http://news.com.com/P2P+company+sues+RIAA+over+patent/2100-1027_3-5357332.html?tag=nefd.hed
Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through
file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of
America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.
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 Loudeye, and
MediaDefender, 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."
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, 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 through the Kazaa
file-swapping network.
The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however.
They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like
Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation 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, the company contends.
In its complaint, Altnet said that RIAA executives had been
notified several times in 2003 about the patent, but that the trade
group has continued to support Overpeer and to conduct its own
enforcement efforts on the Kazaa network without permission.
Overpeer said it did not believe it had infringed on Altnet's
patents.
"We vigorously deny these claims and find them to be completely
baseless and without merit," said Marc Morgenstern, who heads
Loudeye's Overpeer division, in a statement.
Representatives from the RIAA could not immediately be reached for
comment.
Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment have been skating on
thin financial ice in recent years. In its last quarterly report to
federal regulators, Brilliant said it had just $509,000 in cash on
hand.
An attorney representing Altnet said that financial considerations
would not impede the company's attempt to enforce the patent,
however.
The lawsuit was filed in a Los Angeles federal court.
