All Things Digital

Steve Jobs has apparently accepted the unacceptable: Things don’t always go Steve’s way. The mercurial Apple (AAPL) CEO has been notoriously intransigent when it comes to matters of variable pricing on iTunes, arguing that charging higher prices for more popular content might backfire, sending customers off to the file-sharing networks. Now, as predicted yesterday, he appears to have reconsidered that stance, at least when it comes to HBO’s Emmy Award-winning programming.

This morning, Apple’s U.S. iTunes Store began offering six HBO series: “The Wire,” “Flight of the Conchords,” “Sex and the City,” “The Sopranos,” “Rome” and “Deadwood.” The first three are priced at iTunes’ standard rate of $1.99 per episode. The second three are $2.99 each, marking the first time Apple has allowed variable pricing for TV shows in the U.S.

Quite a coup for HBO (TWX), especially given some of the other concessions it was able to win from Apple: HBO programs won’t be offered for purchase on iTunes until they hit the DVD window, and new episodes of series won’t be available until months after their TV premiere.

It’s quite a road-to-Damascus conversion Comcast (CMCSA) is having these days, isn’t it?

Back in February the cable company claimed it was perfectly reasonable for it to throttle or degrade the performance of peer-to-peer file-sharing services on its broadband network. But when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin suggested the agency was mulling action against it, Comcast had a moment of clarity. In March, it said it would work with BitTorrent to develop P2P-friendly network capacity-management techniques. And today it announced plans for an industry-wide effort to create a “P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.”

The document–which is to be created with the help of other Internet service providers, P2P companies and content providers–would specify how ISPs should manage P2P applications running on their networks and how consumers should use them. Said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable’s Chief Technology Officer, “By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content.”

And by announcing its plans to create this framework right before the FCC hearing on its P2P-throttling techniques to be held at Stanford (in Palo Alto, Calif.) Thursday, Comcast is hoping the agency won’t take action against it for violating its Net neutrality rules.

Back in 2000-2001, when the Recording Industry Association of America was still trying to recover from its CD price-fixing scheme with poorly reasoned justifications for CD price inflation (”Listen, if CD prices were governed by the Consumer Price Index, you’d be paying $33.86 for them instead of $12.75!”), a little company called Napster came calling. Napster had pioneered a new Internet distribution model for digital media that was revolutionizing the music industry, and it hoped to partner with RIAA member labels to create a subscription-based service.

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.”

It’s a Comcastic day for BitTorrent. This morning the cable provider, under fire for degrading the performance of the peer-to-peer file-sharing service on its broadband network, announced plans to develop better ways to manage peer-to-peer traffic. To that end, Comcast (CMCSA) will work with BitTorrent to develop a network capacity-management technique that is protocol agnostic.

Said Tony Werner, Comcast’s chief technology officer, “This new architecture would enable many new and emerging applications and will be based upon an open, nondiscriminatory framework that could interface with or support multiple technologies. We believe that P2P technology has matured as an enabler for legal content distribution, so we need to have an architecture that can support it with techniques that work over all networks.”

Of course you do. You just didn’t realize it until FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pointed it out, right?

Anyway, like most such corporately altruistic pledges, this one has the potential to do more good than bad–or more bad than good. “… We must recognize that these are two commercial entities whose goals are, in the end, to make sure that their networks and technologies are as profitable as possible,” writes Public Knowledge’s Jef Pearlman. “One can conceive of a world where an ISP and an application developer band together to make a proprietary system in which sanctioned application data gets preferred treatment, the ISP gets greater control of the application running on your computer, and both companies are happy in the exact situation we want to prevent. Time will tell what this partnership actually means.”

The concept is simple: The music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to ‘get legit’ in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway–share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer–without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog.”

–Excerpt from “A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, April, 2004

Turns out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was simply ahead of its time when it suggested that the recording industry adopt a voluntary collective-licensing model for music. Because the record labels are finally warming to the idea.

During tomorrow’s South by Southwest “Mobility, Ubiquity and Monetizing Music” panel, Jim Griffin, managing director of OneHouse–a digital entertainment consultancy that works with three of the four major labels–will argue the case for a file-sharing surcharge.

Like the “File-sharing Monetization” proposal recently pitched by the Songwriters Association of Canada and the EFF plan that the industry dismissed back in 2004, Griffin’s proposal would have Internet Service Providers add a flat-rate fee to their monthly charges to underwrite the cost of unlimited music downloads. The resulting funds would be divvied up among songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.

“It’s monetizing the anarchy,” says Peter Jenner, head of the International Music Manager’s Forum, who will join Griffin on the panel. “The labels are beginning to like the idea of an access-to-music charge, because they’re increasingly aware that their current model is broken.”

The Federal Communications Commission isn’t buying Comcast’s (CMCSA) argument that throttling or degrading the performance of the peer-to-peer file-sharing service BitTorrent on its broadband network is a necessary traffic-management technique.

Speaking at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he’s considering taking action against the cable operator for violating the agency’s network-neutrality principles. Seems Martin was troubled by Comcast’s dissembling around the BitTorrent issue, not to mention its efforts to pack an FCC hearing on Net neutrality with its own employees.

“A hallmark of what should be seen as a reasonable business practice is certainly whether or not the people engaging in that practice are willing to describe it publicly,” said Martin, adding that the incident offered the commission a good opportunity to establish a precedent for future cases of this kind. “I have said in the past the commission is ready, willing and able to take action on individual complaints,” he said. “I think that is what we are going to end up doing, and I think that will end up setting an important precedent going forward: that we are willing to address individual complaints when they come in.”

We compete with Comcast with delivery of content over the Internet. What we have here is a horse race and in this contest, Comcast owns the race track, in fact, the only track in town. They also own a horse. We are being told they are only slowing down our horse by a few seconds.”

–Gilles BianRosa, CEO of video provider Vuze

The network-management hearing at Harvard University this morning is turning out to be something of a comcastrophe for Comcast (CMCSA). Called before the Federal Communications Commission today to explain why it has been “throttling” or limiting BitTorrent traffic on its network, Comcast was criticized out of the gate for the practice.

Seems some folks don’t buy the company’s claim that throttling is necessary to prevent file-sharing traffic from consuming too much bandwidth. And others–specifically, advocates of Net neutrality–feel it’s outright discriminatory. “The Internet is as much mine and yours as it is Verizon’s and AT&T’s and Comcast’s,” said U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in his opening remarks to the commission. “The commission should be wary of the need of a significant network management position. Perhaps if we had competition, this wouldn’t be such an issue.”Such intercession into a user’s access to the Internet should not result in … the transformation of BitTorrent into BitTrickle. That’s a problematic result … whether it is purposeful or purely circumstantial.”

Comcast, for its part, insists results like those described by Markey aren’t problematic at all, but necessary. The company must “shape” file-sharing traffic to ease the strain on its network. “Independent research has shown that it takes as few as 15 active BitTorrent users uploading content in a particular geographic area to create congestion sufficient to degrade the experience of the hundreds of other users in that area,” David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, explained in written testimony. “Bandwidth-intensive activities not only degrade other less-intense uses, but also significantly interfere with thousands of Internet companies’ businesses. Far from managing our network in a discriminatory way to benefit our own offerings–other than managing our network to make our high-speed Internet service faster and better–our limited network-management practices ensure that everyone else’s applications and services, even those that may compete with our services and use P2P protocols, work.”

As Sun Tzu once wrote, “Keep your customers close and your enemies closer, and should someone be both, kick them off the Internet.” At least that’s what he appears to have written in the recording industry’s well-worn copy of “The Art of War.”

Earlier this year, the British Phonographic Industry suggested that the British government pass “three strikes” legislation that would require Internet service providers to terminate the accounts of casual file-sharers. And now the government seems to have taken it to heart. This morning it said ISPs have until April of 2009 to curb illegal downloads of music and films occurring on their networks before they are slapped with legal sanctions. Said Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, “Let me make it absolutely clear: This is a change of tone from the government. It’s definitely serious legislative intent.”

Britain’s ISPs are, as one would imagine, a bit put off by the idea of being used as entertainment-industry heavies. “Using BitTorrent isn’t illegal,” said an Internet Service Providers Association rep. “We prefer to go with self-regulation because it’s generally seen to be more nimble than legislation.”

But as the BPI notes, with self-regulation comes litigation. Given the option of lawsuit or loss of connectivity, what would the average music pirate choose? “The three-strike process is far better then landing someone with a great big lawsuit,” says Matt Phillips of the BPI. “Surveys we’ve done suggest that 70% of consumers would stop sharing on their connection if they knew it was being done illicitly. And it’s got to be better than taking them to court, where they’ll face a legal bill of at least £3,000.”

What do you get when you cross a cowboy, a construction worker, a biker, a soldier, an American Indian and a police officer? Why, the Village People, of course. But throw in a Web Sheriff and you’ve got a lawsuit: The aging disco group has teamed up with the U.K.-based antipiracy outfit to sue Swedish torrent index The Pirate Bay for enabling illegal downloads of its song “Y.M.C.A.”

A chart topper in 1978, Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” has been played in thousands of baseball stadiums and karaoke bars and even performed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell at the ASEAN Forum, an annual security meeting for foreign ministers (”President Bush, he said to me: Colin, I need you to run the Department of State. We are between a rock and a hard place.”) without incident.

But its alleged popularity in file-sharing circles–particularly after the appearance last year of a YouTube video combining it with historical footage of Adolph Hitler and other Nazis–has drawn the group’s ire, as well as that of Prince, who is also reportedly part of the suit. “We are suing for damages of millions of dollars, and [suits] will be filed at both Swedish as well as U.S. courts,” Web Sheriff Chief Executive John Giacobbi told Swedish online business daily e24. “Many are asking themselves why they should be paying for content when it is widely available free of charge. But such thinking disregards the fact that someone has been creating this music or movie, and [has] invested huge sums of money in the project. Therefore it should be up to [the creators] to decide how and to whom their works are being distributed.”

Giacobbi, it should be noted, is calling upon other artists to join the suit in the hopes of giving it more critical mass and credibility, though his choice of artists may achieve quite the opposite. Said Giacobbi, “It would also be good/appropriate if the members of ABBA could take up the fight against these pirates, as they personify the Swedish music industry’s successes and are renowned ambassadors for Sweden, contrary to The Pirate Bay.”

One can only the imagine the fun the folks at The Pirate Bay, who’ve publicly ridiculed legal threats from everyone from Warner Bros. to Apple, are going to have with this one.