Altnet Sues Record Industry Over File Hash Patents

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..."

Comments

New business model, buy patents and sue.

[garcia]

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.

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.

[timts]

they can patent this? is it legal? using MD5 to identify a file itself should be part of the MD5, right?

can i patent breathing through my mouth?

Re:New business model, buy patents and sue.

[canajin56]

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.

How ironic

[lothar97]

That the RIAA is being sued over seeding Kazaa with fake files.

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

[argent]

You hit the nail on the head with that word.

"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

[St. Arbirix]

If we replaced Altnet with Microsoft I'd say thank God. If we replaced Altnet with Apple or Real or anyone else who's legitimately selling files over the internet and has a big name that'd definitely be good.

Someone needs to tell the RIAA, "look, you're ruining the music business."

--Matthew

Re:How ironic

[argent]

Just because it's an old badly-abused law doesn't mean it's a bad example of a badly-abused law.

Re:Good..

[garcia]

At least someone is trying to make the RIAA feel the same way that a 14 year old kid does when he/she gets served with a subpoena.

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:Who to support?

[radarsat1]

it's an easy misconception that patents are "bad"

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:Revenge

[Daleks]

So patents are great when they're used against organizations you don't like, but they're evil when they're used to squash innovation? You can't have it both ways.

Re:Revenge

[HackHackBoom]

No, in a perfect world you can't. You're right that I and many others are being hypocritical about this.

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.

Fight fire with fire

[microbox]

Our IPR overloads can sue each other to oblivion for all I care. Maybe we are hypocrites, but when someone uses unpopular law X to attack evil corporation Y, well... one can't help but be amused.

Too bad the file hash isn't encrypted...

[denis-The-menace]

Then Altnet could use the DMCA against the RIAA.
Now that would REAL sweet revenge.

Re:Too bad the file hash isn't encrypted...

[dspacemonkey]

As my anonymous friend states above - it is encrypted.

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 :o)

Re:If only both of the could lose...

[ColdWetDog]

They will, only the lawyers will be the real winners.

Actually, this is an old business model.

[WindBourne]

the problem is that we are granting patents on all sorts of ideas that have loads of prior arts. Until we up the pay in the patent office and address the real problems these will continue.

Re:Actually, this is an old business model.

[phearlez]

Why do the same clowns who defend CEO pay by saying "That's the salary required to attract qualified candidates!" suddenly forget that standard when we talk about making civil service jobs competitive with the private sector?

Re:Actually, this is an old business model.

[morleron]

It seems to me that we have two equally bad things going on here. There's the Altnet folks and their software patent on techniques that have been used for years to identify files. Then there's the RIAA and its allies attempting to defend an outmoded business model using the prior art techniques (among others) that Altnet is claiming a patent on. Someone needs to straighten this whole mess out or everybody is going to end up losers in the long run.

Software producers, whether closed or open source, are finding it ever more difficult to avoid becoming ensnared in the Wonderful World of Software Patents(TM). Given enough foolish patents being granted by the USPTO, software developers in the U.S. will no longer be able to practice their trade without a battalion of lawyers carefully scrutinizing every line of code and every design idea/decision. This is certain to drive software development out of this country.

Then there's the RIAA setting itself up as investigator, judge, and jury to the detriment of the legal system in the U.S. Right now the courts seem to be starting to see through the RIAA's arguments against the use of technology that it doesn't control. However, all it will take is for the RIAA's congressional lap dogs to pass the necessary legislation and the court decisions will be moot. Again, we'll see creative people and companies driven out of a country that is proving to be much more enamoured of short-term profit than it is with long-term economic viability.

Given enough time these two trends will make the Bush administration's proposal to categorize fast food jobs as manufacturing a necessity. Such jobs will be among the few left in the U.S.; along with a legal system that is busy engaging in incestuous legal battles that, in the end, benefit no one except the lawyers.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Actually, this is an old business model.

[WindBourne]

While it is an interesting idea, the one problem that I see with it is that MS can bid billions on a patent while I can not.

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.

The REAL question

[drsmack1]

is when are we going to move completely to a download - based delivery system for video/music? It is clear that the record companies are using media (physical cd/dvd/tapes) to justify the insane cost of entertainment. As soon as we take manufacturing out of the picture the consumers will realize that they are being ripped. I imagine it takes about 20 cents to stamp out a DVD when you do them in huge quantitities.

The Record Industry's Outdated Business Model

[Izaak]

While I agree that the patent-and-sue business model is a bad thing, you must also agree that the Record Insustry business model of marketing and shiping pieces of plastic is someone archaic when faced with the new reality of the Internet. The rise of file-sharing is at least in part a response to the labels trying to ignore or fight the Internet instead of embracing it. There are plenty of people willing to pay for music downloads if the labels would really open up their archives and charge a reasonable price (25 cents per track maybe?).

The great thing about the on-demand Internet model of distribution is that low volume niche bands and older archived stuff is as easily and cheaply distributed as the big names. A physical CD needs to sell a sufficient volume to make the production costs worth it. Digital music does not suffer from the same ecomomies of scale.

Cheers,

Thad

There's plenty wrong with them...

[Xenographic]

They aren't psuedo-perpetual like copyright, they expire in 7 years, and they're more easily fought and defended.
-----

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 can infringe upon a patent you have never heard of before. You might get some mileage out of independent creation, in that if you're an average practitioner skilled in the art, and it was obvious to you, it probably shouldn't have been patented, but I don't know that I'd bet on it. Don't forget the legal fees, too. I'm not sure you can recover them at all, even if the lawsuit is pretty baseless.

So yes, there are plenty of things which could be fixed. Also, IANAL, I just read about this stuff a lot, so the usual disclaimers against taking this as legal advice apply.

Re:Good..

[Auckerman]

"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."

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.

Is it really hypocrisy?

[jackrd]

Is it really hypocritical to be glad to see something like this happen?

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.