Pogoplug: A new device for new lifestyles?

The new Pogoplug. Credit: Cloud Engines.

One way to score a big hit in technology is to come up with not just a new gadget, but a new category. Of course, that is also a recipe for failure, because there's a risk that consumers don't think they need what you're selling.

That's the risk for Cloud Engines, a San Francisco company that makes something called the Pogoplug. They're calling it a "multimedia sharing device," in the hopes that people are looking for an easier way to share all the videos, photos and music that are now defining their digital lives.

The Pogoplug sells for $129. You plug it into your router, and then you plug a storage device -- like an external hard drive or a flash drive -- into it. You have then created what company Chief Executive Daniel Putterman calls "your personal cloud." Given the way the "cloud computing" buzzword reached the stratosphere this year, he may be onto something.

The sharing part comes in letting you give anyone access to your stuff without your ever having to upload it or e-mail it.

Engadget liked an earlier version of the product but wished it had Wi-Fi and ports for extra devices. Today the company announces the extra ports, but still no Wi-Fi.

And I can report that photos and material shared with me from a Pogoplug device worked seamlessly, like looking at any website.

-- Dan Fost

Does more broadband mean more piracy?

In the $787-billion economic stimulus package enacted in February, Congress told the Federal Communications Commission to create a plan for extending broadband service to all Americans and increasing broadband speeds. It's an apple-pie, chicken-in-every-pot goal -- at least until people see the price tag. Nevertheless, there are plenty of disagreements over the details of the plan. One is a battle between copyright holders and consumer advocates over what to do about all the content that broadband users download or stream illegally. The former want Internet service providers to use technology to filter out unauthorized content flowing over their networks; the latter argue that filters won't work as advertised and will inflict an unacceptable amount of collateral damage on lawful Internet uses. I sympathize with the copyright holders' concerns about rampant unauthorized copying, but I'm not persuaded that filtering is the solution -- or that this proceeding is the place to have that debate.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, laid out the case against filters ...

Google's bid to save the music industry, one search at a time [UPDATED]

Google's new "music search feature" -- that's the official name, although some folks have been calling it "OneBox" -- is like a relief pitcher arriving in the middle of a game with his team trailing. It can help expose millions of people to legitimate Internet music outlets, which will help those companies compete with free (and, in many cases, unauthorized) sources of music online. Whether consumers will actually spend more on music than they've been doing, however, is a whole 'nother question.

The rap against Google from label executives and online music companies has been that its search results seem indifferent to legality. For example, searching for a legitimate site often yields sponsored results for unlicensed ones; Googling an MP3 will call up dozens of free download sites and probably some unauthorized lyrics outlets, too. The new music search initiative won't scrub the unlicensed sites from the search results, but at least it tries to steer people to sites that compensate copyright holders. The hope, according to Thomas Hesse, president of Sony Music Entertainment's global digital business, is that music fans will have a significantly better experience on a MySpace or a Lala than they would on an illegitimate site.

No doubt they will. Three of the five music services that Google is working with initially -- Lala, Rhapsody and Pandora -- are far easier to use and are much more entertaining than BitTorrent or LimeWire. I'm not a huge fan of the user interfaces at the two others -- MySpace Music and imeem -- but they're far better tools for sampling music and discovering bands than the illegal downloading sites are. And it's certainly true that with the exception of iTunes, which is notably absent from this initiative, legitimate online music services have been woefully undermarketed and underexposed. So the considerable traffic Google is likely to send their way should be a tremendous boon.

Having said that, I think it's still an open question whether the new search function leads the masses to buy more music. It's likely to lead people to listen to more songs -- Google and its streaming partners will enable searchers to play any given song once, in full and for free, right from the search results page. And if they follow up a sample by diving further into MySpace Music or Lala, they'll certainly discover more artists that they like. But if they're accustomed to acquiring music for free online, it's not clear to me why they wouldn't continue to do so after sampling to their heart's content on MySpace or Lala. Alternatively, they may be happy to stick with the free ad-supported streams on MySpace or imeem, or the 10-cent "web songs" on Lala, instead of plunking down 89 cents or more for an MP3. That's fine only if there's enough volume to make up for the lower margins.

At least Google's pushing people in the right direction, or at least some of the right directions. The search sovereign needs to learn how to work more subscription-music services into the mix, too, for the sake of eMusic, Napster and Microsoft's Zune Pass. And you have to wonder how innovative new services will find a way to get a piece of the traffic that Google's search initiative will generate for its short list of partners. R.J. Pittman, who led Google's efforts to develop the new search function, said the company would consider adding partners to the list, but they'll have to be "online, Web-based, easily accessible and offer some interesting approaches to music discovery." Lots of companies fit that bill, so it will be interesting to see how Google decides who's in and who's out.

Updated at 4:43 p.m.: Now that I've played with it a bit, I see that Google still has some work to do on the new feature. The intelligence it applies to search results -- for example, guessing the right band or song name despite errors in the search -- haven't been integrated into music searches. So if, for example, if you search for "Martha Muffins," Google will guess that you were looking for Martha and the Muffins, and return a bunch of links to the band and its work. But it won't trigger a chance to stream songs from the band via MySpace or Lala. Similarly, if you go looking for "the angels want to wear my red shoes," you won't get the chance to stream the song on the search page. But you will get lots of links to the song on other sites. Searching for the song by its correct title -- "Red Shoes" -- won't help, 'cause the new feature doesn't recognize that as a search for a song. It's similarly befuddled by searches for songs covered by multiple artists, such as "Moon River."

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Seeing how they run from the Pirate Bay

Just how big is the Pirate Bay among illegal downloaders? A new report by DtecNet, a Beverly Hills-based firm that tracks online piracy, found that transfers via the Bit Torrent protocol -- the most popular file-sharing application -- fell nearly 80% after TPB's Swedish Internet service provider cut off its bandwidth under pressure from the courts there.

Interestingly, other file-sharing applications didn't gain much traffic in the wake of TPB's cutoff, the report said. Instead, users migrated quickly to other BitTorrent "tracker" sites. Four alternative trackers -- OpenBitTorrent, Denis Stalker, tracker.publicbt.com and pow7.com -- "now comprise nearly 70 percent of all BitTorrent traffic," the report states. It adds that the migration was aided by the Pirate Bay, which altered its software to track files through OpenBitTorrent.

The report's bottom line is gloomy for those who believe file-sharing is killing the entertainment industry:

Though such concentration of traffic would appear to present yet another enforcement opportunity, similar to the Pirate Bay shutdown, it will be more difficult as BitTorrent technologists continue to adapt. Torrent sites now point to multiple trackers, so if one is disconnected or overwhelmed by traffic, pirates can still find the files they seek without stopping to find another tracker.

Meanwhile, TPB continues to jump from Internet provider to Internet provider as more courts try (with no lasting success) to keep it offline. And this week, a Dutch court ordered the company's founders and former spokesman Peter Sunde to remove links to content from the Netherlands, an order that Sunde says they can't comply with because they have no such control.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Mark Madsen: Clipper, ex-Laker and domain name speculator

Clippers forward Mark Madsen. Credit: AP

In a strange series of events befitting the shady world of domain name speculation, New Jersey state police arrested a man on suspicion of stealing the rights to p2p.com and selling them to Los Angeles Clipper forward Mark Madsen.

Daniel Gonclave, 25, of Union, N.J., is suspected of hacking into the GoDaddy.com account of p2p.com's previous owner, transferring ownership to himself and then selling it to Madsen on eBay for $111,000.  Although the domain name may have been illegally acquired, Madsen reportedly still owns it.

What ever would the "Mad Dog" want with a website associated with peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing? 

It turns out, surprisingly, that Madsen is an active domain name speculator. That's the rather odd subculture of people who buy domain names like beer.com and yeti.tv, hoping to resell them down the road at awesome profit.

Several blogs have linked Madsen to account names on EBay and various message boards, where he looks to have sold or tried to sell dozens of low-, middle- and high-dollar domain names. Those included Internetdating.com, denial.com, carbohydrates.com and even registeredsexoffender.com.

Tom Ziller at Fanhouse has quite a bit more. He writes:

Madsen's activity on DNForum, as well as the big-dollar purchase of P2P.com, indicates the player was in deep in this industry ... A year ago, he offloaded dozens of Canadian domain names-- including lovelies like chocolatecandy.ca, accordians.ca, schooners.ca and the epic menstrualperiods.ca -- for $21,000. On eBay, he sold two domains in June for a total of $7,000.

A person sounding very much like Madsen answered a phone number listed in one of the forum posts, but declined to comment on the New Jersey case, saying he and his attorneys planned to put out a statement about the situation Tuesday.

Madsen is an active Twitterer and maintains a blog where he (irregularly) posts thoughts about the basketball world.  But neither his Twitter stream not his blog yields any evidence of Madsen's low-profile second career as a speculator.

Follow my variable-rate stream of tech and culture-related musings at @dsarno

-- David Sarno

The Pirate Bay: sold and (gasp) reformed?

The recent prosecution of The Pirate Bay, a popular site for finding and downloading bootlegged movies, songs, video games and software, suggested that the company's gleeful flouting of copyright law might not be sustainable. (The Stockholm District Court sentenced four of The Pirate Bay's leaders to a year in jail after finding them guilty of violating copyrights, and fined them close to $30 million.) Something had to change at TPB, and it looks like it's going to be three things: the ownership, the business model and the infrastructure. Whether the site ends its love affair with all things bootlegged, however, is another question entirely.

Variety reported that Swedish video game company Global Gaming Factory X agreed to pay about $7.7 million to buy TPB, although the site's blog hinted that the deal was still tentative. (Apprently, the buyer still has to raise the money.) Variety quoted Global Gaming CEO Hans Pandeya as saying the value in TPB was its traffic: more than 20 million visitors and 1 billion page views a month.

"In order to live on, The Pirate Bay requires a new business model, which satisfies the requirements and needs of all parties, content providers, broadband operators, end users and the judiciary," Pandeya said. "Content creators and providers need to control their content and get paid for it. File sharers need faster downloads and better quality."

But as TPB's blog notes, "If the new owners will screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it. That's the biggest insurance one can have that the site will be run in the way that we all want to." Loosely translated, that means Global Gaming will quickly lose those 20 million visitors if it tries to stop users from downloading "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" for free....

RIAA: 2, Jammie Thomas-Rasset: 0

Maybe Jammie Thomas-Rasset should have quit while she was behind. Just as in Thomas-Rasset's first trial in 2007, a Minnesota jury found today that she infringed the copyrights of two dozen major-label songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network. But the new jury handed down a much larger punishment -- $80,000 a song, not $9,250. For the labels, that's roughly equivalent to selling 114,000 songs at Apple's iTunes Store.

Thomas-Rasset didn't seem likely to pay the original $222,000 penalty, so it seems even less likely that the RIAA will be able to extract nearly $2 million from her. The trade group has always been more interested in winning the judgment than the amount awarded; spokeswoman Cara Duckworth told CNet that the group has been willing to settle "since day one." But the size of the jury's verdict may only increase calls for Congress or the courts to reduce the financial penalties for copyright infringement

Thomas-Rasset's was the first trial in the campaign against individual file-sharers that the RIAA began in 2003 and ended late last year. As such, it was one of the few tests of the legal underpinnings of that campaign, including the argument that making tracks available to others online (by keeping them in a folder that was open for sharing) was a form of infringement. U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis instructed the jury in Thomas-Rasset's first trial that making songs available was an infringement, a low threshold that would enable the labels to prove piracy just by collecting lists of the songs in people's shared folders. But Davis second-guessed himself after the verdict and ordered a new trial, mirroring the views of several other judges who had rejected the RIAA's interpretation of the law.

The result of the second trial suggests that the higher threshold isn't enough to derail the labels in an infringement lawsuit. The RIAA's anti-piracy contractor, MediaSentry, presented evidence that Thomas-Rasset actually distributed 11 copyrighted songs through Kazaa (to MediaSentry's investigators), and cited metadata from tracks in her shared folder strongly suggesting that the files had themselves been downloaded, not purchased or ripped from her CD collection. RIAA witnesses also linked the Kazaa uploads to a unique identifier on Thomas-Rasset's modem and computer and showed that the unusual username on the Kazaa account matched one that Thomas-Rasset acknowledged using on several other websites. In other words, the RIAA's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, but there was a lot of it.

Thomas-Rasset and her attorneys seemed eager to continue their battle against the RIAA, and although the trade group insists that it doesn't plan to file any new cases, there are still a number of older claims yet to be resolved. Defense attorneys are fighting these on several fronts, arguing that, among other things, MediaSentry's investigative tactics were illegal.

More interesting, IMHO, is the argument Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson and others are raising that the statutory damages provided in copyright law are grossly excessive -- even unconstitutionally so. The two Thomas-Rasset verdicts, each of which was reached after just a few hours of deliberations, reflect the juries' irritation with her defense. But even if she did put 24 copyrighted songs in her shared folder, it's hard to believe that the labels suffered anything close to $2 million in damages. More important, the mere threat of such a penalty could persuade some accused infringers to settle with the RIAA rather than fight, even if they weren't the ones responsible. Thomas-Rasset may not be a sympathetic defendant, and there's no excuse for illegal downloading. But she will have done all Internet users a favor if her case prompts lawmakers to recalibrate the statutory damages in copyright law.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.

Photo credit: Julia Cheng / Associated Press

BitTorrent users spend money, too

Vuze -- the company that's trying to sell licensed, high-def videos to users of the BitTorrent file-sharing software -- has spent much of the past two years trying to persuade Hollywood that its users are customers, not thieves. So far, however, the major studios have entrusted little to Vuze beyond movie trailers and other promotional videos. Now Vuze is trying to prod Hollywood with some eye-opening data about its clientele's buying habits and purchasing power: in addition to being copyright infringers, they spend a lot of money on movies and movie-watching gear. Said Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa, "Those users are actually Hollywood's best customers."

Yes, that's a self-serving comment. But BianRosa's assertion is supported by a survey by media consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates of about 1,300 Internet users between the ages of 18 and 44, nearly 700 of whom use Vuze. The survey, which Vuze released late Tuesday, included the following insights about the members of the company's audience:

Antipiracy virus spreads through file-sharing websites

Users of popular file-sharing websites: Your next pirated download might be your last. That appears to be the intention of the Downloading is Wrong virus that has spread on some torrent portals.

When a user downloads and launches an infected file, portions of the Windows system's code, called hosts files, are modified; they block access to piracy hubs Mininova, the Pirate Bay and the Suprbay message board. Then, a series of pop-ups begin to fill the screen and a sound file is activated that says, "Downloading is wrong," according to BitTorrent blog TorrentFreak.

Some pointed fingers at MediaDefender, a Santa Monica company that distributes fake music and video files on file-sharing websites to deter piracy. But many signs indicate the culprit is simply an anonymous prankster.

For one, according to postings from affected users, the virus originated from a package of pirated software, rather than the music or video files that MediaDefender would probably target. The Trojan horse gallops its way onto the computer when launching the included keygen program (a small file that creates a valid serial code to activate software).

Antivirus developer Sophos dubbed the worm Troj/Qhost-AC and says the company has updated its software to protect against the Trojan.

Viruses are traditionally distributed for nefarious purposes -- sort of like the Twitter phishing scam that exploded over the weekend, snatching passwords. But it's not too often that a Trojan comes along in support of a morality message.

Maybe we'll see a virus come along that blocks me from getting Rickrolled. Hey, a guy can hope, can't he?

-- Mark Milian

Photo: Virus by Daquella Manera via Flickr

LimeWire adds social features

Lime Wire LLC announced a new version of the popular LimeWire file-sharing software today, advancing the company's vision of its software as a platform for services, not just a gateway to the Gnutella network. Clearly, the major record companies' lawsuit hasn't stopped the company from trying to develop its business -- or pushing p2p to higher levels of functionality.

One of the main upgrades in the new version -- due later this year -- is the addition of social-networking features. Users will be able to create their own private file-sharing networks with friends and/or family members, with greater control over what gets shared with whom. In a recent interview, Kevin J. Bradshaw, Lime's chief operating officer, described it as the ability to create a "personal publishing platform" that delivers photos to family members or homework assignments to students. Members can push items to each other through these networks and can watch what others in the group are sharing and experiencing, said Nathan Lovejoy, Lime's product manager. Those features should help make LimeWire, which has been mainly a tool for "directed search" (i.e., looking for and finding specific things), a more effective way to discover new content, Bradshaw said.

The company is walking a tightrope as it tries to build a business around users whose actions it professes not to observe or control.