Post by kalisa2 on May 5, 2003 6:48:55 GMT -5
Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to industry executives.
.The record companies are thinking about new countermeasures, of varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft: from attacking personal Internet connections, so as to slow or halt the downloading of pirated music, to overwhelming the distribution networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.
.The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they could be illegal under U.S. state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the executives said.
.If put into practice, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet taken by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that the industry estimates costs it $4.3 billion a year in worldwide sales. Until now, most of the industry's anti-piracy efforts have involved filing lawsuits against companies or individuals who distribute pirated music. Last week, four students who had been sued by the industry settled the lawsuits by agreeing to stop operating networks that swap music and to pay $12,000 to $17,500 each.
.The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like KaZaA and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered legal but has had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more a nuisance than an effective deterrent.
.The new measures under development take a more extreme - and antagonistic - approach, according to executives who have been briefed on the software programs.
.Because the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities - criminal and civil - are not easily defined. But some tactics are more problematic than others. Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program, considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download.
.A more malicious program, called "freeze," locks up a computer system for a certain duration - minutes or possibly even hours - risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a warning about downloading pirated music.
.Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said it was being reworked because it was also deleting legitimate files.
.Other approaches that are being tested include attacking personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a person from using a network while trying to download pirated music or offer it to others.
."There are a lot of things you can do - some quite nasty," said Marc Morgenstern, chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that receives support from several large media companies. Overpeer, with 15 staff members, is the largest of about a dozen businesses founded to create counterpiracy methods.
.Morgenstern refused to say exactly who his clients were. "I have confidentiality agreements with them," he said. He also said that his company did not and would not deploy any programs that ran afoul of the law. "Our philosophy," he said, "is to make downloading pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without crossing the line."
.The music industry's five "majors" - Universal Music Group, a unit of Vivendi Universal; the Warner Music Group, a unit of AOL Time Warner; Sony Music Entertainment; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann, and EMI - have all financed the development of counterpiracy programs, according to executives, but none would discuss the details publicly.
.Record company executives are divided over whether they should unleash a tougher anti-piracy campaign. Some executives want to find a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating customers. There are also questions about whether companies could be held liable by individuals whose computers have been attacked.
."Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright issues. "It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage. The law has ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."
.The New York Times
.The record companies are thinking about new countermeasures, of varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft: from attacking personal Internet connections, so as to slow or halt the downloading of pirated music, to overwhelming the distribution networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.
.The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they could be illegal under U.S. state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed and tested by a cadre of small technology companies, the executives said.
.If put into practice, the new tactics would be the most aggressive effort yet taken by the recording industry to thwart music piracy, a problem that the industry estimates costs it $4.3 billion a year in worldwide sales. Until now, most of the industry's anti-piracy efforts have involved filing lawsuits against companies or individuals who distribute pirated music. Last week, four students who had been sued by the industry settled the lawsuits by agreeing to stop operating networks that swap music and to pay $12,000 to $17,500 each.
.The industry has also tried to frustrate pirates technologically by spreading copies of fake music files across file-sharing networks like KaZaA and Morpheus. This approach, called "spoofing," is considered legal but has had only mild success, analysts say, proving to be more a nuisance than an effective deterrent.
.The new measures under development take a more extreme - and antagonistic - approach, according to executives who have been briefed on the software programs.
.Because the law and the technology itself are new, the liabilities - criminal and civil - are not easily defined. But some tactics are more problematic than others. Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program, considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download.
.A more malicious program, called "freeze," locks up a computer system for a certain duration - minutes or possibly even hours - risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a warning about downloading pirated music.
.Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said it was being reworked because it was also deleting legitimate files.
.Other approaches that are being tested include attacking personal Internet connections, often called "interdiction," to prevent a person from using a network while trying to download pirated music or offer it to others.
."There are a lot of things you can do - some quite nasty," said Marc Morgenstern, chief executive of Overpeer, a technology business that receives support from several large media companies. Overpeer, with 15 staff members, is the largest of about a dozen businesses founded to create counterpiracy methods.
.Morgenstern refused to say exactly who his clients were. "I have confidentiality agreements with them," he said. He also said that his company did not and would not deploy any programs that ran afoul of the law. "Our philosophy," he said, "is to make downloading pirated music a difficult and frustrating experience without crossing the line."
.The music industry's five "majors" - Universal Music Group, a unit of Vivendi Universal; the Warner Music Group, a unit of AOL Time Warner; Sony Music Entertainment; BMG, a unit of Bertelsmann, and EMI - have all financed the development of counterpiracy programs, according to executives, but none would discuss the details publicly.
.Record company executives are divided over whether they should unleash a tougher anti-piracy campaign. Some executives want to find a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating customers. There are also questions about whether companies could be held liable by individuals whose computers have been attacked.
."Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright issues. "It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage. The law has ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."
.The New York Times
