When a group of powerful investors, including Silver Lake Partners and Andreessen Horowitz, waded into the mess at Skype less than two years ago with a $1.9 billion cash investment for a big chunk of the company, it was–how can BoomTown put this delicately–a hot mess.

With lawsuits flying over intellectual property violations, turmoil in the relationship with its eBay owners and increasing competitive pressures, you get the mess part.

But there was also the hot, because of so much potential in the fast-growing Internet telephony and video communications company.

Hotter today, it seems.

Microsoft–in what would be its most aggressive acquisition by the software giant in the digital space–is poised to announce that it will buy Skype, forking over $8.5 billion all in, which includes the assumption of the Luxembourg-based company’s debt.

Sources said that the splashy deal is now done and will be announced early this morning to much fanfare.

That is a far cry from 2009.

In fact, at the time that his newly hatched venture firm made its biggest deal yet, Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen was all sunshine and ponies about the just-settled tense legal situation.

As I wrote after talking to him then:

But, as Andreessen told BoomTown in a phone interview about the aggressive legal tactics of Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis that resulted in them finally seizing a stake in the Internet telephony giant by suing him and many other Silicon Valley players:

“We did not take it personally. It’s a clean sheet of paper.”

Well, it is actually a torn, stained and very worn out piece of paper, due to all the various machinations, but bygones!

Andreessen–who knows a thing or two about legal tussles, if you recall Netscape-Microsoft–said the real point is that it is time to focus on the business of Skype rather than fighting over who controls Skype.

“It’s really good to have everyone lined up and rowing in the same direction. We have to capitalize on the opportunity, because Skype is poised for a new wave of growth,” said Andreessen. “They have an amazing head of steam, because the logical way for voice and video communications to be conducted will be over the Web.”

It turns out he was right, given the haul that Andreesen Horowitz and other investors will be getting now.

The price tag essentially tripled the $2.75 billion valuation then. In fact, a year before, eBay had actually written down the value of Skype to $1.9 billion.

That means for its $65 million–it was reported then the Andresseen Horowitz stake was $50 million, but it was more–it will nail nearly $200 million.

That could be much more depending on what percentage of the deal the VC firm actually got.

Andreessen Horowitz’s stake is joined with Silver Lake, as well as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

In total, they own about 56 percent of Skype, worth about $4.5 billion.

Another 30 percent is owned by eBay, which seems to have done a little better than even-steven for all its trouble with Skype.

It will get $2.4 billion now, having paid out about $3 billion back in 2005 for Skype. It got the $1.9 billion in the latest investor deal in 2009.

The big winners are Zennström and Friis, who keep on selling the same company to corporate moneybags over and over, while also suing anyone who looks at them crossways.

The Skype co-founders–who started out as Internet scofflaws with their Kazaa music-stealing service–had a 14 percent share, giving them $1.1 billion.

Like I said–not that I actually invest in any of these tech companies I cover–I’ll have what the lawsuit twins and Andreessen are having.

Back in 2009, in fact, he laid it out with regards to Skype pretty presciently.

“One of our investing mottos is that we invest in strength, not lack of weakness,” he said. “The question is how big is the opportunity.”

Big, apparently, now that Microsoft is footing the bill.

Well, here’s a good reason not to write off Joost quite yet: When the London-based company officially debuts its new Web-based service in mid-October, it will have some pretty hot content with its half-dozen seasons of the former NBC hit, “Friends.”

Also, there will finally be no more irksome plug-ins.

In other words, anyone with an Internet connection can watch streaming television shows and movies on Joost, with advertising embedded in various forms.

There will also be social-networking elements–you can see what your friends watch and form groups, make comments with cool tools and the rest of that sort of thing.

While all this is not going to make up for the lost time the online video service has wasted with its annoying P2P-based desktop client download, going to a Web-based, all-Flash service with more robust content is certainly the right way to stop rival service Hulu from continuing to clean Joost’s clock.

Joost was first out of the gate last year with a giant slug of funding, fancy founders (Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, who were also founders of Web phenoms Skype and Kazaa) and blue-chip investors (Sequoia Capital, Index Ventures, as well as CBS, Viacom and wealthy Hong Kong investor Li Ka-shing).

In any case, Hulu quickly grabbed the lead in terms of press praise (I ate my words even!), ease-of-use and, most importantly, user numbers.

In the most recent stats, for example, Hulu had more than 100 million monthly video streams and 3.3 million unique monthly visitors. (But since Joost has just soft-launched its new Web-only service, it’s hard to make comparisons just yet, although the competition is now clearly afoot!)

And, although it has been written off by some, I do not think it is too late for Joost.

First, it is still early in the premium online video game.

Second, success will depend on having increasing amounts of quality content. And Joost–with CBS, Warner Bros., Sony and other unusual content like anime–certainly can keep up with Hulu’s programs from its partner parents, News Corp. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and this Web site) and NBC Universal.

Lastly, despite decent consumer uptake, the business is still in its nascent popcorn-stand stage of revenue and profit generation.

And while spending too much money and having too many employees did not help Joost, it seems as though CEO Mike Volpi has finally gotten control of the start-up beast.

Thus, while in London this week, I stopped in at the offices of Joost (near the famed King’s Cross train station, where, of course–to no avail–I tried to make it through the wall at Platform 9 3/4!) to chat with Volpi about all the changes at the much-hyped company.

Here’s a longish video, in which the always-well-turned-out former Cisco exec talks about all that and more:

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

This according to juror Michael Hegg, who tells Wired that one of his impaneled colleagues for hours argued in favor of $750 minimum statutory damages for each of the songs at issue in the case. And Thomas was lucky he did. Because according to Hegg–who, remarkably, claims never to have been on the Internet–at least two other jurors were intent on slapping her with maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per song. Seems they didn’t quite buy Thomas’s defense and felt she needed to be taught a lesson. Had they prevailed, the judgment would have topped out at $3.6 million.

“We wanted to send a message that you don’t do this, that you have been warned,” Hegg told Wired, adding that the jury had a tough time believing someone else had spoofed Thomas’s account and used it to distribute copyrighted audio files. “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding.’ She’s a liar. … I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naive. We’re not that stupid up here. I don’t know what the f— she was thinking, to tell you the truth. … She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.”

And perhaps she should have. As the Register notes, her defense was a bit strained at times:

• Thomas used one hard drive for Kazaa … but sent a different one to the prosecution. Amazingly, they noticed. Doh!
• Thomas’s attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn’t using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem’s MAC address to the Kazaa traffic. Doh!
• Thomas carefully covered her tracks–by using the same login name for Kazaa that she uses for all her email, online shopping and MySpace account. Doh!

This according to juror Michael Hegg, who tells Wired that one of his impaneled colleagues for hours argued in favor of $750 minimum statutory damages for each of the songs at issue in the case. And Thomas was lucky he did. Because according to Hegg–who, remarkably, claims never to have been on the Internet–at least two other jurors were intent on slapping her with maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per song. Seems they didn’t quite buy Thomas’s defense and felt she needed to be taught a lesson. Had they prevailed, the judgment would have topped out at $3.6 million.

“We wanted to send a message that you don’t do this, that you have been warned,” Hegg told Wired, adding that the jury had a tough time believing someone else had spoofed Thomas’s account and used it to distribute copyrighted audio files. “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding.’ She’s a liar. … I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naive. We’re not that stupid up here. I don’t know what the f— she was thinking, to tell you the truth. … She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.”

And perhaps she should have. As the Register notes, her defense was a bit strained at times:

• Thomas used one hard drive for Kazaa … but sent a different one to the prosecution. Amazingly, they noticed. Doh!
• Thomas’s attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn’t using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem’s MAC address to the Kazaa traffic. Doh!
• Thomas carefully covered her tracks–by using the same login name for Kazaa that she uses for all her email, online shopping and MySpace account. Doh!

The case is Virgin Records America et al. v. Thomas, and it pits Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two from central Minnesota, against the RIAA, which claims she distributed more than 1,700 audio files on file-sharing site Kazaa in 2005. Thomas could have settled out of court for $3,000–perhaps even through the RIAA’s handy online settlement processing site, but refused, protesting her innocence. Now, she faces a potential liability of $3.9 million in damages, plus legal fees.

“The plaintiffs don’t have the evidence that she downloaded anything,” Thomas’s attorney, Brian Toder, told jurors yesterday. “The best that they can come up with is somebody out there in cyberland … offered on Kazaa some copyrighted material.” His point: while the RIAA has the Internet protocol address it claims was used to illegally share the songs at issue in the case, it must demonstrate that Thomas was actually using it in order to win the case. And that may well prove difficult.

“In sum, the case will be the first test of the RIAA’s ability to sell a jury on its investigative methods, which have a degree of imprecision because of the anonymous nature of the Internet,” writes Jon Healey of the Los Angeles Times. “Internet protocol addresses aren’t painted on the side of a computer like a street address, and even if the RIAA were able to trace a shared file back to a specific PC or Mac, it’s not easy to prove who was sitting at the keyboard. It will also be the first chance for a judge to instruct a jury on the legality of making songs available for others to download. And it will be the first time a jury will weigh whether to bring the hefty penalties provided under copyright law down on a consumer–in Thomas’s case, one who probably spends more on music than its members do.”

A bit of background: In 2006 the RIAA sued Pamela and Jeffrey Howell for copyright infringement, accusing the pair of “making copyrighted works available” over a peer-to-peer network. The RIAA had no evidence that the Howells ever transferred content to a third party. It did, however, have screen shots of their Kazaa account. And that was proof enough for the court to grant its motion for summary judgment against them. “It is no defense that a Kazaa user did not directly oversee the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material,” the judge wrote, noting that “the mere presence of copyrighted works in a shared folder is enough to trigger liability.”

So even though the RIAA couldn’t prove the Howells distributed files illegally, the mere fact that they owned a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contained copyrighted files “made available” over an Internet connection was enough to constitute infringement of the “distribution” rights under the Copyright Act.

Essentially, the Howells have been found criminally liable for what they might have done. Which is an unsettling thought in a Dick-ensian (Philip K.) sort of way. But not for the RIAA which, thanks to this ruling, no longer has to work quite so hard to provide proof of violation in these cases.

“Plaintiffs wish to establish two violations of copyright law when a person both downloads and uploads sound recordings via the Internet,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association wrote in an amicus brief filed in Elektra v. Barker, another RIAA “making available” case. “Proof of the download violation may be relatively straightforward when a plaintiff can establish that a recording has been copied to a person’s computer. Proof of a violation by uploading cannot, however, be established merely by showing the availability of files for potential uploading. A plaintiff must establish a connection to someone else’s actual download. That requires a plaintiff to establish a connection between an uploader and a corresponding downloader, to establish the facts of an actual transaction between the two. Although such proof may require investigation, a plaintiff should not be relieved of its burden. Since copyright holders may (and often do) seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, see 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2), without having to prove actual harm, for such remedies they should be required to furnish allegations and proof of actual violations.

“The remedies provide an adequate incentive for a proper investigation. Amici believe that plaintiffs want to invoke the concept of ‘making available’ instead of the statutory elements of a section 106(3) distribution because plaintiffs perceive that the investigations needed for proper allegations and proof of uploading liability (as contributory infringement liability for another’s download) are burdensome.”

Here are a few questions about computers I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability. This week my mailbox contained questions about getting viruses from file-swapping services, other options beyond dial-up Internet access, and buying a Mac desktop computer.

If you have a question, send it to me at mossberg@wsj.com, and I may select it to be answered here in Mossberg’s Mailbox.

Are there problems with using file-swapping sites like Kazaa, as long as you have a good antivirus protection program? I don’t mind paying for individual songs, but other sites like iTunes or Rhapsody often don’t have the songs I want.

Yes, there are problems. The first are the ethical and legal issues arising from obtaining somebody else’s copyrighted intellectual property without paying for it, from a person who isn’t licensed or authorized to distribute it. The other sites you mention, iTunes and Rhapsody, are legally licensed to distribute music. Kazaa and its ilk aren’t, nor are the people who make music available through them. Your argument is like rationalizing buying stolen TVs because your local Best Buy didn’t have the model you wanted.

If your conscience can get past that, there are practical issues. These sites are major transmitters not only of viruses, but of spyware, which your antivirus program can’t stop. Even if your PC has a full, up-to-date security suite, with antispyware software, you are asking for trouble by downloading from “file swapping” sites. Many of the people I hear from who have had to take drastic, costly steps to save heavily infected PCs attribute their problems to the fact that their kids were frequenting file-sharing sites.

I currently have dial-up access to the Internet, which is slow. I pay a total of $35-$40 a month for the Internet service itself, plus a dedicated phone line. I see ads that claim I can give up this dial-up service and the extra phone line and somehow get higher-speed Internet access for less. Is this true? I do not have a cellphone or wireless service into my house, though I do have cable TV.

You can definitely save a lot of money on your Internet service, and drastically increase speed at the same time. And you don’t need cellphone or wireless service at all. They are irrelevant. Your choices are DSL from your phone company, or cable-modem service from your cable TV provider. Either will give you a high-speed broadband connection that is much, much faster than your current dial-up service — without tying up your phone line. You can go down to a single phone line for making voice calls.

DSL tends to be a lot cheaper, so I recommend DSL if you want to save money. And, while the low-priced DSL service is a lot slower than a cable modem, it is much cheaper and still is roughly 15 times as fast as your current connection.

Verizon offers a low-end DSL service for $14.95 a month, with the first month free. It’s much faster than what you have now, and you wouldn’t need the second phone line. Other companies may have similar offers. But you should go to your phone company’s DSL Web site first to see if your house qualifies for DSL. Not all homes do; it depends on how far you live from the nearest phone company facility.

I am a Windows user who wants to switch to Mac, and I have found two options suitable for me. The first option is to buy the $1,299 iMac G5. And the second option is to buy the Mac mini with the 1.42 GHz processor, 1 GB of memory and a 100 GB hard drive.

It all depends on what you do on your computer and on what your plans are. The mini, configured as you specify, will cost you $500 less than the iMac. But it is less powerful and less full-featured than the iMac. And it lacks a monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers, all of which come with the iMac. If you have all of these on your Windows PC, and like them, and don’t plan to keep the Windows PC, you can switch them over to the mini. But you’ll still have to buy a peripheral called a USB hub, because the mini has too few ports. If you want to preserve your Windows machine, you’ll have to buy new peripherals, or a gadget called a KVM that allows the mini and your Windows machine to share the peripherals.

The iMac G5, in my view, is the best consumer desktop on the market, and the $1,299 model has just been upgraded, without a price increase. So, if your computing needs are modest, your budget is limited and you’re ready and willing to switch over your Windows peripherals, the mini would be a better bargain. But the iMac is the better computer.

* * *

Because of the volume of e-mail I receive, I can’t routinely answer individual questions by e-mail, or consult on individual problems or purchasing decisions. I read all questions I receive and select three each week to answer in the column.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com