Altnet Sues Record Industry Over File Hash Patents 283
robochan writes "In a charming twist of fate, CNET is reporting that Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, is suing the RIAA for alleged patent infringement. Altnet CEO Kevin Bermeister stated, 'We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights.' Goodness, that sounds all too familiar..."
New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software.
So a network that is well known for trading files that probably shouldn't be traded for free buys a patent and tries to sell the services to a group that wants nothing to do with P2P. Then when the group that wants nothing to do with them ignores them they turn around and sue them. Sounds like another company that has been in tech-news recently.
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regards,
Steve
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:5, Insightful)
At first I wanted to diagree, as the article says it is a patent on hashing files on peer to peer networks. However, Halo1 was kind enough to track down the patent in question and it shows that the patent, is, in fact, on hashing in general. In fact, it would most likely apply to a simple hash table. They basically define the concept of the function being deterministic, and collision resistant, but in lawyer speak.
The run down on what they are patenting is, creating a unique identifier for any file, that is signifigantly smaller than the file, and where there is low probability of being able to find a collision. This identifier is only based on the data, not the file name or creation date. And it can be used to determine if one has the file, simply by comparing it to a list of known identifiers. Sounds an awful lot like a general description of any hashing scheme.
However, the good news is that was filed in October 1997. I'm pretty sure that somebody thought of using hashes to keep track of files, whther over a network or locally, well before 1997.
Of course, many of these silly patent problems would be no problem to beat in court. However, the system doesn't work that way, and these people could make a lot of money by settling with people who can't afford a lawyer. The good news is they went after the RIAA, who has lots of money and lawyers. Expect a quick defeat and patent invalidation.
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:5, Funny)
Silly buggers. They would have made alot more money patenting filenames for file identification!
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:2)
Did they? The CNET article says "the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a 'hash,'" -- bad, but not as sweeping as id'ing files by hashes in general.
And tho' the CNET article doesn't say (and I find no patent info on Altnet's site) I wonder if the patent covers hashes (used this way) in general, or a specific implementation? ...in which case other apps, using different implementations, will be unaffected.
In the art
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:2, Insightful)
can i patent breathing through my mouth?
Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:5, Funny)
That's classic. When government fails, reward them with more revenue. You'd make a great politician.
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:2)
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:2)
They're doing a horrible job... give them more money, that'll show 'em!@#
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:3, Informative)
I looked up the patent examiner pay grades, a person with a 4yr degree and 2 years of professional experience will start out at about $50k... not a whole lot, but not too bad.
Plus it's a job with the federal gov, so the benefits are good and your job security is great.
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:2)
As it is with children, it depends on the problem. If the problem is a lack of resources or incentive, then they should be given that. If it's simply laziness or defiance, then they should be punished and/or restricted in a fashion befitting to their deeds.
Sometimes a combination works best. e.g. If the number of junk patents falls below 5
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:2, Insightful)
Software producers, whether closed or open source, are fi
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:2)
Nah, have people bid on the patents in an auction, including the person who is submitting the patent. That way you let the market do the "due diligence" on how much each individual patent is worth, and you don't really need patent examiners any more (except that you will still want to evaluate obviousness & prior art challenges - maybe you can handle this with a panel of subject-related peers).
By requiring the i
Re:Actually, this is an old business model. (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of patents was to help the little guy out. In fact, the concept went back and forth in the early days and it was the concept of helping the little guy out that won it over.
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:2)
SCO Analogy (Score:2)
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another glorious patent. Nobody could think of this one.
$file='kojo_againt_the_machine.mpeg'
$i=md5($file)
sql("INSERT INTO patented_database (movie,hash) VALUES($file,$i)")
mv($file,$i)
Now distribute $i, and profit!!
WOW! Another example of the genius that allows these patents. Next, the patent to
Re:New business model, buy patents and sue. (Score:2)
also they could received a patent for steps 2 through 4 as well.
"A" process or "the" process? (Score:2)
Does anyone know the details of this patent. It seems to me that there's plenty of prior art for the idea of identifying files by a hash or fingerprint. However, this company may have bought and used a patent for a specific way to accomplish this; and the RIAA are using the same, patented method in order to spoof files.
Seems like a key question to me be
The Record Industry's Outdated Business Model (Score:3, Insightful)
Revenge (Score:5, Funny)
What goes around, comes around..
Oh to hell with this, Lets just get out some pitch forks and torches!
Re:Revenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Revenge (Score:4, Insightful)
I replied to a similiar comment in another thread, but I want to add this here as well: The patent system is so screwed up by lawyers that we're stuck using whatever tools we have to fight. If that means using the other edge of the sword on the RIAA, then so be it.
Re:Revenge (Score:5, Funny)
Kierthos
Re:Revenge (Score:2)
That's true, but at least we're not hypocrites.
Re:Revenge (Score:5, Funny)
True. But you can enjoy the delicious irony.
Re:Revenge (Score:2)
No one claims to have it both ways. It is perfecxtly consistent to consider the current state of IP law an abomination, and then gloat gleefully when one of the larger pushers of such laws is hoist by their own petard.It's a simple case of "see how you like it!"
Re:Revenge (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, but you can!
This is America, and we're right in the middle of an epic political/media battle over the elections. How can you say someone can't have it both ways. That's exactly what the US political/legal system is all about.
Haven't you heard of these 2 rules of business:
The Golden Rule - He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Prof. B's Theorum - All we really want out of life is an unfair advantage.
Together, these rules explain pretty much all behavior, both individual
so i suppose (Score:5, Funny)
Never respond to signatures, it's bad form. (Score:2)
Re:so i suppose (Score:5, Funny)
Just because patents are bad doesn't mean we can't cackle with glee. It's always fun to watch bad things happen to bad people. We get so few opportunities to witness karma at work...
Re:so i suppose (Score:2)
Karma is from a sanskrit root meaning "work" or "binding".It describes a person's attachment to the world and life.
As such, Slashdot and common usage aside, there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" karma, simply different attachments to the world that bring with them different sufferings for different patients.
And, I might say that in fact this has a lot to do with karma. Both RIAA and Altnet seem attached to this world in different ways, and the ways they have attached themselves play in to this lawsuit
Re:so i suppose (Score:2, Interesting)
There's plenty wrong with them... (Score:3, Insightful)
-----
No they aren't. I agree that they expire on a somewhat more reasonable time frame (of course, as far as technology & algorithms go, even seven years is an eternity), however, at least in the US, they're rubber stamped by the USPTO and then given a legal presumption of validity. The other side has to prove they didn't infringe.
Also, coming up with an original work is no defense--you c
Re:so i suppose (Score:5, Funny)
Converge FASTER with Altnet(tm) NEWTON'S-METHOD EXTREEEME (tm)
Do not perform illegal mathematics. Contact Altnet for pricing information. Student rates available.
Who to support? (Score:4, Funny)
But the recording industry also Bad.
Who do we support in this discussion?
Re:Who to support? (Score:2)
Re:Who to support? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who to support? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who to support? (Score:4, Insightful)
however, patents are not bad. patents, in their most basic and innocent form, are supposed to protect the rights of inventors so they can make a profit on their hard work. nothing wrong there.
what's "bad" is patent ABUSE. like companies that patent things that they'll never use, just in case someone uses it, so they can sue them. Patents should not be made with the intent to sue or collect license fees. Patents should be made so that a decent product can be funded and sold at a practical price.
So in the end, capitalism falls for the same reason as communism: People who take advantage of the system. Too bad the world is full of assholes.
Re:Who to support? (Score:2)
The so called IP belongs in copyright were it can be protected without burdening the system. If a book or music had pattens there would be a short windows before no one could write new music or books because it would infringe on the patten. On the other hand, a copy right would protect the owner from people using it without consent as well as derivitive works based from thier ideas.
Re:Who to support? (Score:5, Informative)
It's an easy misconception that the anti-software-patent sentiment is based on the idea that patents are bad. The problem isn't that patents are bad, or that people are taking advantage of the system, it's that the system is currently misbalanced:
1. Patents last too long. This is a general problem with IP law these days.
2. Patents are too easy to get. That is a particular problem with software. The nature of software in particular is such that any non-trivial program involves thousands of processes, any of which can be patented, and it's more-or-less impossible for a developer to even know if he's infringing when people can patent things like using the "tab" key to move between fields in a form.
In the end, the problem is a broken system that doesn't need to be broken.
Re:Who to support? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who to support? (Score:2)
OTOH: Patents are dangerous. They are the use of law to establish a monopoly, which is subject to the abuse that monopolies tend to engender. And the USPTO is thoroughly broken. Could you believe that THIS YEAR someone could get a patent on waiting in a queue for the john? (Well, it was more complex. You got a ticket with a number on it.)
Addition
Re:Who to support? (Score:2)
Now, whether this would cause the evil to spontaneously combust due to the rapid increase in energy, effectively rendering the evil no more, or give it enough energy to overwhelm all who stand in their way, I am unwilling to test. The horror of the previously stated second consequence would be to much to bear.
It's a win-win scenario if it goes to trial. (Score:5, Interesting)
Altnet loses: legal precedents that blunt the software patent buzzsaw are all to the good.
The worst-case scenario is Altnet and tha RIAA coming to a settlement.
Re:Who to support? (Score:3, Funny)
I liken it to watching the Yankees play the Red Sox. Who do you root for? Personally, I go with the meteorite;-) So far though, no such luck.
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If only both of the could lose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good.. (Score:5, Funny)
gShares.net [gshares.net]
Re:Good.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's a bit different when a huge conglomorate gets sued by a small corporation with 550k in cash than when a 14 year old has to explain to his parents why they are going to double their debt because he wanted to listen to Eminem for free.
Re:Good.. (Score:2, Insightful)
You misspelled "...because he wants OTHERS to listen to Eminem for free". I may take a minority opinion when I say distributing copyrighted files you don't have the copyright for or a license to distribute should be against the law.
Re:Good.. (Score:3, Funny)
You honestly believe....that the RIAAs first thought was "Oh cool, I'll be on the news!"
Article text for your convenience (Score:5, Informative)
The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by [com.com] Loudeye [com.com], and MediaDefender [com.com], also are named in the lawsuit.
"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."
He added, "Think about your breathing."
The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies [com.com], and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.
Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products [com.com] through the Kazaa file-swapping network.
The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles [com.com] that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation [com.com] that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.
Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.
In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.
Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.
Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.
Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.
Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,
Disgusting abuse of patent law (Score:5, Funny)
It all comes down to Andrew "Dice" Clay (Score:2)
For example, you either believe in freedom or you do not. If you do, then you support the right of unreasonable people to air their views, just as you support the right of reasonable people to air theirs.
Similarly, you eithe
Payback is a bitch. (Score:2)
What is the patent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is the patent? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What is the patent? (Score:2)
Re:What is the patent? (Score:2)
No. It looks like that may have been patented in 1972. They seem to have patented [uspto.gov] the using of data hashes to identify data (files) and see if it's the data people are looking for. But I am not a patent attorney, nor do I have time to read the whole patent nor the 30-odd patents it references.
Re:What is the patent? (Score:2)
The claim indeed says "existence means for determining whether a particular data item is present in the system" (by checking the hashes aka identifiers for the data). So it's more like the principle of hash tables (and all variants, such as considering each computer on a p2p network as a hashtable in which you check for an item, or maybe even considering the whole p2p network as one giant hash table) and indeed not just hashes that they patented.
Patent is #5,978,791 (Score:4, Informative)
There is also historical info on this being licensed to Sharman Networks [altnet.com].
Re:What is the patent? (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the first claim of the patent:
Turnabout is fair play (Score:2, Funny)
How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is a matter of "buy patents then make money" as some may argue. They had their p2p network, and the RIAA was flooding them with bogus files to trick users. They purchased a technology that complimented their needs (e.g. weeding out the fake files and helping people find legit files), and now they're pulling the old "thou shalt not reverse engineer" argument.
If we replaced "Altnet" with "Microsoft" or another /. target, I imagine this discussion would get quite angry. I imagine we'll have a lot of "way to go!" comments this time around- we're all hypocrites!
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
Then you didn't read the article. Altnet tried to sell services to the RIAA and the RIAA ignored them. After waiting it out for a while Altnet decided to sue the RIAA for patent infringement.
Because they weren't making money one way they are going to attempt to make it another.
Re:How ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
We are far gone down the 'Lawyers Rule' system of government nowdays. As assinine as the whole patent system is right now, I think it's important the prolific abusers of this system (RIAA, MPAA, Micromule, Amazon, etc) get reemed by the other edge of the sword they use on us.
Like I said in my earlier post, get out the pitch forks and torches!
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
Are those more powerful than Mod Points?
Re:How ironic (Score:3, Funny)
You have a god point
FYI, God Points (TM) can be redeemed at your local church for smitings, stonings (5 GP), lightning strikes (10 GP), plagues of locusts (20 GP) or eternal damnation (50 GP). Our current special is the 40 Day Flood for just 200 God Points! Pool some together with your friends and save up to destroy that office or school you hate attending in a torrent of liquid vengeance!
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
You're probably right IF it turns out they actually do get reamed. I suspect though, that this story will ultimately dry up and go away, and the RIAA will return to business as usual. As somebody pointed out a little farther up, we're talking about a rather smallish company trying to take on a litigiuos juggernaut with huge piles of disposable income.
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
"Ironic".
This like the 9/11 victim's widow who is suing Bush under RICO. We all know that laws like RICO are horribly broad and dangerous, but you have to admire someone who manages to grab a double-edged sword by the hilt and take a whack at the folks who are normally weilding it. Whichever way it goes it helps draw attention to a nasty bit of legal machinery, and may even make the folks who *normally* back these kinds of things a little bit wary.
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
Re:How ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Fight fire with fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fight fire with fire (Score:2)
Being hypocritical is supporting something only when it's to your advantage, and being against it when *that's* to your advantage. In this case I think that almost everyone on
Re:How ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone needs to tell the RIAA, "look, you're ruining the music business."
--Matthew
Let them ruin their music business (Score:2)
They can wall off their corporate music business, lock it up behind patents and copyright swindles, and music will flourish outside the walls.
The universe outside their little walled off corner is bigger than inside.
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
We would obviously be opposed to an amendment to a law that states that it may only be applied by the immoral; the moral shouldn't add this in effect by way of self-control. I don't recall any comments to the effect that reverse engineering should be illegal, but that people who do it should be forgiven anyway.
Re:How ironic (Score:2)
Slashdot is a group, not an individual.
Some in that group are pro Microsoft.
Some are pro patents.
Some are anti porn.
"We" aren't hypocrites, "we" are quite literally of more than one mind.
-- less is better.
Can someone clarify... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can someone clarify... (Score:2)
Too bad the file hash isn't encrypted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that would REAL sweet revenge.
Re:Too bad the file hash isn't encrypted... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hashing (rot26) is just an incredbly lossly encryption algorithm. Where does the DMCA stand on this?
I know a judge would throw it out (it is anon-sensical argument even if it is correct in the letter of the law), but it could be quite amusing nonetheless
Oh its all so confusing! (Score:5, Funny)
Patents are really screwing up the world.
But wait... the music industry is a big overgrown evil empire.
Who's side should I be on... let's see... "the enemy of my enemy..."
Wait... I know:
I blame Microsoft!
I Know Who Will Win... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the opposite side of that coin, my regime (Were I in charge) would mandate that both the patent examiner and the applicant be forced to eat 1000 printed copies of any patents found to be blatantly obvious or to have prior art or both.
Signs You're About to Receive an RIAA Subpoena.... (Score:5, Funny)
You wake up to find a bloodied hard drive under the covers.
You seem to be getting a lot of traffic from fbi_d00d.
That ain't the Publisher's Clearinghouse van in front of your house.
Lately the only music files you can find have names like You'reNextGeekBoy.mp3.
You try to download Send Lawyers, Guns and Money but all you get is I Fought the Law and the Law Won.
Amazon.com recommends you purchase an attorney to go along with the 100 GB hard drive you just ordered.
Maybe mp3.riaa.com wasn't really an anonymous server after all?
Metallica and Court TV are both camped out in your driveway.
Poetic Justice (Score:2)
Patents are Not a Constitutional Right (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure you're all familiar with the arguments against software patents. But maybe you're not aware that while the US Constitution allows Congress to issue patents, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Patents could be eliminated tomorrow if we could get the votes in Congress to repeal the laws that authorize patents.
Patents are authorized in the same clause of the Constitution that authorizes copyrights. I discuss this, and what you can do to fix things, in Change the Law [goingware.com]. The discussion there is about copyright, but everything I say applies equally to patents.
If you feel as I do that more people need to read my article, you can help by linking to it from your website, weblog, or from other message boards.
Thank you for your attention.
-- Mike
That's precisely why I wrote the article! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, most voters don't generally feel much desire to have either patent or copyright law reformed. Nor trade secret law - the DMCA is the first law to forbid reverse engineering.
The slashdot crowd cares, but they're not enough of us to make a difference during elections, and we tend not to be very organized.
If it looks weird that I would have a long section called "Change the Law" in an article
Very dangerous if Patent has teeth (Score:4, Interesting)
If this patent is demonstrated to be enforceable (it shouldn't be based on the above - but who knows), then it will effectively give Altnet the (legal, not moral) right to sue almost any P2P network out there, since they all rely on this obivous technique.
Basically it looks like their strategy would be to use this patent to force every other P2P network to install the DRM technology they have been working on.
Attacking the RIAA seems more like a stunt than a real strategy, but hopefully the RIAA has the resources to invalidate this patent, if they do, then they will be doing the world of P2P a big favor.
OT: Making the CNet videos work on free OS? (Score:2)
RIAA & surrogate engaged in illegal DOS attack (Score:2)
This sounds like a classic DOS attack. Isn't that illegal? And if RIAA was knowingly having other people do this under contract on a continuous basis wouldn't they be criminally liable for conspiracy and racketeering under RICO's sections that prohibit "interfering with interstate commerce" and "wire fraud"? I would think connecting to an electronic service un
Half of us are laughing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there is always humor in a (hated) champion outfoxed with his own techniques, but that's beside the point.
Patents have been used by the software industry to muscle out competition or to try and inflate profits by hobbling competition. The only way things are going to change is if the "big boys" are slapped hard by the rules they've created. Though the chance is slim, industry-led changes to laws (patent and DMCA-style) may open the door to real investigation into the impact of these laws. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying that the only way it will happen is if the first move is made by those with money & power.
Oh, and if you haven't sent a five-spot to Congressman Rick Boucher http://http//www.house.gov/boucher/welcome.htm/ [http], you might want to consider it. He's one of the few outspoken opponents of the DMCA (and PATRIOT, too, for you libertarians) and is doing something about it. HOWEVER, he's being challenged by a Republican carpetbagger with lots of GOP cash backing this fall.
Is it really hypocrisy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like making use of unjust laws is one of the best ways to bring to light their injustice. Think about the laws against blacks riding in the front of the bus. I'm sure many people were happy to hear about the first black person to get arrested for riding in the front a bus. They weren't happy because that person was in jail, but happy because it was a step in the direction of exposing the unjust law that jailed them.
I'm not "rooting for altnet" nor am I "on the side of the RIAA." Things just aren't that simple. But I'm happy that this happened, I hope the patent gets tossed out, and I hope (and I know this is stretching things) that maybe it's another step in the direction of industry (and the public) realizing that the patenting system as it is now is flawed.
And I'll consider any challenge to the RIAA's current behaviour a move in the right direction; even if I think that challenge is silly and hope that it gets tossed out. Maybe it'll inspire more, and more appropriate, challenges in the future.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission, the company contends.
This is more like Apple suing a company for taking iTMS and modifying it to prevent other people from using iTMS features, such as the one that lets you listen to toher peoples music on the network. (NOTE: Listen != Download.)
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
The scarey thing is that they might, instead, purchase it.
Re:Am I the only one that dares point out that.... (Score:2)
I see that you haven't read the thread. Are you a freelance troll or are you one of those astroturfers?