a sneaky copy of the game had better watch out.

Most experts believed that with the economic downturn affecting the average family’s disposable income, there would be a definite rise in the number of people turning to illegal file sharing for their music and video requirements. But surprisingly a new report recently published by leading market research company, Interpret, has blown that theory out of the water.

Following extensive research, Interpret failed to find any significant links between a reduction in consumer spending habits and an increase in illegal file sharing. The only correlations found between the two were in people who had greatly reduced their spending habits. These people were reported to be less likely to buy CD’s and DVD’s, while more likely to download their music and media files from popular file sharing sites found on the Internet. The research indicated that music files accounted for the biggest proportion of files downloaded—86% of those questioned said they had downloaded illegal music, compared to only 31% admitting to downloading TV programs and movies.

Michael Dowling, CEO of Interpret, announced this was “good news”, but since small individuals rarely impact the entertainment industry’s profits, it probably won’t make much difference to the bigger picture.

In a wave of recent publicity, Torrentreactor.net recently announced that it had randomly selected the Russian outpost of Gar to be renamed as Torrentreactor. Although there has been a great deal of speculation that the entire story is a hoax, Torrentreactor.net has allegedly paid $148,000 for the privilege of renaming Gar and whilst none of the villagers have any idea who or what Torrentreactor.net actually is, there is no doubt that the money will probably come in very useful.

The village of Gar is located 100 miles from the Seversk nuclear reactor. It is very much a place that time forgot and the only income the 214 residents have is through selling their vegetables in the nearby town. When questioned by the media, the villagers said that the unexpected windfall would be used to pay for repairs to the roads as well as providing new agricultural equipment and machinery.

Torrentreactor.net, which is a well-known file sharing and BitTorrent download site, has also agreed to pay for a brand new broadband Internet connection to the village. Presumably the villagers will then be able to check out exactly who their generous “Robin Hood” benefactor really is.

With music file sharing an issue that is constantly in the headlines these days, reports that the iDisk app for Apple iPad and iPhone allows filesharing and playback without requiring a license is great news for music fans everywhere. The option to stream audio files from the “cloud” while using another app adds extra capability to Apple devices. Users can listen to music files from online storage areas while working. This cunning little feature is not openly listed in the features guide, but users will have no problem accessing it via their device menu.

Many music companies have been trying to force net companies to introduce licenses for users who wish to stream, download, and backup music from “cloud” services, but it seems that Apple is fighting for the rights of the common people by ignoring this request.

Sadly the app does have some limitations, as at present there is no easy way to move all of your iTunes music files to an iDisk account. However, this is definitely a step in the right direction and can only add to the increasing popularity of Apple devices such as the iTouch and iPod.

Ofcom have recently published their draft code designed to bring an end to illegal file sharing, but the Open Rights Group who advocate for more freedom on the Internet have criticized the code for being far too vague about the standard of evidence required to link the suspect to the crime.

Problems with a lack of concrete evidence have blighted many recent US court cases where the music industry has accused the elderly and children of illicit file sharing. The ORG wants to prevent a similar occurrence from happening in the UK, but lawyers acting for the Ministry of Sound have already begun sending out letters to individuals accusing them of illegal file sharing—many of whom claim to be entirely innocent.

The ORG is now calling for the draft code to be redrafted and made compliant with the recently introduced Digital Economy Act in the hope that the evidential process will be made far clearer. Until the standard of evidence and how that evidence was obtained is specified, there is likely to be many more innocent people in the UK wrongly sued by the music industry for alleged illegal file sharing.

In the wake of recent highly publicized lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many critics are beginning to question the validity of such ludicrous settlements when the financial gain is far outweighed by the cost. Between 2008 and 2009, the RIAA won $1.4 million in lawsuits against consumers alleged to have illegally downloaded music files from popular peer-to-peer filesharing networks—but only at a staggering cost of $64 million.

When the cost of these lawsuits is so ridiculously high, why are the RIAA spending so much money chasing a few hapless individuals? Industry insiders believe it is because the RIAA is determined to prop up the ailing CD industry at any cost, rather than embrace new business models for online music sales.

In recent years, CD sales have been in significant decline as consumers choose to download individual songs rather than buy entire albums. Unfortunately, the RIAA seems to think that they can scare the public into buying CD’s again by chasing a few unlucky individuals through the courts. But critics say that these scare tactics are unlikely to work in the long run so the RIAA is going to have to rethink its policies.

Filesharing has once again hit the headlines after PRS for Music published a paper in which it announced it was calling for a controversial levy to be placed on broadband providers in the UK. This so called “piracy levy” will tax ISP’s based on the amount of illegal files downloaded through their networks.

PRS’s report, written by their chief economist, Will Page, plus David Touve from Washington and Lee University, claims to offer an economic framework which will provide an incentive to force the industries to act on illegal downloads. Their argument is that a piracy tax will help to align the financial interests of both parties.

The Digital Economy Act called for the measuring of peer-to-peer usage, but is proving difficult to put into place as the ISP’s and the rights holders are currently arguing over who should be responsible for the cost of illegal file sharing.

The technology is already in place to monitor filesharing traffic, so once the ISP’s and rights holders come to a workable agreement, it is only a matter of time before peer-to-peer networks are at risk and fines against users become standard. This money would either be paid to the state, or to the rights holders.

In another outrageous court case instigated by the music industry in an attempt to crack down on illegal file sharing, poor Joel Tenenbaum has been made an example of after a jury chose to punish him with the ludicrous fine of $675,000.

His only crime was to download 30 songs over an 8-year period. Even the judge agreed that Tenenbaum had obviously had no interest in financial gain and had clearly been unaware of the fact he was supposedly committing an illegal act. The Judge actually commented that the amount was “unconstitutional” given the relatively small crime that had been committed.

Fortunately for Joel Tenenbaum, the Judge took the decision to reduce the fine to a slightly more sensible $67,500, but even so, Tenenbaum still says he has no real chance of paying off the debt given his modest income.

In the light of this high profile case, and several others in recent times, it is incomprehensible to many that instead of taking the view that in the vast majority of cases, small scale file sharing actually helps artists market their songs to the public, the music industry chooses to target individuals whose only crime is to share a few songs on the Internet.

A recent request to the courts in Washington DC by the US Copyright Group that would change the face of filesharing legal cases across the country is, we are pleased to say, most likely to fall on its ass and die.

The request was to treat 15,000 defendants in a filesharing case (the alleged crime was to download copies of the recently released “The Hurt Locker” and “Far Cry”). It can be plainly seen (to everyone except the US Copyright Group Lawyers, it seems) that this causes huge problems with individual’s rights. As the ACLU’s Aden Fine pointed out:

“lumping thousands of unconnected individuals into a few cases in a court far from where they live, without providing them adequate notice and a real opportunity to challenge the subpoenas,” certainly does not “uphold the law and individuals’ due process rights.”

The RIAA tried a similar thing a previously, and their request failed spectacularly. All the evidence points to the conclusion that this is going to go the same way. Let’s hope so, for the sake of file sharing and filesharers. And, of course, for the sake of common sense.

If I were to tell you that LimeWire – the filesharing service that epitomizes everything that is gung-ho and ‘wild west’ about the industry – were going to try and provide a subscription-based service, you’d think that I were mad. If I told you that this service had been in the pipeline for quite some time, and they LimeWire were in talks with record companies about it, then you’d think I was even more mad.

Well, bananas to you. I must be mad.

This announcement from LimeWire, on the back of a huge legal loss against the RIAA and with the threat of another legal battle looming, seems to us very much like a panic attack from the filesharing company. Their contention that this has be planned “for months” sounds like them spinning a yarn… as we see it this is the only way they can see to get out of this mess.

Whatever the motivation behind this sudden change of heart, it’s going to be interesting to see them manage such a huge upheaval in what HAS to be record time. Of course, we’ve all used LimeWire at one time or another (well, over 50% of us have, anyway, according to statistics), and we sure do wish them well.