Filesharing service LimeWire, officially shut down in December, and has sold off just about everything with value. But not everything, apparently.

Check out SoHo For Sale, a site that appears to be liquidating the former company’s furniture, piece by tasteful piece.

I’m not positive that everything listed here was part of LimeWire’s New York headquarters. But several LimeWire employees have confirmed that the beautiful product shots below were, in fact, taken in the company’s famously gorgeous office on lower Broadway.

“We’re the former occupants of a beautifully decorated SoHo cast iron, and we had great taste in furniture,” is the way the site described itself as of last Friday. That’s when I asked whoever runs the sohoforsale@gmail.com account for more details, and since then that language has disappeared from the site. But not from Google.

In any case, this really is some nice-looking stuff, no matter where it came from. I bet some of it ends up in a major music label’s office. Some samples, and asking prices:

8′x3′ Cypress (“90 percent sure [it's] Cypress”) two-piece conference tables, $2,500 each.

Solid Cypress (see above) tables, $2,750 each.

Custom day bed, $550.

“Vintage Argentinian Foosball table” – Sold! (Asking price $1,150)

While lots of music services are still trying to figure out how to make money by distributing copyrighted music you’ve heard of, SoundCloud is taking a different tack. As I wrote last fall:

It’s designed to let professional and amateur musicians share their own music with each other and the public, via cloud-based files that the company hosts.

Once the tunes are on SoundCloud’s servers, the service makes it easy to move the stuff around the Web, via its own widget and an API that’s showing up on lots of interesting sites, apps, services and devices, including Facebook and Apple’s iPad. You can load SoundCloud files into Spotify, the streaming music company that Index has also invested in.

The service uses the freemium model, offering most of its capabilities for free, and charging up to $700 a year for more storage and extra features.

You can also use SoundCloud for less enlightened purposes, like sharing music you don’t own. But the company has recently implemented an audible “fingerprinting” service, like the ones Google’s YouTube uses, which allows copyright owners to take down files they don’t want on the Web. And that should give the company legal cover, unless the YouTube/Viacom case takes a very different turn.

In a blog post announcing the funding, SoundCloud says it will use the money to scale faster and “be more present in the US.” It also posts short clips, using its service, from its new investors–Index’s Mike Volpi and Union Square’s Fred Wilson.

Here’s Wilson:
Thoughts on SoundCloud by fredwilson. Uploaded with SoundCloud Android

And Volpi:
Mike Volpi Audio Blog on Friday morning by mvolpi. Uploaded with SoundCloud iPhone

And if you’d like something more entertaining, here’s a very long mix of classic hip-hop, via Cut Chemist:

Cut Chemist – Hip Hop Lives (1985-1996) by Cut Chemist

Health documents with sensitive patient information can be found in “peer-to-peer” networks, which people typically use to share music files and the like. The programs used to navigate these networks often locate files on a user’s computer and share them–whether they’re music and videos or things like spreadsheets with health data. The issue can arise when health workers transfer data from firms’ proprietary software to their home computers. If they or someone in their family uses file-sharing software, files can be picked up.

Over a two-week period in 2009, the researchers were able to find more than 200 files that contained identifying information such as name, address, date of birth, social security numbers, insurance numbers and health-related information. It’s not much compared with the vast number of files in these networks, but it presents a big risk–for health companies as well as patients.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The music file-sharing service, which basically called it quits in October after losing a federal court case, is turning off or shelving most of its related products. But it has found a home for at least one of them: Its LimeExchange.com services marketplace is being swallowed by Freelancer.com, which describes itself as “the world’s largest outsourcing marketplace.”

Terms of the deal haven’t been released; Freelancer.com says it will “migrate” LimeExchange’s users to its own platform.

What’s that? You had no idea the people behind LimeWire also ran a freelance marketplace? Me neither.

But now that I’m looking, I see that Lime Labs, which formally ran LimeExchange, also lists a domain registration/hosting business and an open-source Web site-building service among its assets. Anyone know what’s become of those?

Big picture: New York-based LimeWire and its affiliated companies look like they will all be wound down by the end of the month.  Not coincidentally, the following month there are supposed to be federal court hearings in which the major music companies are going to try to extract millions from LimeWire owner Mark Gorton for copyright violations.

I don’t know that shuttering all the related companies will help Gorton hang on to his money. But anything that helps him focus on his legal problems can’t be a bad idea.

Not for much longer, it seems. The company is also closing its online music store at the end of the year. And I’m told that it has essentially abandoned efforts to launch a new, legal music service that it had spent much of the past year building.

A sign on the Web retailer’s homepage tells customers that it’s no longer accepting new payments, and the company has told vendors via email that the store will shutter on Dec. 31. (You can see a copy of the note at the bottom of this post.)

LimeWire hasn’t responded to my request for comment. And it’s not clear why the company is closing up the shop, because in this case, LimeWire shouldn’t be dealing with any legal issues. LimeWire operated the store the same way that Apple’s iTunes does–it took product that music labels (not the big ones, but small independents) wanted to sell and delivered it to customers.

Meanwhile, people familiar with the company tell me that it has also stopped pursuing plans to launch a new, legal music service that had been building throughout 2010.

As recently as October, the company had been talking up the prospects of the new service, and had invited me to see a preview of it even after the court ruling that shuttered its illegal file-sharing service. But LimeWire later rescinded the invitation, and said that its lawyers had advised it not to discuss the new service.

My hunch is that LimeWire is stripping down all of its remaining assets in advance of January court proceedings. Those are going to determine how much the company owes the major music labels that successfully sued it for copyright violations.

LimeWire had already laid off at least 30 percent of its workforce following the October court ruling.

A federal court has permanently enjoined the New York company from distributing its software, which lets users upload and download free, often illegal, copies of songs and other media. But earlier this week a new version, “LimeWire Pirate Edition,” surfaced online, purportedly created by a “secret” team of software developers.

“We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so,” said a statement on LimeWire.com. The statement also asserted that the company is “taking all steps to comply with the injunction.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

A bit of a surprise: The company insists that it can keep its remaining employees working on a new music service.

LimeWire confirms that in the wake of last week’s shutdown, it let go of 29 of its 100-person workforce. Here’s CEO George Searle’s statement:

Following the court-ordered injunction, we reduced our work force to extend our runway for bringing our new music service to market.  Letting go of colleagues is never easy.  If we could have brought about another solution, we would have.

I don’t know whether LimeWire’s new service, which the company has been referring to internally as “Grapevine,” will also be based on peer-to-peer technology or not; I should have more on that later. But I do know that the service won’t have any hope of working unless it can get the big music labels to sign on.

That’s theoretically possible, because LimeWire and owner Mark Gorton have talked with the labels about that sort of thing before. But they’ve talked for a very long time, and have never reached a pact in the past.

For now, at least, the labels appear to be set on extracting a very large chunk of Gorton’s hide, via the damages phase in their federal court case. That’s supposed to kick off in January.

You can read all of U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood’s ruling at the bottom of the post. But the short version is that Wood, using the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision as a guide, found that LimeWire is indeed guilty of copyright violations. In her words:

LimeWire… (1) is aware that LimeWire’s users commit a substantial amount of copyright infringement; (2) markets LimeWire to users predisposed to committing infringement; (3) ensures that LimeWire enables infringement and assists users committing infringement; (4) relies on the fact that LimeWire enables infringement for the success of its business; and (5) has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.

LimeWire is unusual among post-Napster, post-Grokster file-sharing operations in that it operates out in the open, in the U.S. The company, based in New York City and owned by investor Mark Gorton, actually sells a smattering of music itself with the blessing of some of the smaller music labels. But while the company has been engaged in a long back-and-forth with the big guys, it has never reached a settlement.

Meanwhile, almost all of the music available on the service (93 percent, according to a study used in the lawsuit) and even more of the stuff actually downloaded (98.8 percent, via the same study) is protected by copyright and should not have been there. Court documents state that LimeWire generated revenue of $20 million in 2006.

LimeWire does tell its users they shouldn’t steal music. This is the warning you get when you try to do so:

But that’s not enough, Wood ruled. And certainly not when the service was going out of its way to court users searching Google (GOOG) for free tunes. From her ruling:

LimeWire conducted a marketing campaign through Google AdWords, whereby Google users who entered certain search queries, such as “replacement napster,” “napster mp3,” “napster download,” “kazaa morpheus,” “mp3 free download,” and dozens of other phrases containing the words “napster,” “kazaa,” or “morpheus,” would see an advertisement leading them to the LimeWire website.

The next step in the case is a June 1 conference. Here’s LimeWire CEO George Searle’s statement, which doesn’t include a vow to appeal the ruling:

LimeWire strongly opposes the Court’s recent decision. LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission. We look forward to our June 1 meeting with Judge Wood.

And here’s the end-zone dance from Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the music industry’s lobbying group:

This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft.

LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court’s decision is an important milestone in the creative community’s fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire’s CEO personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability.

We are gratified by the court’s careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law.

Bigger question: What does this mean for the music industry? Assuming Wood’s ruling stands, this one will definitely feel good for the labels, and it would have been a very big deal had they lost. But it certainly won’t help them in fighting less formally organized P2P services or those set up outside the U.S.

Arista Records Summary Judgment Opinion

And we’re off! Court filings in the YouTube-Viacom suit were just unsealed and both sides are distributing them now.

This post will be a work in progress as I ingest the paperwork. I’ll link to places where you can sort through the files for yourself, and I’ll be posting what I can on this site as well. Most important, I’ll try to interpret the documents and pull out the most interesting stuff.

As we start, a reminder of what we’re looking at: Both sides are releasing their legal arguments and supporting evidence in the three-year-old case. In short, Viacom (VIA) says that Google’s (GOOG) video site infringed on its copyright and wants a billion dollars in damages; YouTube says the site is protected by federal law.

Slightly longer version: Viacom is arguing that YouTube is a giant version of Napster and Grokster, the music file-sharing sites knocked down in earlier court rulings. That makes it important for the cable network to show that YouTube executives knew users were uploading licensed work and that the executives were encouraging it.

YouTube, meanwhile, is arguing that the company has always tried to discourage users from uploading licensed stuff and has gone to great lengths to take down stuff that copyright owners don’t want there. The video service also argues that Viacom has uploaded plenty of its stuff to YouTube on its own and continues to do so. Key part of Google’s defense, in plain English:

Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube–and every Web platform–to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.

It’s important to remember that all of this is already old news to the U.S. District Court judge who will rule in the case. While this may seem like a reality show, the public doesn’t get a vote on this one.

Now let’s get to the filings. Here is Viacom’s request for summary judgment, followed by its “statement of undisputed facts”–essentially supporting evidence. Viacom is also posting most of the documents and depositions here, though some items have been redacted.

Viacom Summary Judgment Motion –

Viacom Statement of Undisputed Facts –

And here’s a link to YouTube’s statement. The company’s legal memorandum follows:

20100318_google_viacom_youtube_memorandum

Below is a statement from YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley, which amounts to a legal version of a press release. Note the many references he makes to his desire to keep the site free of copyrighted stuff–at least initially.

C Hurley Declaration –

In his memo, Hustinx criticizes the secrecy of the talks from which ACTA arose and worries that as an international treaty to fight digital piracy, the agreement is in danger of running afoul of European Union privacy and data protection law requirements.

“Privacy and data protection must be taken into account from the very beginning of the negotiations, not when the schemes and procedures have been defined and agreed and it is therefore too late to find alternative, privacy compliant solutions,” Hustinx wrote.

“While intellectual property is important to society and must be protected,” he added, “it should not be placed above individuals’ fundamental rights to privacy, data protection, and other rights such as presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.”

Evidently, that’s exactly where IP has been placed in the current draft of ACTA, which seems to be designed to encourage ISPs to monitor their customers’ Internet use for illegal file-sharing and potentially, to blackball repeat offenders on their networks.

“Insofar as the current draft of ACTA includes or at least indirectly pushes for three strikes Internet disconnection policies, ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the protection of personal data and privacy,” Hustinx wrote.

“The EDPS takes the view that three strikes Internet disconnection policies are not necessary to achieve the purpose of enforcing intellectual property rights,” he concluded. “The EDPS is convinced that alternative, less intrusive solutions exist or, at least, that the envisaged policies can be performed in a less intrusive manner or at a more limited scope, notably through the form of targeted ad hoc monitoring.”

Depends on who you ask, of course.

Executives at Veoh say Judge A. Howard Matz has given them a new lease on life, and at least some of the company’s investors are doing some chest-beating. Universal, the world’s largest music label, says it’s confident it will win an appeal.

You can get the same split opinion by asking two different companies that happen to be locked in a similar fight. Executives at Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which is trying to fend off a copyright suit filed by Viacom (VIA), say the Veoh ruling bolsters their case. You can guess what Viacom says.

The gist of the fight: Universal says Veoh didn’t try hard enough to keep illegally uploaded material off the video site; Veoh says it made a good-faith effort. Matz agreed with Veoh and tossed out Universal’s claims.

Even if you disregard the posturing, it’s fair to say there’s a genuine debate over the ruling’s meaning. Veoh, along with some of my bloggy colleagues, is treating the decision as the final word on Web copyright disputes, or at least those that involve the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

And Matz certainly slapped Universal around. But it’s worth noting that copyright owners have lost Web cases in the Ninth District before, but ultimately won on appeal. Ask Grokster, the now-defunct file-sharing network that dissolved after a 2005 Supreme Court ruling.

You can read all of Matz’s judgment at the bottom of this post. But this excerpt, in which he argues that simply having illegal material on your site isn’t a crime, and neither is knowing about it (at least, in a general sense), gives you a good idea of Matz’s thrust and tone:

No doubt it is common knowledge that most websites that allow users to contribute material contain infringing items. If such general awareness were enough to raise a “red flag,” the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose of “facilitat[ing] the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age,” and “balanc[ing] the interests of content owners, on-line and other service providers, and information users in a way that will foster the continued development of electronic commerce and the growth of the Internet.”

Legal debate aside, the ruling does give a practical benefit for Veoh. It allows the company to fetch a higher price on the auction block.

CEO Dmitry Shapiro has been shopping the site to bidders over the summer, and as of a few months ago, he was willing to accept less than the $70 million investors like Time Warner (TWX), Goldman Sachs (GS) and former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner have poured into the site.

Selling a Web video site in 2009 is a tough challenge without a handicap, but the lawsuit was a big one. It was a huge time-and-money suck–Veoh may have spent as much as $6 million fighting the case in the last two years–and more important, the unresolved case was a huge liability. Who wants to buy a lawsuit?

Now, Shapiro says, Veoh’s options include not selling at all. He insists that some of Veoh’s existing backers are willing to recapitalize the company and that new investors might join in as well.

I’ll take him at his word, but if I had to bet, I’d wager that Veoh ends up getting acquired sooner than later. Maybe quite soon–the company has a board meeting today.

Wonder what they’ll talk about?

VEOH –

Still here? How about that? You get a bonus video! (But be warned: Pacino chews up a lot of scenery here, and there is some impassioned cursing.)

There are networked hard drives from several manufacturers that can back up both laptops wirelessly and allow sharing. One I reviewed recently is the My Book World Edition from Western Digital. Another approach would be to use a Web-based synchronization service. My favorite of these is called SugarSync, from a company called Sharpcast.

SugarSync can automatically, and almost instantly, synchronize files in folders you select among multiple computers, while also backing them up to a password-protected Web account. SugarSync starts at $5 a month or $50 a year for 30 gigabytes of files, and goes up in price based on the amount you use. The company offers a free two-gigabyte account and a free trial of larger accounts for 30 days. More information is at sharpcast.com.

I have been a Windows user for may years but have wanted to change to Mac. Yet every article I read says that Quicken, which I depend upon heavily, will not run—at least reliably—on a Mac, even with the Windows-compatible software. Is this true?

The native Quicken version for the Mac is a less capable program than the Windows version, and doesn’t use the same file format, which makes importing Windows Quicken files a tedious and imperfect process for many users. Intuit, the maker of Quicken, is promising a new, much better native Mac version early next year that it claims will solve these problems, but I haven’t tested it, so I can’t verify that pledge.

However, in tests I have run periodically, Quicken for Windows ran just fine on a Mac equipped to run Windows and Windows programs. This was true when I used either Parallels or Fusion, which allow you to run Windows programs on a Mac simultaneously with Mac programs; or when I used Boot Camp, which converts the Mac into a full-fledged Windows machine, with Apple’s operating system turned off.

I plan to get a new computer after Windows 7 is released in October, to replace my old Compaq running Windows XP. Will I have difficulty moving my files to the new one?

You shouldn’t have much difficulty with your personal data files. Microsoft is building in an Easy Transfer program to move personal files to a new Windows 7 PC. But the Microsoft program won’t move over your programs. You will have to reinstall all your programs, which means finding your installation disks or installer files and re-installing all the updates from that have occurred over the years. A company called LapLink is promising to sell software it says will automate the entire process, including moving programs, to spare you this re-installation burden. But it isn’t out yet, and I haven’t tested it with Windows 7.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox and my other columns at the All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Global Gaming Factory X, the Swedish software/Internet cafe company that’s supposed to buy the file-sharing haven for $8 million, was supposed to get shareholders to approve the deal today. But in advance of a shareholders meeting, the company issued a press release in which it says 1) that investors that were supposed to finance the deal have disappeared and 2) this is the fault of the U.S. media, which it says spooked said investors.

But wait! There’s more! Global Gaming Factor says it has figured out an alternate way to pay for the deal whereby the company’s majority shareholders in the penny-stock company will offer their equity as a security. Alas, there’s yet another catch: Swedish regulators, who have already suspended trading in the company twice in two months, are now threatening to delist it.

It’s hard to get too worked up about the failure of a plan that made no sense on the day it was announced. But for the record, you can read the backstory to this weird tale here and here. Meanwhile, The Pirate Bay itself is up and running and still cheerfully thumbing its nose at Hollywood, the big music labels, and the rest of the media world.

In a blog post, Mr. Sunde cited time constraints for the departure. “I want to build something new and I want to focus my energy in a different direction. I have projects waiting to be finished, a book is waiting to be finalized and many more books are waiting to be read,” he wrote. “I am simply leaving a role in order to be a person instead.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

You can read a confusing release from the supposed acquirer, Global Gaming Factory X, here, and an equally confusing post from The Pirate Bay’s operators, here. And The Pirate Bay guys, who are supposedly looking at a big fine and a jail term, say they didn’t actually own The Pirate Bay but will get some of the profits from the sale anyway and will use them to finance an “Internet project.” Etc.

Oh! And the Pirate Bay’s new owners say they can’t promise that copyright holders are actually going to get paid. Here’s Global Gaming CEO Hans Pandeya in the Financial Times:

However, Mr Pandeya said the company would not be able to compel any filesharers to pay content owners. “We are trying to create a different model that addresses the needs of the different parties. However, it is up to them if they want to participate,” he said.

So it’s understandable that Hollywood and big music are mute, or close to it, on the deal. Because it’s difficult to say exactly what the deal is. I was able to extract one statement from the IFPI, the international music trade group. Here’s chairman and CEO John Kennedy:

“We don’t know the details and there are many questions to ask about how this will work in practice, but we would be delighted if this resulted in the Pirate Bay turning into a legitimate licensed service.”

But let’s be honest: There’s no way The Pirate Bay is going legit. And if it does, it won’t be The Pirate Bay, but something else.

Instead of being a massive site that attracts a huge audience that wants to devour free content, it will be a small distributor of licensed content, and the masses will flock somewhere else for their free stuff. Because they don’t want licensed content, even if it’s legal and/or better quality. They want free stuff.

The movie studios and the labels should be able to pat themselves on the back, gently and cautiously, for getting The Pirate Bay’s current owners to more or less abandon the site.

The problem, as they’re well aware, is that The Pirate Bay was only a directory that sent users to “torrents” that allowed them to gobble up as much pirated stuff as they want. And shutting down the Bay doesn’t mean the torrents are gone. And it doesn’t prevent other directory sites from popping up, whack-a-mole style, all over the world.

That’s the path that Jason Herskowitz has chosen. Old job: VP of product management at Total Music, Universal Music and Sony’s (SNE) attempt to create a service that offered either free downloads or free streaming music as a way to combat file-sharing. It collapsed earlier this year and Project Playlist bought some of its parts.

New job: VP of product management at LimeWire, one of the last (one of the only?) high-profile peer-to-peer file-sharing companies based in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the service was embroiled with industry lawsuits for three years running.

Here’s Herskowitz’s blog post announcing his new job and his pending move to Brooklyn (Welcome, Jason! Pretty sure we’re neighbors.) from Washington D.C. It’s not a crazy career move: A job is a job and there aren’t that many in digital music these days. Besides, I hear that LimeWire has nice offices.

Which reminds me: How is it, exactly, that LimeWire stays afloat when the labels have been able to force so many of its peers to shut down? Good question. I’ve asked around and heard murmurings that the labels and the file-sharing service may be able to work out some kind of agreement, but I’ve heard that every 12 months or so. So I’ll believe it in when I see it.

In the meantime, LimeWire continues to allow you to download just about any song (and many other things) you can imagine over the Web for free, without paying anyone a cent. Though if you do try to download a copyrighted song, you do get this stern warning from the service. I take it in the same spirit as the warnings head shops give you when they say the bong they’re selling is for tobacco use only (click to enlarge):

Digital music start-ups seem to come in two flavors these days: Those being sued by the major music labels and those with expensive licensing deals they can’t afford.

But for some reason, plucky Grooveshark, which runs a very nice, free streaming music service, has stayed out of both of those buckets until now. I’ve confirmed that EMI Music Group is suing the site–whose motto is “Play any song in the world, for free!”–for copyright violation.

The label filed suit against Gainesville, Fla.-based Grooveshark in a New York court on May 8. I don’t have a copy of the complaint yet, but if you feel like sharing, hit me at peter@allthingsd.com or use the blind tip box here. No comment from EMI, but Grooveshark sent me a very long statement, which I’ve printed at the bottom of the post.

The takeaway: Grooveshark says it was working on a licensing deal with EMI and now finds itself in court instead. The company does refer to deals with “many artists, labels and publishers,” but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have deals with any of the other three majors–Warner Music Group (WMG), Universal Music Group, or Sony (SNE)–either.

Grooveshark started out as a peer-to-peer file-sharing start-up in 2006, and has since morphed into a streaming model. When I talked to marketing VP Joshua Bonnain in May, he told me the company was primarily funded by friends and family–most of the company’s employees are either students at or graduates of the University of Florida, he said. But he also said the company had received a “substantial investment from a large party” that he wouldn’t identify.

Bonnain said the site, which generates at least some ad revenue, planned on splitting half of it with the copyright owners of the music it played. But I was never clear about how that was going to work since Grooveshark doesn’t have deals with the majors. Then again, Bonnain didn’t tell me that the company had been sued a few days before we talked, either.

In the music world, negotiations don’t preclude suits and vice versa; Warner was, at one point, suing iMeem, but then became an investor in the site. Same thing with Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace. The only real question I’ve had is why the big guys haven’t gone after Grooveshark yet. I’ve been asking label folks about the start-up since November and I’ve only gotten shrugs for an answer.

Anyway, as I said, it’s very nice service, and it would be a shame if the labels can’t figure out a way to work with it or help it survive. But the odds of that happening, based on the unpleasant history of digital music start-ups to date, are very low. So enjoy this themed playlist I created with the site’s help, which features music from all four majors, while you can. Grooveshark’s statement is below.

For the past year, Grooveshark has been in talks with EMI Records and other copyright holders to negotiate licensing agreements for the use of their content. We are pleased to announce that over the past few months Grooveshark successfully concluded mutually bene?cial agreements with many artists, labels, and publishers that we hope to be a template for other such agreements with additional copyright holders.

Recently, EMI Records chose to abandon the template we’ve built with the help of other major copyright holders and opted for their traditional intimidation tactic of ?ling a lawsuit as a negotiating tool. We ?nd the use of this negotiating strategy counterproductive, as Grooveshark has been willing to conclude an agreement with EMI Records that is economically sustainable for both EMI Records and a start-up company the size of Grooveshark.

Grooveshark is run by a group of young and passionate musicians. We love music, we make music, and we believe that the use of all music should be paid for. We adopted this core philosophy at our inception and to date have concluded agreements with hundreds of record labels, major US performance rights organizations, and thousands of independent artists who support Grooveshark’s business model. (See: Grooveshark Artists)

As musicians, we support the rights of copyright holders and strive to sign sustainable agreements with all content owners, ensuring that all artists get paid– or we agree to remove content from our system in accordance with our DMCA Takedown Policy. We hope that EMI Records eventually follows the lead of the many forward-thinking labels we are already working with, who would rather get their artists exposure and a fair share of our revenue than block content access and force customers to illegal networks.

We understand that the economy of the digital music business is in a state of ?ux, and we hope to help ease this transition by providing the required new tools and services that lead to the next generation of the music industry. We respect the ownership rights of the major labels and publishers, and our core mission has always been to compete with piracy by offering a service that is genuinely better than what illegal networks offer, while also ensuring fair payment to copyright holders. Our next important step on our road to success is to conclude a mutually bene?cial agreement with EMI Records that is sustainable for both EMI and Grooveshark.

“The majority of all internet traffic is file sharing, which is why nothing other than the new IPRED law can explain this major drop in traffic,” Anti-piracy Agency lawyer Henrik Pontén told Metro. “This sends a very strong signal that the legislation works.” Christian Engstrom, vice chairman of the Pirate Party, a group seeking copyright law reform, agreed, but said the decline is likely to be only temporary. Once the public realizes that the odds of being busted for file-sharing are low, Internet traffic will return to normal levels again. “Today, there is a very drastic reduction in internet traffic,” Engstrom told The BBC. “But experience from other countries suggests that while file-sharing drops on the day a law is passed, it starts climbing again. One of the reasons is that it takes people a few weeks to figure out how to change their security settings so that can share files anonymously. We estimate there are two million file-sharing [computers] in Sweden, so even if they prosecuted a 1,000 people to make an example of them, for an individual user it is still a very small risk.”

[Image credit: Chart courtesy Royal Pingdom]

But, unlike external drives that just plug into a single PC, these stand-alone, networked hard disks have tended to be techie products. Too often, they require a deeper familiarity with networking and file-sharing procedures than most folks possess. And some are aimed only at Windows or only at Macs, leaving out mixed-machine households.

Now, there’s a new networkable hard disk that, in my tests, proved so simple that anyone who can plug in a cable can use it, with no setup or knowledge, provided your computers have the most current operating systems. It works concurrently and seamlessly with both Windows PCs and Macs, and can even stream music to Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes program installed on either platform.

In addition, it can stream music, photos and videos to a TV, if you have a compatible add-on box attached, such as an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. Its contents also can be accessed over the Internet from any major Web browser.

The product is the My Book World Edition, from Western Digital (WDC). This second version of the World Edition sells for $230 for a model with a capacity of one terabyte (roughly 1,000 gigabytes) and $450 for two terabytes. It’s available from various retailers, or at westerndigital.com.

Western Digital’s new My Book World Edition

The My Book World Edition isn’t flawless. Its Internet remote-access feature isn’t great, and it’s more complicated to use on computers running older operating systems, like Windows XP or Apple’s Tiger. It’s also sluggish with older PC hardware. But for its basic functions — backup, centralized file storage and sharing, streaming of music and other media — the My Book World Edition is simple and speedy on relatively new computers with current operating systems.

I tested the My Book on my home network, using several Macs running Apple’s Leopard operating system, as well as Windows PCs from Dell (DELL), Sony (SNE) and Lenovo. Some of the latter were running Vista, some XP and one was using the prerelease version of the new Windows 7 operating system. I also tested it with an Xbox 360.

To start, I just plugged the My Book into an electrical outlet and connected it to my home network’s router with a standard networking (Ethernet) cable. Almost immediately, all of the Macs, and all of the Windows PCs running Vista or Windows 7, displayed an icon called MyBookWorld, making it appear like a regular hard disk on the computer.

Opening the icon revealed two folders, one called Download and one called Public. The latter folder contained three subfolders: Shared Music, Shared Pictures and Shared Videos.

Without installing drivers or any other software, I could copy files onto the My Book from the Windows PCs and Macs. I copied some Microsoft Word and PDF documents, plus several hundred songs, photos and videos. This copying process went quickly, almost as quickly as with a directly connected hard disk. And I was able to open, display or play the files on the My Book on all of my test machines, Mac and Windows.

Then, I opened Apple’s iTunes on all my test machines, and discovered a MyBookWorld entry on the left-hand side, from which I could play the songs on the shared drive. In the case of songs from the iTunes store, however, the machine had to be registered to my iTunes account.

Next, I installed Western Digital’s backup program on several of the computers. It comes in Windows and Mac versions, works automatically, and allows you, via a simple interface, to select which folders or which types of files you want backed up automatically. It worked fine.

For my tests, I then hooked up an Xbox to my TV set, navigated to the media section of the Xbox, selected My Book from a list as my media source, and was able to play on the TV all music, display all photos and watch any videos that were compatible with the Xbox.

I also tried accessing my files over the Internet from remote PCs and Macs, using a free service Western Digital offers called MioNet that merely requires a Web browser. It worked on Windows and Mac, but it was so slow as to be painful, so I would only count on it in emergencies.

I also don’t recommend buying the My Book for use with older PCs running Windows XP. With XP, the shared drive isn’t immediately visible; you have to install the included software to get it to show up. That’s not a big deal on a newer XP computer, but on an older XP laptop I tried, that installation was painfully slow, and so was using the My Book.

When used with modern operating systems, though, the My Book World Edition is the simplest, speediest networkable hard disk I’ve tried.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090401/network-hard-disk-by-western-digital-offers-easy-backup/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-zealand-reconsiders-three-strikes-rule-on-internet-use/ http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-zealand-reconsiders-three-strikes-rule-on-internet-use/#comments Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:25:47 +0000 Marisa Taylor http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=9878 New Zealand agreed this week to reconsider a controversial law that cut off Internet access to people accused of copyright violations.

The country’s parliament passed Section 92a of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act in 2008, also known as the “three-strikes” rule, which would have come into play in February 2009. If an Internet user was even accused of file-sharing or otherwise violating copyright laws, his or her Internet-service provider would cut off service.

The implementation of the amendment was pushed back to March 27 so that ISPs could agree on a code of conduct, but the rallying cry from Internet free-speech organizations such as the Creative Freedom Foundation pushed the Parliament to rethink its strategy.

How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O’Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-zealand-reconsiders-three-strikes-rule-on-internet-use/feed/ 0