tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/file-sharing-2150/articlesFile sharing – The Conversation2017-05-29T04:34:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778562017-05-29T04:34:48Z2017-05-29T04:34:48ZNot dead yet: how MP3 changed the way we listen to music<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170905/original/file-20170525-13228-1m1ll0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">MP3 compression of digital audio files made music more portable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock?Roger Jegg Fotodesign Jegg.de</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>First developed almost three decades ago, the MP3 format made large digital audio files relatively small and easy to pass across an internet that was largely accessed via a very slow (by today’s standards) phone dial-up connection.</p>
<p>Now the companies behind the file compression format, <a href="http://www.technicolor.com/en/who-we-are/press-news-center/press-releases/technicolor-and-fraunhofer-iis-announce-licensing-program-mpeg-h-audio-alliance-tv-system">Technicolor</a> and <a href="http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents-licenses/">Fraunhofer IIS</a>, have decided to end their support for the licensing program for MP3. The last patent for the tech format is due to expire at the end of the year.</p>
<p>So the MP3 is dead. Again. Or is it?</p>
<h2>What is MP3?</h2>
<p>MP3 is a form of <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/39939/codec">codec</a>, a way of compressing (co) and decompressing (dec) the data in audio files.</p>
<p>The organisation responsible for defining the standards for audio and video compression and decompression is the Moving Picture Experts Group (<a href="http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/">MPEG</a>), a working group of several authorities. So MP3 is just short for <a href="http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-1/audio">MPEG-1, Audio Layer 3</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HdRdTQVBxi4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The development of MP3.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Full resolution digital audio files are relatively large, around <a href="http://www.audiomountain.com/tech/audio-file-size.html">10MB per minute</a> of stereo, CD-quality sound. Today, streaming 10MB/minute might seem trivial but in the early days of digitally transferred data it was a lot. </p>
<p>MP3s were initially developed with the goal of a 12:1 compression ratio achieving acceptable sound quality. A 60MB song could therefore be compressed into a 5MB file. Other compression ratios can be used, with higher ratios yielding more obvious sonic artefacts (unwanted sounds) and lower ratios resulting in higher file sizes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/53tdYmJuUmM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Hear the quality (or not) of MP3 compression at different bit rates.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A “lossy” compression codec works on the theory that, as the human ear is already discarding a lot of information in the perception of sound, you might as well simply not encode this redundant information. </p>
<p>The term lossy comes from the fact that this data is lost, discarded and gone forever. MP3 and rivals AAC (<a href="http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-4/audio">Advanced Audio Coding</a>) and WMA (<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/54808/wma">Windows Media Audio</a>) are all lossy formats.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/107845118" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The audio that gets edited out in MP3 compression, in this case from Suzanne Vega’s version of Tom’s Diner.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conversely, lossless compression reduces file sizes, but does not reduce quality. Something like a compressed zip file is an example of lossless compression. Uncompressed files are a straight 1:1 transfer of the digital file.</p>
<h2>MP3: dead or alive?</h2>
<p>Developed in the late 1980s and standardised in the early 1990s, MP3 was first pronounced dead in 1995 and <a href="http://stephenwittbooks.com/books/how-music-got-free-tr/how-music-got-free-hc">nearly abandoned as a technology</a>. It was deemed commercially unsuccessful despite heavy investment from the Fraunhofer institute and a decade’s development by the project’s leader <a href="http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/karlheinz-brandenburg">Karlheinz Brandenburg</a>.</p>
<p>It was the <a href="https://medium.com/@pattyjburns/a-few-things-i-learned-from-how-music-got-free-cedf5326ba6c">victim of a format war</a>, led by Dutch manufacturer Philips. Fraunhofer’s MP3 was consistently overlooked in the early 1990s by the MPEG standards group in favour of Philips’ <a href="http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-2/audio">MP2</a>.</p>
<p>The MP3 format only found early commercial success in the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NK4CDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=mp3+zephyr+telos&source=bl&ots=7plN_OCngj&sig=JFJAdaJb2l00nVyb3BFQnmU1TYY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbnazP6ozUAhUBGJQKHZEiC2oQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q&f=false">sports broadcast market</a>, with the compressed digital audio saving broadcasters thousands in satellite transmission costs. </p>
<p>So deeply unpopular was MP3 in commercial music applications that the developers effectively <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NK4CDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=L3ENC&source=bl&ots=7plN_OEjgn&sig=X_EaGyMHBkLSD3rM1LIKkjhathU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS9onM8IzUAhUCI5QKHYIhAyU4FBDoAQgiMAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">gave it away for free</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, the format was close to being abandoned by its developers again towards the end 1996, in favour of the AAC format still patented and supported today. </p>
<p>The AAC format was developed initially by the same team behind the MP3, in part as a way to circumnavigate technical limitations imposed by Phillips on the MPEG-1 standard.</p>
<p>AAC generally performs better than MP3 at higher compression ratios, and the patent does not require a user to obtain a license to stream or distribute AAC encoded audio.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hDVrMMR4d_I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Listen carefully to the cymbals.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was only the proliferation of filesharing internet sites, built around the distribution of pirated content, that revived interest in the MP3, first as isolated “<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/54211/warez">warez</a>” sites, and then as peer-to-peer networks such as <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/47626/napster">Napster</a>.</p>
<p>Stephen Witt’s 2015 book <a href="http://stephenwittbooks.com/books/how-music-got-free-tr/how-music-got-free-hc">How Music Got Free</a> (a source for much of this history) says that the first time the term MP3 was used by mainstream press was May 1997, with a USA Today article detailing how college students were uploading bootlegged albums onto university servers via file sharing sites.</p>
<p>By this stage, the first time most people had even heard of the MP3 format, the horse had already bolted, and the music industry would never be the same again.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/ft_first_mp3_player/">first portable MP3 player</a>, the <a href="http://www.mpmaneurope.com/en/content/4-about-us">MPMan</a>, debuted less than a year later, and Apple’s move into the market in 2001, through the release of iTunes and the iPod, cemented the ubiquity of both compact music players and compressed digital formats.</p>
<h2>Music sharing</h2>
<p><a href="http://ryanmaguiremusic.com/theghostinthemp3.html">Early MP3s didn’t sound great</a> and were generally disliked by audiophiles and record producers alike.</p>
<p>But they allowed consumers to stockpile music to an extent that had not been possible before, heralding a new relationship between digital information and ownership.</p>
<p>A market model based on scarcity had been turned on its head. While copying music had been around for decades, each copy was physically coupled to the medium – a vinyl record or magnetic tape cassette, for instance. </p>
<p>The rise of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, most famously Napster, meant that now anyone with a computer and internet connection could access another person’s entire music collection. A single file could by copied by thousands, all at the same time. </p>
<p>This changed listening patterns: instead of buying perhaps one album per month (depending on what you could afford), and then listening to it several times, music fans could constantly scour the internet for new music. Some would even stockpile music that they would never even listen to.</p>
<h2>From share to stream</h2>
<p>Today, playing MP3 files is increasingly being superseded by the ubiquity of streaming services. With fast and cheap access to mobile internet, services such as <a href="http://www.canstarblue.com.au/phone-internet/which-music-streaming-service-is-best/">Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play and others</a> now all offer extensive music libraries that can be accessed for a subscription fee.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NI8rQEHoE24?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Just one of several online music options.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Presciently, Brandenburg’s mentor, Dieter Sietzer, had <a href="http://techcabal.com/2015/10/22/a-brief-history-of-digital-audio-and-other-stuff/">suggested as early as 1982</a> that the most effective delivery of digital audio was through streaming, as a way to make use of Germany’s new digital telephone lines. His patent was refused.</p>
<p>If it was the increase in portable MP3 players and the proliferation of pirated content that cemented the role of the MP3 in youth culture, it is the rise of streaming services that define current habits. </p>
<p>Despite Fraunhofer’s <a href="https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html">termination of its licensing program</a> for the MP3 format, the MP3 file will continue to live on, unsupported by the developers, but now unrestricted by patents or licences.</p>
<p>While better codecs now exist for compressing digital music files, it’s interesting to note the revival of the old format of vinyl.</p>
<p>Today, events such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/may/09/in-full-on-vinyl-no-chatter-have-we-lost-the-art-of-listening-to-music-">Classic Album Sundays</a> are emerging as an attempt to reclaim focused listening experiences through the use of analogue technologies that have been nominally obsolete since the late 1980s. </p>
<p>I believe it very unlikely that similar listening parties will develop in an attempt to celebrate the early MP3.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77856/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yanto Browning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The MP3 audio file transformed the way we accessed music online. So what does it mean now that licensing and support for the popular format is to end?Yanto Browning, Associate lecturer in Music and Sound, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/495562015-10-27T18:07:56Z2015-10-27T18:07:56ZUber court win shows change is on the cards for more than just the taxi industry<p>The rise of ride-hailing services such as Uber and Halo has been as rapid as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33281422">complaints from established taxi markets</a>, with several cities and countries such as in <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-uber-germany-idUSKBN0N71WN20150416">Berlin</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33281896">Sao Paolo</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33281896">France</a> banning Uber outright. However, in London a judgement from the High Court recently declared the service <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34542100">legal in the UK</a>.</p>
<p>Uber convinced the High Court that the company’s smartphone app, which connects drivers and passengers, could not be considered equivalent to taxi meters – which are not allowed for private hire vehicles – and so the company does not break British law.</p>
<p>This is an important step towards establishing this technological approach as a new business model, one that will radically change the way taxi and private-hire services operate. But shouldn’t business models develop over time as changing markets, technologies and legal structures allow?</p>
<h2>Uber’s controversial approach</h2>
<p>Uber has experienced <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/18/uber-expands-funding-round-as-revenue-growth-accelerates/">rapidly accelerating revenue growth</a> and investor interest since launch. But Uber’s critics claim that its prosperity in part derives from the fact it bypasses or ignores existing taxi regulations, leading to an unfair and unethical competitive advantage over a heavily regulated competition. </p>
<p>They argue the absence of effective ride-hailing regulation threatens not just competitors but consumers too. Just days after the court decision, the Indian Court of Justice <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34578477">convicted a former Uber driver</a> for raping a female passenger in New Delhi last year, a case that highlighted Uber’s apparent failure to adequately vet drivers there (a process it says it has since improved).</p>
<p>So, how ethical is it for a court to legitimise a new business model despite apparent shortcomings based on the fact that it only technically doesn’t break the law?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99749/original/image-20151026-18426-1hicpvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Uber’s legal issues worldwide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">taxi-deutschland.net</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A sharing economy that wasn’t</h2>
<p>Let’s recall a similar tale of how established players faced off against newcomers that did things differently. </p>
<p>Online sharing of music and films began in many countries with Napster, using <a href="http://jr3tv3gd5w.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=M&aulast=Giesler&atitle=The+anthropology+of+file+sharing:+Consuming+Napster+as+a+gift&title=Advances+in+consumer+research&volume=30&date=2003&spage=273&issn=0098-9258">peer-to-peer networking to share digital files</a>. The music and film industries launched lawsuits over copyright violations and introduced digital rights management (DRM) software to protect products from duplication. Some even distributed <a href="http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/6/739.abstract">fake or corrupt files to discourage users</a>. After several years <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/852283.stm">Napster closed</a>, only for many alternatives to fill the gap: Limewire, Kazaa, eDonkey, leading eventually to the development of BitTorrent technology and the infamous Pirate Bay. </p>
<p>These sites generally make claims similar to those made by Uber and similar companies: they are not responsible for content, but merely enable the exchange of information. Having been dragged repeatedly through the courts, most of these sharing sites <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/27/limewire-shut-down">either closed</a> or <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/07/kazaa-goes-legit-with-boring-subscription-music-service/">went legit</a> with licensing agreements from the big record labels. Yet their very existence opened the door to the many legitimate music streaming services that followed such as iTunes and Spotify, and video-on-demand services such as Netflix. The industry now enjoys increasing market share and profits and develops new products and services.</p>
<p>Both these trailblazing companies and Uber argue that they merely offer a platform. But the outcome in the courts has been very different, on the one hand ruling against what is seen as industry-harming piracy, and on the other ruling that ride-hailing is legitimate.</p>
<h2>David vs Goliath</h2>
<p>What if Google, Microsoft or a similar Silicon Valley mega-corporation had economic interests in Pirate Bay, in the same way they have <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikamorphy/2015/07/31/microsofts-investment-in-uber-is-a-head-scratcher/">investments in Uber</a>? What if it weren’t taxi drivers disadvantaged by the court decision, but large multinational companies? Would that make any difference to the outcome of the court cases?</p>
<p>In my opinion, the question hinges on how one decides what is legal and what is ethical. There are many views; for example is professor <a href="http://www.uwyo.edu/law/directory/stephen-m.-feldman.html">Stephen Feldman</a> who argues that court decision-making may be influenced by principles, legal texts and precedents, but also by <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb00347.x/abstract">preferences and political ideologies</a>. Interests, such as the political and economic, may also determine what is deemed legal and what is not in different countries.</p>
<p>On the other hand ethical standards tend to be held more commonly across different times and places, and are less influenced by political and economic factors. So the court may have ruled that Uber is not breaking the law, but this doesn’t mean that what it is doing is fair or ethical. And regardless of controversy, for many Uber is the embodiment of how business models should be in this internet era.</p>
<h2>What lies ahead?</h2>
<p>Instead of wasting time and money on trying to stop progress, perhaps the appropriate response is to reconsider our approach, following the words of Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe the solution is to stop trying to extend transport rules and regulations from a different age and instead create a modern set of rules and requirements that apply to both taxi and ride-hailing companies equally. It’s essential for businesses to consider not only how to meet their customers’ needs, but also how to create new products and services that capture value and make them more competitive. It may be time to stop waiting for disruptive technology businesses like Uber to behave more like other businesses, and try to create the right market conditions that will lead all businesses to embrace innovation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49556/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chrysostomos Apostolidis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Time to stop trying to make disruptive technology businesses like Uber tow the line, and instead create the right conditions for all businesses to embrace innovation.Chrysostomos Apostolidis, Lecturer, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/445472015-07-23T09:47:46Z2015-07-23T09:47:46ZThe Grateful Dead were decades ahead of their time<p>Over the Fourth of July weekend, the Grateful Dead performed a farewell series of shows at Chicago’s Soldier Field, celebrating 50 years as a band. </p>
<p>Reading about these final sets brought me back to the 1970s, when I attended a New Hampshire summer camp as a boy. </p>
<p>During those summers, I’d noticed that my counselors were steeped in the culture of the band. It wasn’t just endless discussions of shows, songs, versions of songs and surprising set lists (Would they ever play Dark Star? Would Phil ever sing again?); it was also a dedication to the ethos of understated generosity, environmental stewardship and a nonjudgmental attitude to other people’s lifestyles. </p>
<p>That was the spirit of the band and their fans, known as Deadheads.</p>
<p>Even then, the band was an outlier in a music industry that has always enjoyed a fair dose of control over artists, imaging, marketing and ticket sales. And the almost stereotypical image of the money-grubbing music executive of the midcentury rock-and-roll era (exemplified by Tom Hanks’ character in the 1996 film <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs_h7YdIe_k">That Thing You Do</a>) seems, in retrospect, quite accurate. </p>
<p>It may be said that the Dead’s admitted inability to record clean, album-ready tracks caused major labels (and their marketing machines) to ignore the band. Either way, left to their own devices, they poured their efforts into their live shows, and into nearly nonstop touring. They also permitted fans to tape their shows and circulate the music freely.</p>
<p>While these practices seemed like the perfect embodiment of counterculture sensibilities, it was astoundingly prescient. By giving away their music, building a strong communication infrastructure for fans and supporting the rise of a unique fan culture, the Dead built something that weathered the internet-fueled music industry crisis, and the nearly uncontrollable circulation of songs and albums that accompanied it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1ziwjROaRY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Fans – and sometimes entire families – would trail the band from city to city.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the pre-internet days, Deadheads communicated by newsletters, which were either handed out at shows or delivered via snailmail. This growing community even attracted the attention of sociologists, such as UNC-Greensboro’s Rebecca Adams, who brought her students on tour with the band to study its fans and eventually published <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Deadhead-Social-Science-Gonna-Learn/dp/0742502511">a book on the subject</a>. </p>
<p>One of the enduring objects of fascination about the band was their ability to thrive without many album sales (relative to other highly successful bands of the time). </p>
<p>Today, all artists, I would venture to say, understand that the model for success in music is having people hear the music somewhere (anywhere) and attend live shows. The Grateful Dead employed this model years before artists like Moby and Sting licensed their songs for commercials and television shows in order for their music to be heard. </p>
<p>Indeed, The Atlantic published <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/management-secrets-of-the-grateful-dead/307918/">an article</a> in 2010 that analyzed not only the band’s business acumen but also their ability to creatively cater to their fan base and reap the steady rewards. </p>
<p>And this is really the key. From the get-go, people were traveling to shows and trailing the group from city to city. Even the Grateful Dead’s approach to live performance was attuned to the fan’s experience: because the band changed its set constantly, because they improvised and worked as a unit of individual musicians, the results were unpredictable, full of tense drama and anticipation.</p>
<p>The audience responded with astounding loyalty and devotion. There was a reason my Deadhead friends’ music collections were piled high: each show was so different. No one collected tapes of live Rolling Stones shows in the same way. Nor did hordes of people tour with other bands in quite the same way.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89387/original/image-20150722-1426-nv1qc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Every Grateful Dead show had an element of intrigue: what would the band pull off?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-99691469/stock-photo-east-rutherford-new-jersey-august-the-grateful-dead-in-concert-in-east-rutherford-new-jersey.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">'Jerry' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As many Grateful Dead fans and historians <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grateful-Dead-The-Illustrated-Trip/dp/0789499630">point out</a>, a shift occurred in the 1980s, when the Dead released one of their only mainstream hits, the song <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOaXTg3nAuY">Touch of Grey</a>. </p>
<p>Soon, new fans started attending the shows – fans who didn’t seem terribly concerned about the overall culture the band’s older followers had cultivated. These “touchheads” (as they were sometimes called) were often disruptive and rowdy, markedly out of step with the basic “vibe” of the older fans. Venues got larger and audiences more diverse as the Grateful Dead’s popularity grew. </p>
<p>But I would argue that this popularity was not simply related to the song Touch of Grey. The arrival of the touchheads marked an important change, not only in the life of the band and its fan base, but in the fate of the counterculture that emerged in the mid- to late 1960s. </p>
<p>The early 1980s were marked by the arrival of a new genre – classic rock – which canonized the sounds and bands that had terrified the parents of the baby boomers on FM radio. This even included some of the more accessible Dead songs like the aforementioned Touch of Grey, along with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcB9wlmnDPY">Casey Jones</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSIajKGHZRk">Uncle John’s Band</a>. </p>
<p>There was no longer the feeling that ‘60s-era groups like the Grateful Dead were creating revolutionary music catering to a group of outsiders. A place had been found in the American cultural landscape that seemed to declaw the movement through what political philosopher Herbert Marcuse has evocatively <a href="http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm">called</a> repressive tolerance – the idea that the best way to defuse oppositional activity is not to ban it, but to suppress its subversive characteristics and integrate its tamer aspects into the mainstream. </p>
<p>Furthermore, what may have been a radical democratization of the music industry by the Dead had become emblematic of (ironically and certainly not by design) the Reagan-era championing of entrepreneurship, exemplified by the notion of DIY “bootstrap-pulling” that precludes any need for a social safety net. </p>
<p>If this sounds dangerously like someone claiming the Dead or their fans “sold out,” it should not. In fact, it should give pause to the very idea of “selling out” in the first place.</p>
<p>In the end, the Grateful Dead was often confused with a nostalgic yearning for the 1960s era and its ubiquitous costumes: tie-dye t-shirts, peasant blouses, patchouli oil. </p>
<p>But the Dead were actually pioneers of modern sound technology, early adopters of communication technology and innovators in the marketing business. And the crucial difference from their contemporaries (and many artists today) is that they never controlled the imaginations of their fans.</p>
<p>That a Deadhead culture organically developed was mostly due to the community of fans themselves. There is, really, nothing comparable within the music industry today. </p>
<p>One could cite something like Lady Gaga’s “Little Monsters” fan base as a direct descendant of the the Deadheads, but any attempt to anoint a fan base with a name simply strikes one as a top-down manipulation. </p>
<p>Instead, the ritualized behavior of Rocky Horror Picture Show fans probably most closely compares, in that they completely took charge. As Jerry Garcia once <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx6OAfvlxTs">said</a> to Hugh Hefner on Playboy After Dark, “Haight-Ashbury is just a street. It never was the thing that was going on.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89388/original/image-20150722-1423-177il8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just a street.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=grateful%20dead&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=63353482">'Haight-Ashbury' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In July 1989, I attended a Dead show at Philadelphia’s JFK Stadium. It would be the last concert ever held at JFK, and the band ended up performing in a half-demolished shell of a stadium, which gave the whole show the feeling of being played in the Colosseum. </p>
<p>Beforehand, on a whim, my older brother and I bought a long string of multicolored lollipops at a candy store. They were called “Strip Pops” because they were individually wrapped, but connected to each other. I had the idea that we should black out the “S” and hand them out in the parking lot of JFK Stadium.</p>
<p>They were a hit. (After all, who wouldn’t want a “trip pop”?) My brother also carried a portable stove with him and made free cheeseburgers for anyone who wanted them. </p>
<p>If you tuned into any Dead show, it wasn’t too hard to figure out that whether it was giving away “trip pops” or trading cheeseburgers for lemonade, the same communal acts (often tinged with inside jokes) took place in various forms at Dead shows across the country. </p>
<p>You knew where you were, and for many fans, you knew you were at home on the road. And that’s what the Dead always seemed to be about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip W. Scher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the internet era, musical artists freely distribute their songs and encourage fans to attend live shows. The Dead did this for 40 years.Philip W. Scher, Professor of Anthropology and Folkore, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/187032013-09-30T10:02:18Z2013-09-30T10:02:18ZMPs have missed the mark in attacking copyright reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32091/original/bhwkyrhn-1380291081.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Copyright is changing. Some are yet to catch on.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">eddiedangerous</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee set out some fairly strong <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmcumeds/674/674.pdf">views</a> last week about how its members think the UK should approach copyright reform. </p>
<p>I have an interest to declare in that I have been heavily involved in this debate since the autumn of 2010, when I was asked by the UK government to conduct an independent <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm">review</a> of intellectual property law, with a particular focus on economic growth.</p>
<p>On copyright, the committee makes four strong recommendations: that Google should be forced to block content which involves copyright infringement as robustly as it blocks child pornography; that the maximum penalty for copyright theft be increased to ten years in jail; that the government should get on with implementing the anti-piracy measures proposed in the 2010 Digital Economy Act; and that it should reverse its hitherto favourable stance on the measures proposed in my review.</p>
<p>My work, the committee says, is part of an agenda which “could cause irreversible damage to the creative sector on which the UK’s future prosperity will significantly depend.” In the CMS committee’s view: “the existing law works well.”</p>
<p>Here are some respects in which the existing law does not work well. The fact that it remains illegal for anyone to do what most of us routinely do – namely to copy one rights-protected file, such as music, from one device we own to another. No wonder people are so confused about the boundary between lawful and unlawful. The answer? A carefully drawn exception in copyright law to permit personal, non-commercial copying of files: a reform the committee opposes.</p>
<p>Reform is also needed in several other areas: to relieve archivists of the dilemma that it can be illegal for them to copy a work even for preservation and to prevent damaging restrictions on the ability of researchers to use techniques such as text and data mining; or to make copyright rules right for digital era schools and universities. Workable and detailed reforms are now being put forward by the government to address these issues.</p>
<p>The case I made in the review was that a successful copyright regime in a digital world needed to be shorn of palpable absurdity if the law is to be respected and enforceable in a way which commands broad public support. I also argue that rights holders need to do a better job in licensing and selling rights, especially for small, low-value transactions, through what I called a <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce">Digital Copyright Exchange</a>.</p>
<p>This aspect of the project, at least, meets with the committee’s approval, but a successful exchange cannot do the job alone: if the law continues to be dressed as an ass, it will damage the exchange as well. Put together one-click licensing and laws that pass the common sense test and we will release a significant new level of energy in the collaborative, co-productive world of the creative economy.</p>
<p>In my view, the committee’s core misjudgement arises from the fact that it appears to be focused exclusively on the perspective of existing, mostly large, creative industry players and not at all upon emerging digital firms and entrepreneurs. Nor does it take account of consumers, who appear to have been left behind in this report.</p>
<p>A more balanced approach is necessary if we are to make the most of the UK’s creative economy. This term, “creative economy”, by the way, appears in the CMS Committee report’s title, but it is never defined and appears to be used interchangeably and randomly with the term “creative industries”.</p>
<p>In the recent <a href="http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1/assets/features/a_manifesto_for_the_creative_economy">Nesta Manifesto for the Creative Economy</a>, which I co-authored, we clear up this imprecision by defining the creative economy based on labour force data which enables us to count creative workers, inside and beyond the creative industries, and so to compute the value of their work and the size of the creative economy.</p>
<p>By these Nesta definitions, the UK creative economy employs 2.5 million people and accounts for something like 10 per cent of UK gross value added. Having nailed this down, we set out an agenda to ensure the creative economy prospers.</p>
<p>This includes a “schools digital pledge” to ensure that the curriculum brings together art, design, technology and computer science; a seven-point plan for creative clusters; and proposals to put creative economy research and development on a par with other business sectors. We discuss the role of the BBC and offer some thoughts about the complex issue of policing competition on the internet. We also say that a carefully undertaken reform of copyright, operating within the framework of exceptions permitted in European law and a prospective, unified EU digital market, will be an indispensable component of success.</p>
<p>I think this a much better programme for supporting the UK creative economy than the one put forward by the CMS Committee’s politicians. Why not read both and judge for yourself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hargreaves
Does not directly own shares in any company.
Has done work on intellectual property issues for the following:
The UK Intellectual Property Office (payment for time devoted during the IP review)
Nesta: one day a week research fellowship from January 2012 to February 2013.
Has research funding from the AHRC and the EPSRC on themes involving the creative economy, but not specifically with regard to copyright.
Has written for the Lisbon Council, a Brussels think tank, on copyright issues and is a Senior Fellow at the Lisbon Council.
is a member (unpaid) of the Digital Wales Advisory Network.
is a member (unpaid) of the Alacrity Foundation board
is a member (unpaid) of the board of National Theatre Wales.
is a new member (paid) of the EU's Office for Harmonisation of Internal Markets Observatory - advisory board on IP enforcement.
</span></em></p>The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee set out some fairly strong views last week about how its members think the UK should approach copyright reform. I have an interest to declare in…Ian Hargreaves, Professor of Digital Economy, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/53432012-03-05T19:44:36Z2012-03-05T19:44:36ZAn invincible file-sharing platform? You can’t be serious<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8320/original/s4k8r3zd-1330909350.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Treats are great to share, provided you have the owner's permission.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kalexanderson</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new version of the peer-to-peer sharing application <a href="http://dl.tribler.org/download.html">Tribler</a> has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/">created a buzz</a> online following claims by the software’s lead developer that the app is impervious to attack.</p>
<p>In a recent interview with <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/">TorrentFreak</a>, <a href="http://pds.twi.tudelft.nl/%7Epouwelse/">Dr Johan Pouwelse</a> from the <a href="http://home.tudelft.nl/en/">Delft University of Technology</a>, said “the only way to take [Tribler] down is to <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-anonymous-really-shut-down-the-internet-5573">take the internet down</a>”.</p>
<p>Tribler has been in development for five years and, as with many other file-sharing applications, is based on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)">BitTorrent protocol</a>. But unlike other BitTorrent platforms, Tribler is a decentralised system that works without the need for torrent sites – lists of links to files available for download through the BitTorrent protocol – and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker">trackers</a>. Instead, Tribler has been designed to search the internet for hosts that contain the desired files.</p>
<p>Dr Pouwelse’s claims of Tribler’s invincibility are simply amazing. If he is to be believed, peer-to-peer file-sharers finally have a tool that can’t be turned off <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2098759/Tribler-New-file-sharing-technology-IMMUNE-government-attacks.html">nor attacked by government</a> and the music and movie industry.</p>
<p>Sadly, these are difficult claims to take seriously.</p>
<p>In the 1980s and 90s, music and movie companies flooded the internet with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_(network)">hosts</a> containing music and movies that had been altered from their original form. The aim was to trick users into wasting time and bandwidth downloading a file that wasn’t the file they were looking for.</p>
<p>One way files could be modified was with the addition of a <a href="http://filesharingbook.uw.hu/filesharing0093.html">cuckoo egg</a> (as we all know, the cuckoo lays its eggs in another bird’s nest to trick the victim bird into tending the cuckoo egg). </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.hand-2-mouth.com/cuckooegg/">cuckoo egg</a> is a file that looks the same as the file a user is searching for – in filename and filesize – but is actually <a href="http://www.hand-2-mouth.com/cuckooegg/cuckooeggsound.mp3">a totally different file</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8321/original/787nt8g5-1330909657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tribler makes great claims … and is popular.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">tribler.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Watermarks can also be added to music and movies, allowing the files to be <a href="http://videotechresearch.com/Jeffrey_Bloom/research/bloom04-asilomar.pdf">tracked across the network</a>. This allows organisations such as <a href="http://peermediatech.com/">PeerMedia Technologies</a> – who provide this service to the music and movie industries – to identify people who have breached copyright.</p>
<p>As countries move towards implementing traffic filters and systems <a href="http://www.dsd.gov.au/infosec/csoc.htm">to prevent cyberattack</a>, it has become easier to identify and then disrupt, stop or distort Tribler traffic streams.</p>
<p>The process of distorting, altering or substituting a different stream is not complex and in some ways may occur much as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack">“man-in-the-middle attack”</a> is used to penetrate secure systems. (In such an attack, a third party intercepts traffic between two users, creating a fake stream of data, while making one – or both – users believe they are communicating with the other).</p>
<p>Another approach is to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection">filter</a> the Tribler stream and if a copyrighted music or video stream is found, the source and destination <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-the-internet-ipv4-versus-ipv6-145">IP addresses</a> could be added to a blacklist, blocked by filters or blocked from essential network services such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System">Domain Name System (DNS)</a>. (DNS is the service used to translate web address names – such as amazon.com – to IP addresses – such as 72.21.214.128.)</p>
<p>Late last year a group of Australian ISPs – including Telstra and Optus – proposed a copyright infringement policy that would allow ISPs to <a href="http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/25/isps-propose-new-anti-piracy-warning-scheme/">send users a warning</a> after five illegal downloads. <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/32293/Copyright-Industry-Scheme-Proposal-Final.pdf">The policy</a> lists a range of consequences for customers that fail to comply with the warning notice, such as providing the copyright holder with access to the customer’s details upon request.</p>
<p>Over time, we’re likely to see music, movie and media companies developing closer links with network carriers and ISPs because the internet is becoming the medium of choice for distributing this content. For carriers and ISPs, revenue from access systems is decreasing due to <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/224372,telstra-warns-isps-to-expect-aggressive-competition.aspx">competition</a>, leading to a <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0">decrease in the number of ISPs</a>. At the same time, we’re seeing an increase in revenue from bundled products including music, movie and media distribution. </p>
<p>Carriers and ISPs will increasingly want to reduce the amount of pirated content on their networks as copyright infringement reduces income from customers subscribing to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTV">IPTV</a> – television delivered over the internet – video on-demand and music-streaming services.</p>
<p>This symbiotic relationship between ISPs and media companies should be a cause for concern for peer-to-peer file-sharers. We shouldn’t be surprised if we even see music and movie companies buying ISPs in the near future.</p>
<p>Regardless, claims about Tribler’s invincibility are almost certainly overblown, and it’s clear the battle between file-sharers and copyright holders is far from over.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark A Gregory does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new version of the peer-to-peer sharing application Tribler has created a buzz online following claims by the software’s lead developer that the app is impervious to attack. In a recent interview with…Mark A Gregory, Senior Lecturer in Electrical and Computer Engineering, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/50832012-01-31T01:38:21Z2012-01-31T01:38:21ZMegaupload martyrdom sparks crisis in the faith of file-sharing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7250/original/22mvvvzy-1327968885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What's mine is yours (until they break down the doors).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ryancr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Latest <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/megaupload-file-sharing?newsfeed=true">reports</a> suggest all of the data on seized file storage website Megaupload – legal or illegal – could be erased as soon as Thursday.</p>
<p>Clearly it’s not great news for the site’s founder <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-29/kim-dotcom-megaupload/52875276/1">Kim Dotcom</a> (Kim Schmitz) and colleagues, who are accused of copyright infringement to the value of US$500 million. If they’re found guilty they could receive a prison sentence of 20 years.</p>
<p>But what about the 50 million people who have used Megaupload’s services, many of them perfectly legally? What will become of them?</p>
<h2>Copping it or Kopism?</h2>
<p>The world’s newest religion is “<a href="http://bit.ly/wK3Z2D">Kopimism</a>”, which won official government recognition in Sweden earlier this month.</p>
<p>Adherents worship no deity, nor do they have any concept of an afterlife. The defining feature of this faith is a belief system in copying, pure and simple, with the doctrine of file-sharing reigning supreme as a positive value. </p>
<p>This may seem like an offbeat approach to securing a future legal loophole of sorts, but it’s also an indicator of a seismic shift in the customs of contemporary pop culture. Rising tides of consumers have become the new hunter-gatherers of entertainment; they forage for sustenance through digital conduits such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_/(protocol/),%20%5BUsenet%5D(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet)%20or%20file-sharing%20web-sites%20(so-called" title="cyberlockers">BitTorrent</a>. </p>
<p>Such cyberlockers have been in great demand but the <a href="https://theconversation.com/megaupload-in-mega-trouble-so-back-up-your-online-content-4990">demise of Megaupload</a> has resulted in a <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2140887/waves-cyberlocker-web-sites-stop-filesharing">cyberlocker implosion</a>. Megaupload was the most popular of these sites with its user base of <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/01/30/megaupload-data-erased/">roughly 50 million</a>.</p>
<p>In its wake, competitors such as <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5878287/filesonic-just-killed-itself-by-disabling-file-sharing">FileSonic</a> and <a href="http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/fileserve-terminates-accounts-suspends-make-money-feature/">Fileserve</a> have toned down their operations by suspending file-sharing activities across the board and only permitting uploading and downloading of content to registered individual users. </p>
<h2>Stuck on you</h2>
<p>Megaupload was the glue binding many music blogs that provided niche forums to aficionados of film music and show tunes, among other non-mainstream genres. Links to music content in cyberlockers (more often than not copyrighted material) were posted on blogs, at times provoking passionate critical discussion.</p>
<p>In the case of film music, much of the content trafficked was out-of-print CDs and LPs, the latter lovingly digitised for posterity by owners who wished others to experience their joy in this oft-ignored artform. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7251/original/2q44x7zq-1327969015.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HikingArtist.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Film music blogs were peppered with <a href="http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/341/">altruistic uploaders</a> who viewed themselves as latter-day Robin Hoods of the cultural set: robbing from the “rich” (music/film companies who refused to release their motion picture soundtrack back-catalogues for sale on dubious economic grounds) to give to the “poor” (in this case, film music fans and allied spirits who would otherwise be denied these aural gems). </p>
<p>Megaupload was a watering-hole that created a musical oasis in many pockets of the blogosphere. Now the well has dried up, those who drank from it may very well be experiencing something, at least in the metaphorical sense, that is akin to the five stages of grief observed by Swiss-American psychiatrist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross">Elisabeth Kübler-Ross</a> in her seminal work, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Death_and_Dying">On Death and Dying</a>: </p>
<ol>
<li>Denial (“The closure of Megaupload is only a temporary setback and it will be back.”) </li>
<li>Anger (“%$&#! I’ve lost over 500 files!”) </li>
<li>Bargaining (“Perhaps I’ll try another file-sharing service? Oh, no! Filesonic doesn’t work for me. Something else?”) </li>
<li>Depression (“What’s the point? I think I’ll take a few weeks off from file-sharing and see what happens.”) </li>
<li><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/71t041j08u557707/">Acceptance</a> (“At least I still have my good old CD/LP collection to fall back on.”).</li>
</ol>
<p>Rumblings from the blogosphere would indicate the folding of Megaupload has generated a mini-wave of scepticism about the security of cloud storage more broadly. Is the new reality an induced feeling that you have to back-up your back-ups ad infinitum?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.peterlunenfeld.com/cv/">Professor Peter Lunenfeld</a> from the University of California, Los Angeles is less sympathetic to the downloading phenomenon in society. In <a href="http://bit.ly/jkSgUt">an article for New Scientist</a>, he argued that file-sharing is leading to “cultural diabetes” where consumers are gorging on a glut of entertainment without producing anything practical in return. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7252/original/rgq2bd6s-1327969396.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kim Dotcom is in big trouble.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MartandAlexander</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lunenfeld’s thesis is that uploading is good due to its pro-active quality, while downloading is bad on account of its passive essence. Downloading rapidly crosses the line from collecting to accumulating. Gigabytes of TV episodes, films and musical content become the storage of a hoarder who just might find it difficult to find time to experience it all. </p>
<h2>Get me the doctor</h2>
<p>A closing parable. In the TV canon of Doctor Who there exist quite a few episodes for which there are no available film or videotape copies. This is due to the BBC shedding portions of their archive in the past to reclaim space. The story may be apocryphal but some episodes from the 1970s run were actually recovered because an American had produced off-air colour videotape copies for a British fan. </p>
<p>These were recovered in the 1990s and partially restored in quality for their re-entry into the archives. Technically speaking, international copyright law may have been broken in this instance but the greater good was served to Doctor Who fandom (and the BBC) by discovery of these modest treasures that were once thought to be lost. </p>
<p>Was this a case of fruit of the <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/01/fruit-of-poison-tree.html">poisonous tree</a>? We are all patently aware of intellectual property issues in the digital age from a legal perspective, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU">bombarded with ads</a> and edicts and so forth.</p>
<p>But the ethics of this downloading epoch, redolent with dilemmas as it is, are still open to interpretation and need to be debated in the public domain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Lenarcic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Latest reports suggest all of the data on seized file storage website Megaupload – legal or illegal – could be erased as soon as Thursday. Clearly it’s not great news for the site’s founder Kim Dotcom…John Lenarcic, Lecturer in Business IT & Logistics, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/49902012-01-20T05:20:13Z2012-01-20T05:20:13ZMegaupload in mega trouble (so back-up your online content)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7065/original/cbcz7nrq-1327035653.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">US authorities have seized the file-sharing website.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">johntrainor</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The big copyright news overnight was not the <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-turn-off-leading-lights-stage-an-internet-blackout-to-fight-sopa-4964">continuing protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)</a>, but the shutdown and seizure of Megaupload.com, a popular “cyberlocker”, and 17 related sites.</p>
<p>The Mega empire was hosted on servers in the United States, the Netherlands, and elsewhere around the world. Acting on a <a href="http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/20/heres-the-full-72-page-megaupload-doj-indictment/?awesm=tnw.to_1CsWd&utm_campaign=social%20media&utm_medium=Spreadus&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=Here's%20the%20full%2072%20page%20Megaupload%20DOJ%20indictment">grand jury indictment</a> obtained from a US district court, US authorities coordinated with their counterparts in New Zealand, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Canada and the Philippines to:</p>
<ul>
<li>seize 18 domain names and take the related sites offline</li>
<li>seize a reported US$50 million of assets, and</li>
<li>arrest four of the seven individuals charged in the indictment.</li>
</ul>
<p>At the time of writing, the three remaining individuals are yet to be apprehended.</p>
<p>Cyberlockers are websites that provide private data storage facilities by allowing individuals to upload content for later retrieval or sharing with others. Many of us probably already use cyberlockers such as <a href="http://www.dropbox.com/">Dropbox</a>, Microsoft’s <a href="https://skydrive.live.com/">SkyDrive</a> or Amazon’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/learnmore">Cloud Drive</a> in our work.</p>
<p>Such services have plenty of obvious non-infringing uses – if you want to share a 700MB video you took of your recent trip with family and friends, uploading it to a service such as Megaupload and giving your friends the download link is one of the cheapest and most efficient ways to do so.</p>
<p>Anybody could upload files to Megaupload, but files that failed to be downloaded for a short period (21 days for material uploaded by unregistered users, 90 days for registered “free” users, no limit for registered “paid” users) were deleted. In practice, this ensured Megaupload was used largely for the storage of popular content which, not surprisingly, often turned out to be infringing.</p>
<p>That material was made somewhat difficult to find because Megaupload (probably for strategic legal reasons) had no search tool on its website. Instead, users had to find the URLs for content from an external source – directly from a friend, from another website or via a search engine.</p>
<p>The business made money from selling premium use subscriptions, and from advertising on the site. All in all, the indictment alleges Megaupload made some US$175 million in income since opening shop in 2005, from a claimed 1 billion+ visitors.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, the breakdown is US$150 million from user subscriptions, and just US$25 million from advertising. If this is correct, it’s more evidence that many users are willing to pay to access “free” content. If this single site can make US$150 million from user subscriptions when offering a hodge-podge of files of dubious quality and without the ability to effectively search among them, imagine how much content owners could make if they made their content more reasonably available.)</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7066/original/wf6d8bdw-1327035833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Megaupload</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While there’s no doubt that many of Megaupload’s visitors were intent on downloading infringing content, it’s less clear whether the site’s providers can be held liable for those infringements. In <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/from-rogue-to-vogue-megaupload-and-kim-dotcom-111218/">an interview given to TorrentFreak</a> just a month ago, founder “Kim Dotcom” (aka Kim Schmitz) claimed that:</p>
<p>“Mega has nothing to fear. Our business is legitimate and protected by the DMCA [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</a>] and similar laws around the world. We work with the best lawyers and play by the rules. We take our legal obligations seriously. Mega’s war chest is full and we have strong supporters backing us. We have been online for 7 years and we are here to stay, so no need to worry about us.”</p>
<p>The legal protection that Dotcom was referring to is the safe harbour provided to online service providers (including cyberlockers) as long as they satisfy certain criteria.</p>
<p>The indictment alleges that Mega does not qualify for a number of reasons, including because they themselves had actual knowledge that the materials on the sites were infringing (or knew “facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent”), and because they were receiving a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity within its control. </p>
<p>The indictment discloses plenty of evidence of potentially illegal conduct. Megaupload paid money to users who supplied its most popular files via the “Uploader Rewards” program, and it seems that key employees sometimes paid out that money with full awareness it had accrued courtesy of infringing files.</p>
<p>Other executives uploaded infringing content themselves, and on various occasions distributed Megaupload links to infringing content. Plenty of emails demonstrate their intention to engage in wholesale copyright infringement of YouTube’s content (that’s right – they tried to copy ALL of it).</p>
<p>But as <a href="http://james.grimmelmann.net/">Professor James Grimmelman</a> of New York Law School <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars">told online technology publication Ars Technica</a>, “much of what the indictment details are legitimate business strategies many websites use to increase their traffic and revenues: offering premium subscriptions, running ads, rewarding active users.”</p>
<p>This case opens the door to vigorous pursuit of other online hosting providers. As this case demonstrates, the US government already has considerable powers to shut down such sites. If the SOPA legislation (discussed on The Conversation <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-turn-off-leading-lights-stage-an-internet-blackout-to-fight-sopa-4964">on Wednesday</a>) is eventually passed in the US, it will give the US government additional powers over foreign sites that have no connection to the US.</p>
<p>Even more problematically, the legislation (as currently drafted) will give private entities unprecedented abilities to interfere with revenue and advertising of sites, including foreign sites, by alleging that they are “dedicated to theft of US property”. </p>
<p>It’s vital that any future attempts to target file hosting sites make principled, transparent distinctions between those providing useful, legitimate services with substantial non-infringing uses, and bad actors engaging in unlawful conduct.</p>
<p>That holds good whether they’re in the form of official government action to enforce the criminal law, or private action by rightholders such as that envisaged by SOPA. If SOPA is enacted in its current form, no such distinction seems likely to be made.</p>
<p>Those of us who currently use cyberlockers for lawful purposes should enjoy them while we can – but create offline backups just in case.</p>
<p><em><strong>Rebecca Giblin can be found on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/rgibli">@rgibli</a>.</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Giblin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The big copyright news overnight was not the continuing protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), but the shutdown and seizure of Megaupload.com, a popular “cyberlocker…Rebecca Giblin, Academic, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.