Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - November 20th, '10

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002



Volume IX, Issue Number I






























"This is the actual [Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1] release from iNK. Quality-wise, it is a screener and is watermarked throughout! Hopefully the full release will be up soon, but in the meantime, take or leave this tease." – Tam&Carla


"After several blockbuster films have been leaked to the Web and generated lots of press for the movies, the public is increasingly suspicious about whether the studios are orchestrating the piracy." – Greg Sandoval



































November 20th, 2010





Senate Panel Passes Bill Against Piracy Websites
Doug Palmer

U.S. agencies and officials would get new powers to go after foreign websites that sell counterfeit goods and pirated music, movies and books under a bill passed on Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill, which supporters hope will set the stage for action next year, targets "rogue websites" in countries such as China that are outside the reach of U.S. law.

The measure, approved by the Senate panel in a 19-0 vote, has the backing of companies including Disney, Nike, Merck and Time Warner and groups such as the Screen Actors Guild, the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Critics like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, have attacked it as "Internet censorship" that could harm the credibility of the United States as a steward of the global domain name system.

The panel approved the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" with little time left this year for it to be passed by Congress and signed into law. Lawmakers are out next week for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday and are expected to work only a few weeks in December.

A new Congress will be seated in January.

The bill allows the Justice Department to seek a court order against the domain name of websites offering illegal music or movie downloads or ones that sell counterfeit goods ranging from fake tennis shoes to pharmaceutical products.

Once the Justice Department has the order, it could shut down the site by requiring the U.S. registrar to suspend the domain name.

If the registry is located outside the United States, the U.S. Attorney General could go after the website by requiring U.S.-based Internet service providers, payment processors and advertising networks to stop doing business with it.

Committee aides said they worked with companies like MasterCard, PayPal and AT&T to develop the legislation.

The bill was modified to address some concerns that critics raised. One provision was struck out that would have allowed the Justice Department to publish a "blacklist" of domain names that provide access to websites touting counterfeit or pirated goods, even if it did not seek a court order against them.

U.S.-China IPR Talks

The panel vote came as a senior Chinese official was in Washington for talks with the U.S. Trade Representative's office and the Commerce Department on concerns over how to protect intellectual property rights, or IPR.

The visit will lay the groundwork for high-level U.S.-China talks in mid-December known as the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.

Chinese Commerce Vice Minister Chong Quan told a U.S. business group his country has launched a six-month campaign to crack down on pirates and counterfeiters and is establishing new "long-term mechanisms" to curb the theft.

He pledged Chinese government agencies would only use legal versions of software and would plan for that by incorporating the cost in their budgets.

"The Chinese government is unswervingly committed to the fight against IPR infringement. China will improve its protection of IPR of all companies, including those foreign-founded companies," Chong said.

The U.S. business community welcomes the new drive but "the success will be measured by results," including whether it leads to more Chinese purchases of U.S. software and higher penalties to deter IPR theft, said Jeremie Waterman, director of China for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AH3RF20101118





MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns
Thomas Mennecke

MPAA chief Bob Pisano wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in today's TheHill.com, evangelizing the highly suspect legislation "The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act". Slyck has covered the potential perils of the COICA, as have many other pro-democracy organizations (such as the EFF), as the details of a potential Internet and free speech filter come to the United States.

The big problem with COICA is that it gives tremendous amounts of power to the US Attorney General to shut websites down with little more than filing a complaint with the local district court that has jurisdiction over the registrar's address. Sure, there's some judicial review, but how often will the courts disagree with the Department of Justice when they wave the banner of copyright infringement? We just don't know, which makes this bill all the more frightening.

What's also rather frightening is the definition of "infringing sites" - or shall we say, the lack of definition. The bill's language is very broad and vague. Today's op-ed piece doesn't help much either. Pisano reflects one of the bill's co-sponsors words (Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), writing the bill would target the "worst of the worst". Just who decides that?

Pisano dedicates a full paragraph to addressing the issue of free speech - readily dismissed by the MPAA chief but very real to just about everyone else. Why? Because the bill could be potentially overreaching and may implement a great firewall in the United States, a concept that's inconsistent with our ideas of free speech and democracy.

"Bipartisan congressional efforts to crack down on these operations are opposed by groups who claim the First Amendment protects the rights of these sites to use the Internet for their illegal practices. But the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means. Theft is theft, whether it occurs in a dark alley or in the ether, and to attempt to distinguish the two is to undermine the most basic tenets of our criminal laws."

Unfortunately, this does little to soothe the nerves of those rightfully concerned about the future of this bill, or the future of free speech online. As the EFF points out, the language of this bill could hold numerous websites accountable and impose an iron curtain of Internet control in the United States.
http://www.slyck.com/story2129_MPAA_...peech_Concerns





Proposed Final ACTA Text Published
Ciaran O’Riordan

The US Trade Representative has published a text which, subject only to a last legal review, is proposed to be the final text of ACTA. The differences between this text and last month's, from the Tokyo round, are mostly cosmetic but there's an important positive change giving signatories the option of excluding patents from section 2. As for software patents, most harm has been avoided. If signatories make use of the section 2 exclusion option, there might be no harm at all. Lobbying for this will be important.

Meanwhile, the many problems regarding Digital Restrictions Management, and the extra powers given to businesses to obtain personal and identifying information about accused copyright infringers "in the Digital Environment" are still there (mostly section 5). Earlier texts were much worse. The improvements in recent months are surely due to public outcry, leaving us indebted to the anonymous friends who scanned and leaked the various secret versions and the activists who made text versions and spread them across the Internet.

There's a chance we can still influence the text in this legal review phase, but the bigger task ahead will be working on the national implementations. It's not yet clear what procedure the US will require for its own ratification.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/...Text-Published





Lawful Access Bills Would Reshape Internet in Canada
Michael Geist

The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities goes back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks along with additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information. The so-called lawful access initiatives stalled in recent years, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that earlier this month the government tabled its latest proposal with three bills (C-50, C-51, C-52) that received only limited attention despite their potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada.

The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.

While some of that information may seem relatively harmless, the ability to link it with other data will often open the door to a detailed profile about an identifiable person. Given its potential sensitivity, the decision to require disclosure without any oversight should raise concerns within the Canadian privacy community.

The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.

Moreover, the bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory structure for Internet providers that would mandate their assistance with testing their surveillance capabilities and disclosing the names of all employees who may be involved in interceptions (and who may then be subject to RCMP background checks).

The bill also establishes numerous reporting requirements including mandating that all Internet providers disclose their technical surveillance capabilities within six months of the law taking effect. Follow-up reports are also required when providers acquire new technical capabilities.

The requirements could have a significant impact on many smaller and independent Internet providers. Although the bill grants them a three-year implementation delay, the technical capabilities extend far beyond most of their commercial needs. Indeed, after years of concern over the privacy impact associated with deep-packet inspection of Internet traffic (costly technologies that examine Internet communications in real time), these bills appear to require all Internet providers to install such capabilities.

Having obtained customer information without court oversight and mandated Internet surveillance capabilities, the third prong creates a several new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data. These include new transmission data warrants that would grant real-time access to all the information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, direction, time, duration, origin, destination or termination of the communication.

Law enforcement could then obtain a preservation order to require providers to preserve subscriber information, including specific communication information, for 90 days. Finally, having obtained and preserved the data, production orders can be used to require the disclosure of specified communications or transmission data.

While Internet providers would actively work with law enforcement in collecting and disclosing the subscriber information, they could also be prohibited from disclosing the disclosures as court may bar them from informing subscribers that they have been subject to surveillance or information disclosures.

Few would argue that it is important to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to address online crime issues. Yet these proposals come at an enormous financial and privacy cost, with as yet limited evidence that the current legal framework has impeded important police work.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5451/135/





University Begins Reporting All P2P Users to the Police
Ernesto

Georgia’s Valdosta State University has updated its network with software that can pinpoint students who use P2P software. The university is committed to stop file-sharing on its network even if that results in prison sentences for students. Offenders will be disciplined by the school and then handed over to the police, the university has announced.

In recent years, US colleges and universities have undertaken measures to reduce piracy, and go after students who use file-sharing networks to share copyrighted files.

In July, the US put into effect a new requirement for colleges and universities to stop illicit file-sharing on their networks. This legislation puts defiant schools at risk of losing federal funding if they don’t do enough to stop illicit file-sharers on their campus.

Schools across the country responded appropriately to the new rules and some have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to install anti-file-sharing systems on their network. This week, Valdosta State University (VSU) upgraded theirs. According to the university it can now identify students who use P2P software, and those who are caught will be reported to the police.

“Once individuals are identified, VSU hands responsibility over to police. Users can face felony punishments, including a possible prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000 per offense,” reports the student newspaper.

The new system is undoubtedly going to cause collateral damage, since an effective P2P detection tool will be unable to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate use of P2P software. This means that booting up your BitTorrent client to download free films such as Snowblind will result in a referral to the police station.

To some these measures may appear as a witch-hunt against students using P2P software, but Joe Newton, VSU Director of Information Technology, sees it as a form of education.

“As an institution of higher learning, we will take an educational approach to the problem and use approved campus procedures to reach appropriate resolutions,” he said.

Combating piracy is not a new endeavor for the Georgia university. VSU already had anti-piracy tracking tools installed, but with the old system it was not possible to identify individual users. In addition, the old system was increasingly being bypassed by certain branches of P2P software.

“Over this past summer, ‘Ares’, a new P2P program/protocol became popular among college students. Ares allows its users to evade school network controls that limit P2P use,” it was reported.

Those who are ‘educated’ on P2P technologies do of course know that this application is hardly new. In fact, the first version was released back in 2002, long before BitTorrent clients such as uTorrent and Vuze emerged.

It seems that VSU’s harsh talk is part of a scare campaign to prohibit students from using P2P software. We doubt that the police will be involved at all, and if they are it seems unlikely that they will take any form of action without a complaint from a rightsholder.
http://www.torrentfreak.com/universi...police-101112/





HHS Teacher Under Investigation for Illegal File Sharing
Matt Anderson

A teacher at Hendersonville High School has been placed on leave without pay while he is investigated for illegal file sharing on school computers.

Tom Clark, a computer networking teacher, left the school Monday after school officials noticed discrepancies in Internet use at the school, schools spokesman Jeremy Johnson said. The violations were not pornographic in nature, school officials said.

Sumner County Schools is currently investigating, and no law enforcement agencies are involved, Johnson said.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...l-file-sharing





Respect Musicians’ Work: Put an End to Illegal File Sharing
Charles Tabb

Illicit activities enjoy renown on college campuses. Most of these deserve no more than a wink and a nod, but illegal file sharing has received lots of attention recently after LimeWire was served the legal kiss of death: a court-ordered injunction. Students routinely defend ‘illegal’ file-sharing and claim that it shouldn’t be prosecuted; I disagree with the standard arguments.

Grief number one protests that it’s the record companies that grab the cash, not the artists, and who likes big, greedy record companies? True, artists don’t stand to make heaps of money when royalty percentages are around 10-20 percentages and they often face production costs. True, musicians earn their dough by commercial licensing deals and tours.

That the musician does not get all of the money, however, does not absolve the copyright violation. Intellectual property is property and file sharing violates holders’ rights. Wherever the money goes, the violation still exists, and it’s not as if record companies are mafia gangs.

Another popular argument is that file sharing spreads the cultural love, so to speak, and opens culture’s doors to the poor of pocket but rich of heart. College students, forever worriedly eyeing their bank accounts, can’t pay to stay culturally hip. But this strikes me as dishonest.

It’s unclear why we’re entitled to private ownership of all culture. Pirating might signal a demand for music that is greater than the means consumers have to pay for $1 track prices, but nobody is entitled to complete private ownership of the world’s music. Music ownership is a privilege.

That being said, there are awesome cultural institutions called libraries. They serve the purpose of spreading culture at a minimal cost to the citizen. If you don’t like your library’s selection, then you can make your interests clear. If students complain that they want to access it all without leaving their computer, then they are appealing to their own laziness.

Artists work very hard to make original, engaging pieces of art, and deserve to be paid for their creative work, not just for tours. Record companies have to charge money to defray the advertising and other costs. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, only 10 percent of albums are profitable, so clearly record companies are already challenged to turn profits. Cultural sharing is great, but private ownership of culture entails paying for the culture.

Music can still be enjoyed without being owned, as the likes of Pandora and YouTube make music accessible for free. For those who wish to “try out” bands via torrenting, there are 30-second samples.

At this point, a file sharer might appeal to the fact that, according to TorrentFreak, file sharers on average buy more music. All that probably shows though, is that file sharers love music more than the average consumer, and hence spring for the occasional purchase.

Another common avenue of argumentation holds that illegal file sharing will continue despite the legal interventions. Shut down LimeWire, and it’s off to BearShare we go. This quickly morphs into a diatribe against the record companies’ Neolithic business model.

Sure, record companies’ losses (30 percent decrease in revenues since 2004 according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) are not due solely to file sharing. A newly competitive marketplace of video games and mobile devices gives consumers more options, and digital music’s ascendancy means single track sales and the end of physical degradation of track copies. But file sharing accounts for some of the revenue losses, and to claim that record companies must adapt to changing consumer behavior (i.e. pirating) by offering cheaper music is disingenuous.

To ask record labels to drop prices because you prefer to illegally download music, rather than pay full price, sounds a tad demanding. I’m also hard-pressed to believe that dropping prices will drive torrenters to buy tracks instead of going the free route.

Even if the legal battles may be ultimately futile for the record companies, their legal claim against the illegality of file sharing is fair. Violation of copyright laws is wrong, the future profitability of record labels’ aside.

My point, then, is this: Don’t pretend like file sharing is justified. The rationales ring hollow, especially when they end up saying something to the effect of, “you can’t catch me and have to adapt your business model.”

If you want to torrent because it’s difficult to prosecute individuals, take a roll of the dice. I’m not here to be morally righteous, but to plead with people to be honest about what they’re doing when they torrent.

Charles is a senior in LAS.
http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/...l-file-sharing





Retro Action, November 14, 2000: Offspring Defends File Sharing

Back in 2000, when Napster and Limewire still ruled the world of filesharing, punk rock band The Offspring made an innovative decision: release their new album on their website before it hits the stores.

Their rationale? File sharing doesn't hurt sales. Despite evidence supporting their claim, their label threatened to sue and the idea was ultimately scrapped. "Conspiracy of One", their sixth album, went on to sell more than a million copies worldwide.

Their embrace of digital downloading did not go unnoticed by other bands. In 2007, Radiohead successfully released their album "In Rainbows" on their website, allowing customers to pay whatever they wanted for the album.

"I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one," said Yorke to the New York Times. "And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model."
Although reportedly a third of the customers paid nothing for the album, the pre-release sales proceeds surpassed the band's entire profits from their previous album, "Hail to the Thief".

Now that's sticking it to the (middle) man.
http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/11...s-file-sharing





UMG Revenue Up 6% In Q3, Label Plans To Cut Costs In 2011
FMQB

Universal Music Group (UMG) parent company Vivendi has announced its third quarter revenue results for 2010, as well as those for the first nine months of the year in total.

UMG revenue was up by six percent from a year ago, to $1.39 billion. EBITA grew 47 percent to approximately $116 million. For the first nine months of 2010, UMG revenue is down 1.7 percent though, when compared to the first three-quarters of 2009. Revenue for UMG so far in 2010 is $3.99 billion. Digital sales for the quarter increased by 18.5 percent, but for the first nine months of the year are up just 3.1 percent. Physical sales in the first nine months of 2010 fell 13.7 percent compared to last year.

Vivendi CFO Philippe Capron told the Financial Times that UMG's Lucian Grainge is currently plotting out cost-cutting measures for the new year. Capron said the label has "very, very significant potential" to save costs and added that "a lot of fat can be taken out without hurting muscle and bones."

Vivendi's first nine months of the year brought an overall seven percent increase in revenue, boosted by strong sales in its Activision Blizzard video game division.
http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=2023541





EMusic: Win a Little, Lose a Little

Thursday marks another increment in the evolution at eMusic, the online music service that sells discounted MP3s by subscription. CEO Adam Klein announced on the company's blog Wednesday that not only would some 250,000 older titles from Universal Music Group be added to its extensive catalog of indie labels and artists, but also brand-new releases from Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment. Thus, Warner and Sony's thinking about eMusic has come full circle: from shunning the service to letting it sell older tracks to supporting it as a full-fledged competitor to iTunes. Those tracks will start arriving on eMusic on Thursday.

Getting Warner and Sony's releases on the same day they go to iTunes could make eMusic significantly more appealing to mainstream music fans, especially given that the former charges 99 cents to $1.29 for those tracks, while eMusic has said it will charge no more than 89 cents. Granted, Amazon and Walmart charge less than iTunes too, and neither of them has been able to make much of a dent in Apple's dominant market share. But eMusic's subscription approach yields larger discounts.

On the other hand, the changes to eMusic's business model that persuaded Universal, Warner and Sony to sign on have started to drive off some of the site's most important indie allies. According to Billboard, eMusic notified subscribers Tuesday that Merge (home of Arcade Fire, Spoon and Superchunk, among other indie-rock faves), Domino (Animal Collective, Dirty Projectors, Franz Ferdinand) and the Beggars Group labels (The National, Vampire Weekend, Efterklang) were pulling out of the service as of Thursday.

These are important departures ...

... that could weaken eMusic's ability to hold onto the indie-music fans who've been the core of its subscriber base. But then, the indie-music focus took eMusic only so far. Klein said in an interview in September that the service was hovering around 400,000 subscribers -- essentially unchanged from its level two years before, and not quite where it needed to be to sustain its business.

Billboard quoted statements from Merge and Beggars that thanked eMusic for its support over the years, but said the accommodations being made for major labels were harmful to their interests as indies. As the Beggars statement put it, "[A]s eMusic has brought major labels on board, they have changed the terms on which they deal with labels in certain ways, some of which we have found impossible to accept."

Klein was similarly circumspect in his comments. "In the process of expanding our catalog and making the changes necessary to serve our members and ensure the long-term sustainability of our business, a few labels have chosen to exclude themselves from the new comprehensive eMusic offering," he wrote on the eMusic blog. "We are treating all labels equally and therefore we believe fairly" (emphasis in the original).

In an exchange of e-mails Wednesday, eMusic spokeswoman Cathy Halgas Nevins declined to elaborate on the changes in eMusic's business model.

"This is as heartbreaking to us as it is to you," Halgas Nevins wrote in the note to subscribers. "Please know we have done everything we could to keep them from leaving. Forging deals with our label partners can be pretty complex. As many of you know, labels have come and gone over the years, and we hope to see these labels back soon."

Halgas Nevins went on to urge subscribers to "get the music you love from these labels at a great price before November 18." Going, going....
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...-a-little.html





Date Set for ‘File Sharing’ Solicitors

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal set for May 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has set a date for the hearing of David Gore and Brian Miller, an existing and former partner at law firm Davenport Lyons (DL).

The hearing, which is scheduled for 31 May 2011, is expected to last for seven days.

Equity partner Mr Gore and former intellectual property partner Mr Miller will face the tribunal over a number of allegations, including that they acted in a way that was ‘likely to diminish the trust the public place in them or in the legal profession’.

And that they ‘used their position as solicitors to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for their own benefit or for the benefit of their clients’.

In December 2008, Which? complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that the letters sent out by the two accusing hundreds of people of allegedly unlawfully file-sharing were ‘bullying’.

They made incorrect assertions about the nature of copyright infringement; ignored the evidence presented in defence; and increased the level of compensation claimed over the period of correspondence.

Which? also said the letters stated, incorrectly, that failing to properly secure an internet connection was grounds for legal action.

In March this year, the SRA agreed that there was a case to answer and referred to the two to the tribunal.

Which? welcomes the news

Mark McLaren, Which?’s principal advocate, said: ‘It’s great news that we’ve got a date at long last, but it’s disappointing that it is so far away.

‘We’re also very disappointed that it will have taken well over two years since we raised our complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority about the actions of Davenport Lyons’ former partners in late 2008.

‘Presumably, it will be even longer before we reach a resolution. From the perspective of the consumer, this is unacceptably slow.
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/11/...citors-236157/





John Does Win Big In Far Cry Case
Thomas Mennecke

The copyright trolling campaign in the United States may not be coming to a grinding halt, but it looks like it may come to a sluggish crawl. In an order issued today in the Achte/Neunte (aka Far Cry) vs Does 1-4,577 case - Judge Rosemary Collyer granted and denied in part the US Copyright Group's request for an extension to serve all defendants to five years.

As you'll recall, Time Warner and the USCG agreed to identify only 28 IP addresses a month (between this case and the West Bay One case) - a time consuming process that could take almost 5 years. So, not only does the USCG want to sue all the Does in one location, they'll like to sit on all those IP addresses for five years as well, and deal with them at their convenience. From yesterday's motion from the USCG:

"...Plaintiff requests that the court extend the time by which Plaintiff must name and serve the Defendants in this case to a reasonable time after Plaintiff has received all of the identifying information for all Defendants."

Judge Collyer wasn't going to have anything to do with it. In today's order, the first real defeat was handed to the USCG:

"The request is patently unfair and prejudicial to all John Does who have been identified by an ISP, and good cause is not shown as to these identified Does. Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint and will serve it, no later than December 6, 2010, identifying by name and address Defendants over whom it reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction and whom it wants to sue. It will also file a notice with the Court naming those Interested Parties, John Does, and their Internet Protocol addresses, over whom Plaintiff concedes the Court lacks personal jurisdiction or otherwise should be dismissed; and setting forth the Internet Protocol address of those John Does for whom Plaintiff has no identifying information, but over whom Plaintiff reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction and whom it wants to sue."

So what does this ruling mean? It's actually a partial victory for the USCG, since Judge Collyer is saying they can sue some Does that have already been identified by Time Warner - but ONLY those that are actually in that Court's jurisdiction. How many could that possibly be? Not many - so while some of their request is granted, the much bigger picture is not in the USCG's favor.

This ruling seems to avoid the direct issue of ruling on jurisdiction - and we're wondering if Judge Collyer will simply use this order in place of ruling on jurisdiction. Since it appears she's making the USCG only sue those under her court's direct jurisdiction, this could mean a much longer - and costlier - process, and perhaps may force copyright holders to rethink the cost/time/public relations benefit of this type of campaign.

Let's see if the USCG considers a Doe from Wisconsin under the jurisdiction of the DC District Court.

You can read the full ruling here.
http://www.slyck.com/story2132_John_...ially_Crippled





MP3Tunes ‘Safe Harbor’ Challenge Is Legal Test for Cloud Storage
Sam Gustin

A key test of digital-copyright law will be heard soon in New York federal court: whether online music storage services and search engines can be held liable when users upload copyright material. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for so-called “cloud-based” services, which allow users to store their content on remote servers accessible on the internet.

Among the key issues is the “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects internet service providers like Google, Yahoo and Facebook from copyright liability if they promptly remove infringing content upon notification. Several influential digital rights groups filed a brief last Tuesday supporting the defendant in the case, MP3tunes. They urged the court to uphold the “safe harbor” provision, lest online innovation be stifled.
For MP3tunes CEO Michael Robertson, this case is personal. He could be held personally liable for massive monetary damage.

Three years ago, several labels and publishers affiliated with major record label EMI sued MP3tunes, which provides an online music “locker” service where users can store their music and access it from computers and mobile devices. MP3tunes also operates a music search engine called Sideload, where people can find music tracks on other sites and then put them in their locker.

To EMI, MP3tunes and Sideload represent a two-step mechanism for the discovery and acquisition of copyright music. MP3tunes argues that its service merely allows users to store their music online so they can listen to it anywhere. And even if some users upload copyright content, the company says, it can’t be found liable because it is protected by the DMCA.

Opposition briefs are due Wednesday. Oral arguments begin in January.

MP3tunes CEO and founder Michael Robertson is a veteran of the digital music wars: He tangled with the industry a decade ago with his previous company, MP3.com. (After the major labels successfully sued MP3.com, Universal Music Group turned around and bought the company for $385 million.) He’s also a respected tech entrepreneur. Last year Robertson sold his web-based calling startup Gizmo5 to Google for $30 million, giving him the resources to mount a defense against an industry that is as happy to bankrupt an opponent out of existence as to win in court.

The two combatants in this lawsuit have starkly different views of what the case is about. For MP3tunes and Robertson, what’s at issue is nothing less than the future of cloud computing. “This case will define digital-media ownership in the 21st century,” Robertson told Wired.com by e-mail. “Can companies assist their consumers in storing their possessions on the cloud where they can control them? That’s the issue at stake.”

EMI sees it a little bit differently. In its initial lawsuit, the record company alleged that MP3Tunes is liable for the infringing content some users uploaded to the company’s servers. MP3tunes “does not own the music it exploits; nor does MP3tunes have any legal right or authority to use or exploit that music,” EMI said.

In its motion seeking summary judgment filed Oct. 29, EMI painted a scathing portrait of MP3tunes and Robertson. “This case is about defendants’ unlawful exploitation of copyrights they do not own to advance their own business interests,” EMI said. “Defendants’ plan was simple: Steal assets, build up a user base, and sell the company before copyright owners could obtain a judgment and shut the service down.”

EMI goes on to allege that Robertson and other MP3tunes officials “were themselves flagrant repeat offenders.”

For its part, MP3tunes argues that it is shielded from liability by the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA because it doesn’t encourage copyright infringement and promptly removes infringing content when notified.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...cloud-storage/





Putting Money on Lawsuits, Investors Share in the Payouts
Binyamin Appelbaum

Large banks, hedge funds and private investors hungry for new and lucrative opportunities are bankrolling other people’s lawsuits, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into medical malpractice claims, divorce battles and class actions against corporations — all in the hope of sharing in the potential winnings.

The loans are propelling large and prominent cases. Lenders including Counsel Financial, a Buffalo company financed by Citigroup, provided $35 million for the lawsuits brought by ground zero workers that were settled tentatively in June for $712.5 million. The lenders earned about $11 million.

Most investments are in the smaller cases that fill court dockets. Ardec Funding, a New York lender backed by a hedge fund, lent $45,000 in June to a Manhattan lawyer hired by the parents of a baby brain-damaged at birth. The lawyer hired two doctors, a physical therapist and an economist to testify at a July trial. The jury ordered the delivering doctor and hospital to pay the baby $510,000. Ardec is collecting interest at an annual rate of 24 percent, or $900 a month, until the award is paid.

Total investments in lawsuits at any given time now exceed $1 billion, several industry participants estimated. Although no figures are available on the number of lawsuits supported by lenders, public records from one state, New York, show that over the last decade, more than 250 law firms borrowed on pending cases, often repeatedly.

The rise of lending to plaintiffs and their lawyers is a result of the high cost of litigation. Pursuing a civil action in federal court costs an average of $15,000, the Federal Judicial Center reported last year. Cases involving scientific evidence, like medical malpractice claims, often cost more than $100,000. Some people cannot afford to pursue claims; others are overwhelmed by corporate defendants with deeper pockets.

A review by The New York Times and the Center for Public Integrity shows that the inflow of money is giving more people a day in court and arming them with well-paid experts and elaborate evidence. It is helping to ensure that cases are decided by merit rather than resources, echoing and expanding a shift a century ago when lawyers started fronting money for clients’ lawsuits.

But the review shows that borrowed money also is fueling abuses, including cases initiated and controlled by investors. A Florida judge in December ordered an investment banker who orchestrated a shareholder lawsuit against Fresh Del Monte Produce to repay the company’s legal expenses, ruling that the case should not have reached trial.

Such financing also drains money from plaintiffs. Interest rates on lawsuit loans generally exceed 15 percent a year, and most states allow lawyers that borrow to bill clients for the interest payments. The cost can exceed the benefits of winning. A woman injured in a 1995 car accident outside Philadelphia borrowed money for a suit, as did her lawyer. By the time she won $169,125 in 2003, the lenders were owed $221,000.

Lawyers are not required to tell clients that they have borrowed money, so the client may be unaware that there is financial pressure to resolve cases quickly. Lenders also seek detailed information about cases, which can jeopardize client confidentiality. A federal judge in Delaware ruled in June that a company suing Facebook for patent infringement had to show Facebook documents that its lawyer had shared with a lender.

Citing these issues, critics of lending for lawsuits say the practice should be banned.

“It sends shivers down the spines of general counsels all across the globe,” said Lisa A. Rickard of the Institute for Legal Reform, an arm of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

But proponents, who argue that people often need help to fight corporations, have won a series of victories in state courts and legislatures in recent years, overturning old laws that prohibited investments in lawsuits.

“If you want to use the civil justice system, you have to have money,” said Alan Zimmerman, who founded one of the first litigation finance companies in 1994, in San Francisco, now called the LawFinance Group. “If there’s less money, you’d have less litigation. But then you’d also have less justice.”

A Case in Point

A legal battle between residents of a faded Texas factory town and the BNSF Railway, the nation’s second-largest railroad company, highlights what some see as the benefits and others see as the excesses of lawsuits driven by borrowed money.

Somerville, Tex., 80 miles northwest of Houston, has hosted the noxious work of treating wood to make railroad ties for more than a century. The railroad runs through the town, dividing a small grid of residential streets from the lumber yard and treatment plant where stacks of wood are soaked in preservatives.

Dennis L. Krueger crossed the tracks to begin work at the factory the week after he graduated from the local high school, in 1974. Three decades later, he was found to have a malignant skin cancer that his doctor said was most likely caused by prolonged exposure to creosote, the tar oil in which the ties are soaked.

Mr. Krueger, who is 54 but looks much older, reduced by manual labor and medical treatment, is suing the railroad for damages, claiming that BNSF failed to provide basic safety equipment or to warn workers that the federal government had linked creosote with skin cancer. He recalled cleaning the inside of the treatment tanks wearing no safety gear except steel-toed boots and mule-skin gloves.

“I got so high off that stuff I’d be laughing one minute and crying the next minute,” said Mr. Krueger, sitting at the local Dairy Queen beneath old photographs of factory workers. “I’ve got a 2-year-old grandson. My goal was to live to 101. What I’d like is a fair shake from the railroad for missing out.”

Mr. Krueger’s lawsuit is financed by investors he has never met. His lawyer from Houston, Jared R. Woodfill, has borrowed more than $3.5 million from a New York hedge fund run by Stillwater Capital Partners, in a deal arranged by the litigation finance specialist Oxbridge Financial Group, also based in New York.

Mr. Woodfill first drove to Somerville in 2000 to meet with a former factory worker who has since died of skin cancer. He said that his work on that worker’s case, which BNSF agreed to settle in 2003, convinced him that toxic emissions from the factory had poisoned the town’s air, water and land.

Mr. Woodfill, who is 42 and the chairman of the Republican Party in Harris County, is empathetic and well-spoken. He found a ready audience in Somerville, which has declined with the railroad industry. The population peaked in the 1930s. About 1,700 people still live in the timeworn residential section, but automation has further reduced employment at the factory, and a quarter of the households now live in poverty. Residents with a wide range of health problems embraced the idea that the factory was responsible.

Mr. Woodfill signed up workers with skin cancer, like Mr. Krueger, and those with gastrointestinal cancers that he says can be caused by the chemicals used at the factory. He also signed up Somerville residents who never worked at the factory but had developed cancers. And he signed up property owners with no health problems, arguing that the value of their property had suffered.

About 400 people sued the railroad — almost a quarter of the town’s residents.

Oxbridge spent several months reviewing the cases before agreeing to arrange the financing, sending lawyers to Texas to look at documents and to question Mr. Woodfill and his partners. Stillwater Capital is charging about 16 percent annual interest.

“But for a hedge fund, I couldn’t afford to take on a railroad,” Mr. Woodfill said.

BNSF’s general counsel, Charles Shewmake, said the company had carefully reviewed claims brought by its former workers and decided they had no merit. He said the claims by Somerville residents who did not work at the factory were “physically impossible and without any scientific basis.”

Company executives were outraged when they learned that a hedge fund was backing the lawsuits, Mr. Shewmake said. He said that BNSF had been forced to spend millions of dollars mounting its courtroom defense and defending its reputation.

“They’re stirring up cases that don’t need to be in the courthouses,” he said.

An Opportunity for Lenders

Lawsuit lending is a child of the subprime revolution, the mainstream embrace of high-risk lending at high interest rates that began in the early 1990s.

Mr. Zimmerman, the founder of the LawFinance Group, practiced law for more than two decades before moving into finance in California in 1992. A lawyer friend called to ask if he would lend to a client who had won a sexual harassment lawsuit. The woman’s former employer had appealed, and she needed money for living expenses or she would be forced to take a smaller settlement.

Mr. Zimmerman invested $30,000 in the case; the former employer almost immediately dropped the appeal and paid out the verdict. Mr. Zimmerman made $20,000.

“I said: ‘That’s an interesting way to make money. Is there a way to turn that into a business?’ ” he recalled. The company he created has since invested more than $350 million in litigation.

Others in the lending business saw the same opportunity at about the same time, including a mortgage salesman in Buffalo; a subprime auto lender from Nashville; and a Las Vegas man who had been convicted of threatening borrowers who failed to repay his previous business, Wild West Funding.

By the late 1990s, several of those companies were also making loans to lawyers. Plaintiffs needed small sums for living expenses; their lawyers needed much larger sums to mount cases, and they had few other options. Banks make loans against assets, and law firms generally have little property to pledge as collateral.

The new lenders jumped into the void. LawFinance’s slogan is “We do what banks won’t.”

The industry’s great innovation, and still its defining trait, is the willingness to lend based on the potential value of unresolved cases.

The roughly one dozen major lenders tend to cultivate an image of conservative prudence. Counsel Financial, which bills itself as the largest, with more than $200 million in outstanding loans to law firms, shares a suburban office building outside Buffalo with an insurance firm.

But the work sits somewhere between banking and gambling. Lenders employ experienced lawyers to judge the strength of cases. They consult databases showing the results of similar lawsuits, just as appraisers value homes based on recent sales. A corporate defendant may have a history of battling personal injury claims; or juries in a specific county may have a history of siding with local employers. Then they place their bets. Counsel will invest up to $10 million in a law firm.

The returns can be lucrative. Counsel Financial charges 18 percent annual interest. “If firms have access to lower-cost financing, our first comment back to them is that you really shouldn’t be talking to us,” said Paul R. Cody, president of Counsel Financial. “We’re not going to be competitive” with the interest rates charged by banks.

Law firms are generally obligated to repay loans even if they lose. In reality, however, firms that make less than expected often struggle to make the required payments, and a number of firms that borrowed from Counsel Financial have filed for bankruptcy protection.

Increasingly, banks are making lawsuit loans, too. During the lending boom of the last decade, companies including Citigroup, Commerce Bank of New Jersey and Credit Suisse provided financing for lawsuit lenders. More recently, some banks have started cutting out the middlemen. Deutsche Bank recently refinanced one of Counsel’s largest clients, the New York firm Napoli Bern Ripka. TD Bank, which absorbed Commerce, lends to lawyers and plaintiffs.

The founders of LawCash, a Brooklyn lender, won a charter from New York in 2006 to establish Esquire Bank, the first American bank to specialize in the business of financing lawyers and lawsuits.

Defendants on the Defensive

A recent Nevada case illustrates one reason many companies are troubled by the rise of financing: They fear that investors will move from supporting to producing lawsuits.

Steven and Roz Flans left Los Angeles in 2004 for Sun City Anthem, a sprawling retirement community of 7,000 one-story homes, from ranches to mansions, at the edge of the Las Vegas basin. When the gas fireplace stopped working during their third winter in the desert, the couple contacted their home builder, Del Webb.

“We called and said, ‘We have a minor problem,’ ” Mr. Flans recalled. “And they said: ‘We can’t talk to you. You’re suing us!’ ”

It emerged that the Flanses had accepted a free home inspection the previous year from a company, MC Mojave Construction, that had papered their neighborhood with brochures. They said they did not realize that the forms they signed authorized MC Mojave to sue Del Webb on their behalf for the money to correct any problems.

By 2008, MC Mojave had initiated more than 500 lawsuits against Del Webb. The company acted as an investor, providing inspection reports to the Las Vegas law firm that handled the cases in exchange for a share of any winnings.

Del Webb sued MC Mojave, arguing that Nevada law prohibited fomenting and investing in lawsuits. Jacque Petroulakis, a company spokeswoman, said that Del Webb would have fixed legitimate problems under its warranty policy, and that the lawsuits served solely to make money for MC Mojave and the law firm.

“They were throwing people into litigation that many of them never anticipated or wanted,” Ms. Petroulakis said.

MC Mojave did not return calls for comment, but in court filings, it called the Nevada law “medieval” and said it should not be enforced. The company said it was providing a service at the request of the homeowners.

This year, a federal judge barred MC Mojave from initiating further lawsuits, ruling that Nevada law indeed prohibits such investments.

But a growing number of states have eliminated similar laws.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court started the trend in 1997, citing a “fundamental change in society’s view of litigation — from a social ill, which, like other disputes and quarrels, should be minimized, to a socially useful way to resolve disputes.”

South Carolina, Texas and Ohio are among the states that have followed.

Stephen C. Yeazell, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a leading historian of the civil justice system, said the trend was likely to continue. He said there was little legal justification for allowing lawyers to pay for cases but barring third parties from doing so. “This is another step in leveling the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants,” Mr. Yeazell said.

Gathering Plaintiffs

Anthony Flammia, a former New York City police officer who spent three months working in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, did not learn that his lawyers had borrowed money to pursue his claim of compensation for health problems until he received a bill for $828.93 in interest charges.

Mr. Flammia left ground zero at the end of 2001 for a job with a suburban police department. A few years later, a passer-by found him asleep in his patrol car. His health had been deteriorating, and the episode prompted him to visit a free clinic established to treat ground zero workers for the consequences of inhaling dust. He was found to have sleep apnea and scarring in his lungs. In 2007, he passed out after inhaling smoke at a house fire and was forced to retire.

Lawyers led by Napoli Bern Ripka sued the City of New York and a host of agencies and companies on behalf of more than 9,000 ground zero workers. When Mr. Flammia signed up as a client, the paperwork included a general notice that the lawyers might borrow money to pursue the case, and that they might bill clients for the interest.

Mr. Flammia said he did not see the general warning, and there was no further notice as the lawyers borrowed more than $35 million.

In June, the city and other defendants agreed to settle the case for up to $712.5 million. The workers have until Tuesday to approve the settlement. Workers received letters detailing how much they would receive, and how much the lawyers would keep to cover the costs of pursuing the case.

Among the costs billed to clients was $6.1 million of the $11 million in total interest payments, which the law firms said reflected the share of the borrowed money covering the workers’ expenses.

Lawsuit lenders, including Counsel Financial, encourage lawyers to bill clients. They advertise in trade magazines that lawyers can borrow money free if the client is paying the interest. Bar associations in most states, including New York, condone the practice.

Paul J. Napoli, one of the lead lawyers representing the ground zero workers, said that the firm needed money to pursue the case, that the loans were taken at the lowest available interest rates and that clients were properly notified.

“We followed the rules. Do people want to have it sky-written over their house every day?” Mr. Napoli asked. “They didn’t read it. Or maybe they didn’t care at the time. At what point do people have a self-responsibility to read something and be bound by it?”

But Mr. Flammia and other workers said they had not agreed that the law firm could pay for its work by borrowing money at their expense.

“If I’m ever involved in a lawsuit again, I’m going to be very careful and read every document line by line,” Mr. Flammia said. “I’m also going to find a lawyer who is acting on my behalf and not to line their own pockets.”

The judge overseeing the case, Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Federal District Court of Manhattan, ordered the lawyers to swallow the cost.

Judge Hellerstein acknowledged that the charges were legal, but said that the lawyers already were earning enough from the case. He said that it was not clear that clients had understood or approved the decision to borrow, and that it was clear that clients had no control over how the money was spent.

The workers, Judge Hellerstein said, “want to have the fruits of this settlement not diminished by an effort of lawyers to finance much of the way that they work this case.”

A War of Attrition

The residents of Somerville, Tex., have yet to win a trial.

The case of Linda Faust, who never worked at the railroad plant, was the first to reach court, in 2008. She had stomach cancer.

The jury deliberated three days before deciding that BNSF was not responsible.

The following year, a jury ruled against Dennis Davis, a former worker at the factory with pancreatic cancer.

Mr. Woodfill’s nine-lawyer firm, Woodfill & Pressler, has spent more on the Somerville cases than any of its previous litigation. Win or lose, it must repay Stillwater, the hedge fund that is bankrolling the cases. Mr. Woodfill said he remained confident that the cases could be won. He is appealing the two losses and preparing for a third trial next year.

He drove through Somerville recently on his way to meet with clients, rolling down the windows so the smell of the factory came into the car. “They’re hoping to spend us into the ground and make us go away, but we’re not giving up,” he said.

Mr. Shewmake of BNSF said the company was braced to continue fighting the cases until Stillwater ran out of patience.

“Right now,” he said, “I’d say it’s starting to look like a bad investment decision.”

This project was initiated by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization in Washington. It is based on reporting by Ben Hallman of the center and Binyamin Appelbaum of The Times, and was written by Mr. Appelbaum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/bu...15lawsuit.html





RIAA Asks Judge to Kill Resurrected LimeWire File-Sharing App
Mark Hefflinger

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has asked a federal judge to appoint a "receiver" to ensure that file-sharing software provider LimeWire complies with an injunction that it disable distribution of its software, CNET News.com reported. While LimeWire complied with the initial court order, halting distribution of its file-sharing client a day after the injunction was handed down in October, a rogue version of the application surfaced weeks later.

A "secret" development team released "LimeWire Pirate Edition" earlier this month, TorrentFreak reported.

In its filing, the RIAA alleges this software was created by an individual who is "either formerly or presently a Lime Wire employee," and asked the court to compel LimeWire to aid its investigation into who is distributing LimeWire Pirate Edition.

The RIAA adds that, "defendants have demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they either will not or cannot do what the injunction commands."
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2010/11...ilesharing-app





Warner Bros. Vows to Prosecute Deathly Hallows Leaker
Hugh Hart

Warner Bros. is scrambling to identify who leaked the first 36 minutes of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 to dozens of BitTorrent sites.

The movie does not open until Friday, but Potter fans who want a sneak peek currently have plenty of unauthorized options.

“Last night a portion of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 was stolen and illegally posted on the internet,” Warner Bros. said in a statement sent to Wired.com Tuesday afternoon. “This constitutes a serious breach of copyright violation and theft of Warner Bros. property. We are working actively to restrict and/or remove copies that may be available. Also, we are vigorously investigating this matter and will prosecute those involved to the full extent of the law.”

Torrent searchers hit pay dirt Monday with the discovery of the Deathly Hallows fragment on BitTorrent sites. The watermarked footage appears to come from a DVD screener sent out by the studio, although Warner Bros. would not confirm this.

Ernesto Van der Sar, founder/editor of the TorrentFreak website, told Wired.com that Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is the most-anticipated film at the moment among downloaders, but said he doesn’t think this particular leak will be downloaded by millions of BitTorrent users.

“From comments I’ve seen, people would rather wait for the film to premiere in-theater or hang on until a full, high-quality copy of the film appears online,” he said.

On Torrent-tracking sites like and The Pirate Bay and isoHunt, some users complained about fake Deathly Hallows torrents that were popping up, while others said they enjoyed the extended sneak peek at what appears to be legitimate footage from the seventh Harry Potter movie.

“This is the actual release from iNK,” wrote Tam&Carla on The Pirate Bay. “Quality-wise, it is a screener and is watermarked throughout! Hopefully the full release will be up soon, but in the meantime, take or leave this tease.”

Last year’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince stands as one of the most pirated movies in history with more than 8 million downloads, according to Van der Sar. In his story about this week’s Potter piracy, he theorized that the leak might boost Deathly Hallows at the box office.

“Warner Bros. Pictures is usually none too fond of leaks, especially if a film gets out before it premieres in theater,” he wrote. “However, today’s leak may actually benefit the movie and boost theater attendance, as long as the full version doesn’t leak out too. If the first half-hour is compelling enough, people will have to go to the theater and pay for a ticket to see the rest. It may be going a little bit too far to suggest that Warner Bros. leaked the film intentionally, but from a business perspective it might make sense.”

Van der Sar described the quality of the leak as “highly unusual” in his e-mail to Wired.com.

“In terms of uniqueness and impact I would compare this leak to the X-Men Origins: Wolverine leak last year, although that wasn’t a screener but an unfinished copy work-print without the special effects,” he said. The X-Men Origins leak sparked an FBI investigation.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/...ws-bittorrent/





Studio Didn't Report 'Potter' Leak to Feds
Greg Sandoval

After several blockbuster films have been leaked to the Web and generated lots of press for the movies, the public is increasingly suspicious about whether the studios are orchestrating the piracy.

The most recent example came Tuesday evening, when 36 minutes of the upcoming Warner Bros. Pictures film, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1," turned up on file-sharing services. Blogs and online forums overflowed with theories about who leaked the film. "It may be going a little bit too far to suggest that Warner Bros. leaked the film intentionally, but from a business perspective it might make sense," wrote Ernesto, editor-in-chief of Torrentfreak, a blog that focuses on file sharing.

What might send some conspiracy theorists into a frenzy is knowing that, unlike most of the other studios that have suffered similar leaks, Warner Bros. has yet to contact law enforcement.

Paul McGuire, a Warner Bros. spokesman, said "the FBI, as part of the normal process, will be brought in when appropriate." An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment.

When a working copy of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" was distributed illegally online before the film's debut, 20th Century Fox was quick to call in the FBI. A New York man was arrested in connection with the leak and the case is still pending. Paramount quickly alerted the FBI after the Mike Meyers comedy, "The Love Guru" was pirated, A suspect in the case, a man who worked at one of the production companies that worked on the movie, was arrested, convicted, and sent to jail for six months.

Sources in the film industry said it's highly unlikely Warner Bros. had anything to do with the leak. The Harry Potter series represents a huge investment for Warner Bros. and the studio would not have risked receiving negative comments from file sharers or diluting the impact of the film's premiere by releasing such a large chunk of it online.

According to sources in the film industry and in law enforcement, there are several reasons why Warner Bros. may have chosen not to have gone to the authorities. The movie, which is scheduled to be released worldwide on Friday, may have leaked outside the U.S. The clip is watermarked and appears to have come from one of the screener copies that studios send to critics, theater owners, and advertising partners prior to most releases.

In addition, Warner Bros. may already know who leaked the film and is working on some kind of quiet resolution. The sources said that other studios have chosen to try and keep leaks quiet for fear that boosting the profile of the pirated material will encourage more people to download the content.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20023098-261.html





Why Isn’t Netflix on Android? Not Secure Enough To Suit Hollywood
John C. Abell

The Netflix streaming app has been available on iPhones and iPads for months, and this month was released for Windows 7. Why isn’t it available for Android? Netflix says it’s because they can’t get a secure enough DRM system across Android devices to mollify the studios.

“The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices,” Netflix said on its blog Friday. “Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.”

The good news is that Netflix says an Android marketplace app should be ready early next year. The bad news is that because there are different flavors of Android on different handsets the app will not be available for all Android phones from the outset.

“… I’m happy to announce we’ll launch select Android devices that will instantly stream from Netflix early next year,” the post says. “We will also continue to work with the Android community, handset manufacturers, carriers, and other service providers to develop a standard, platform-wide solution that allows content providers to deliver their services to all Android-based devices.”

The irony of that two closed platforms beat the major open platform isn’t lost on us. Or, IT professional Douglas Ward, who commented on the Netflix post: “So, just to make sure I am understanding this correctly… The Android Netflix Player has been delayed because there is too much freedom on that platform? Interesting…”
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...suit-hollywood





Will Internet Censorship Bill be Pushed Through Lame-Duck Congress?
Daniel Tencer

Will Internet censorship bill be pushed through lame duck Congress?

A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission.

Critics say the bill is both a giveaway to the movie and recording industries and a step towards widespread and unaccountable censorship of the Internet.

Opponents note that the powers given the government under the bill are very broad. Because the bill targets domain names and not specific materials, an entire Web site can be shut down. So for example, if the US determines that there are copyright-infringing materials on YouTube, it could theoretically block access to all of YouTube, whether or not particular material being accessed infringes copyright.

Activist group DemandProgress, which is running a petition against the bill, argues the powers in the bill could be used for political purposes. If the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is found to be hosting copyrighted material, for instance, access to WikiLeaks could be blocked for all US Internet users.

Though the bill was delayed in September after an outcry from activist groups, it now appears to be back and potentially poised for quick passage in the lame-duck session of Congress, reports DemandProgress.

A group of academics, led by Temple University law professor David Post, have signed a petition opposing COICA.

"The Act, if enacted into law, would fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Internet speech, and would set a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences for free expression and global Internet freedom," Post wrote in the petition letter.

The bill is "awful on many fronts," he wrote at Volokh Conspiracy. "It would allow a court to effectively shut down a site operated out of Brazil, or France, without any adversary hearing ... or any reasoned determination that the site actually is engaged in unlawful activity."

"Even more significant and more troubling, the Act represents a retreat from the United States’ historical position as a bulwark and beacon against censorship and other threats to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and the free exchange of information and ideas around the globe."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a list of Web sites it believes are at highest risk of being shut down under the proposed law. Included in the list are file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Mediafire, music mash-up sites like SoundCloud and MashupTown, as well as "sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy," such as pirate-party.us and P2PNet.

A Tool For Political Censorship?

Free speech advocates argue that Internet censorship laws are inevitably used for purposes other than the ones claimed by lawmakers.

For instance, Australia in recent years set up a "firewall" around its Internet, with the intention of blacklisting child pornography Web sites. But a list of the blocked sites, leaked to Wikileaks, showed that the Australian government was censoring more than porn: The blacklist contained religious and political Web sites.

According to the Melbourne Age:

But about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

"It seems to me as if just about anything can potentially get on the list," [University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn] Landfelt said.

As predicted by some critics, the "great Aussie firewall" ended up blocking access to parts of WikiLeaks.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/i...shed-congress/





Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use

The CRTC just decided to let your Internet Service Provider put a meter on the Internet!

Bell Canada and other big telecom companies can now freely impose usage-based billing on independent Internet Service Providers (indie ISPs) and YOU. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.

This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay more for less Internet.

This will crush innovative services, Canada's digital competitiveness, and your wallet.

We need to stand up for the Internet.

Sign the Stop The Meter petition! *Choose from of the options below or do all three!
http://openmedia.ca/meter





One on One: Tim Wu, Author of ‘The Master Switch’
Nick Bilton

Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who came up with the term “net neutrality” in a research paper, has just written a new book, “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires,” published by Knopf. The book chronicles the rise and fall of companies that develop new technologies, and discusses the future of the Internet. The following Q&A is an edited version of an interview with Professor Wu:

Q: What do you teach at Columbia?
A: I teach copyright law, communications and occasionally criminal law.

Are you a lawyer?
I am a lawyer by creation, but not by practice. I’m a lawyer technically, but I wouldn’t hire me to write your will.

When did you first use the term “net neutrality”?
I was working in Silicon Valley in the early 2000s for a company that sold technologies designed to filter and block areas of the Internet. Something about it didn’t sit well with me. So I wrote a paper in 2002 for a conference that explained my thoughts on this. Originally, the phrase I was promoting was “broadband discrimination,” and I also said “network neutrality,” to capture the concept, which ended up becoming the default.

Did you have any idea this term would become so widely used?
No. It’s very strange, in some sense, to have part of your career associated with a single phrase.

What is your new book about?
My book is a history of information empires in America and the rise and fall of companies like ABC, NBC, AT&T, and eventually Facebook and Google. It’s largely a story of the American affection for information monopolists and the consequences of that fondness.

How did you get the idea for the book?
I grew up in the age of the open Internet, and I started to wonder, “Have we been here before?” I wondered if an open Internet would eventually be a closed system.

What do you predict for the future of the Internet?
I think the natural tendency would be for the system to move toward a monopoly control, but everything that’s natural isn’t necessarily inevitable. For years everyone thought that every republic would eventually turn into a dictatorship. So I think if people want to, we can maintain a greater openness, but it’s unclear if Americans really want that.

Talk a little bit about your discussion of AT&T in the book.
In the 1910s, AT&T promised the American public that they would do no evil. Their president, Theodore Vail, turned to the government and the American public and he said we are a public utility and our duty is to the American people before profit. In there was the grand bargain that we keep making between the great information monopolists and the American nation. AT&T was the 1910 counterpart to Google’s pledge to do no evil.

When did AT&T become “evil”?
Most monopolists create a golden age that lasts a decade or more, and then slowly they became more interested in being in power. AT&T became dangerous when they began to suppress technologies that might threaten their rule.

Which technologies did AT&T suppress?
In the book I tell the story of tape recording technology, which AT&T itself invented in the late 1920s, and then suppressed because they believed that the recording technology would lead to the abandonment of the telephone.

Do the technology monopolies surrounding the Internet look different than the past?
The question is whether there is something about the Internet that is fundamentally different, or about these times that is intrinsically more dynamic, that we don’t repeat the past. I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle.

What do you think will happen?
My gut tells me that a return to 1950s prime time seems outlandish, but I can imagine a future where we have choices but something will be lost.

Which companies do you fear the most?
Right now, I’d have to say Apple.

What about Facebook?
I think Facebook is looking for a mentor, they are looking for a role model. Right now it is choosing between Apple and Google in this great war between open and closed. It is possible that whatever side Facebook takes will have a lot to do with the future of how we communicate.

What worries you about Apple?
As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control.

Is this book about business or power?
I write about business in the way that writers have traditionally written about war. I’m interested in the quest for dominance, in industrial warfare. I believe that capitalism, by its nature, is about conflict, and ultimately the life and death of firms.
So what makes Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg get up in the morning?
Joseph Schumpeter, the famous economist, wrote about a special breed of men who are motivated not by money or comfort, but the will to found a private kingdom. The men in my book are motivated by power, and the information industries offer possibilities unavailable to people who sell orange juice or rubber boots, a power over people’s minds.

Do these C.E.O.’s make decisions that aren’t in the best interest of the public?
As I show in the book, there’s a similarity to power and great nations. The man who starts as the great reformer often ends his career by becoming increasingly paranoid and abusive. There’s a cycle, and the problems usually shows up when the great leader feels his power is threatened, like a political leader.

What part of these “evil” acts are the C.E.O.’s and what part are the employees?
I think the mogul makes the medium, but it’s also true that once a firm has been in existence long enough, it begins to have a life of its own.

Do you think that will apply to Apple?
Yes.

But who will take over it from Steve Jobs?
I think it may not matter. I think the mark of Steve Jobs is firmly placed on that firm, that it will continue to be him long after he passes from leadership.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1...master-switch/





Google: 'Net Censorship Amounts to Undeclared Trade War
Nate Anderson

Back in 2007, when one of the perennial Greek/Turk spats flared up again online, some hothead had a terrific idea: why not create a home video claiming that modern Turkey's founder, Kemal Ataturk, was gay—and that everyone else in Turkey is gay, too? The result was uploaded to YouTube. Similar videos followed. One might have hoped that such grade-school taunting would seem so ridiculous that it would simply be ignored. But here's how Google described what happened next:

"An individual public prosecutor in Ankara was able to block YouTube access for all Turkish users for over two years after YouTube rejected his demand that they remove a number of videos from the site globally because they were deemed to be breaching a Turkish law that protects the reputation of its founder Kemal Ataturk. An offer to restrict viewing for objectionable videos within Turkey was deemed inadequate by the Prosecutor—only the worldwide application of the Turkish law would have seen the ban reversed. Recently, the videos at the heart of the ban were automatically removed as the result of the copyright claim. These were reinstated (though restricted based on IP address for Turkey) when the claim was not upheld. As a result, YouTube is newly accessible from Turkey but the power to ban again in the same way remains until the law is clarified."

The block was removed two weeks ago, but Google's warning already looks prescient. A few days later, YouTube was blocked again over a political sex scandal video.

Internet censorship as trade barrier

Yes, it's censorship—but is it also a "trade barrier" under World Trade Organization rules? Google thinks so, and it wants government, especially the US and the Europeans, to act.

Google today put out a lengthy white paper (PDF) called “Enabling trade in the era of information technologies: breaking down barriers to the free flow of information,” which argues that such Internet disruptions are “tantamount to a customs official stopping all goods for a particular company at the border.”

Such blockages in the tubes aren't happening only in a few isolated outposts, either; Google claims that "more than 40 governments now engage in broad-scale restriction of online information."

Trade organizations have for some time been pushing the idea that Internet censorship is a trade barrier. This argument has two belated results. First, it gets tech companies off the hook for complying with government-mandated censorship. Remember the terrific drubbing that companies like Google and Yahoo took from Congress and others over their complicity with Chinese requests for e-mails and other information? Making the issue about trade barriers removes much of the responsibility from individual companies, who are just following national laws.

Second, this has the effect of shifting enforcement to governments, which Yahoo and Google have explicitly supported for years. In their view, companies are simply not equipped to pick and choose which national laws they will obey as they operate around the world. But having countries like the US hector China on Internet censorship issues in moral terms has not worked well and has generally led to Chinese charges of American hypocrisy. But now that China is a member of the WTO, making Internet censorship the trade dispute that can be judged by WTO rules gives other countries the necessary leverage to bring about change in Chinese policies.

“There is a growing consensus that governments must do more than appeal for the protection of human rights and encourage development of tools that allow users to bypass government firewalls,” says Google in its new paper. “Censorship on the Internet poses a significant economic threat to companies seeking a level playing field as the established markets overseas.”

Such disputes aren't merely political, or related to dissidents. In many cases, especially in the huge Chinese market, business interests appear to lie behind much of the blocking. Google points out repeatedly how China's Great Firewall has been used to limit the appeal of its services, even as local ripoffs flourished and featured many of the same “problems” that the Chinese government had with Google. The country also puts strict limits on foreign ownership.

And Chinese actions can be pretty non-subtle. For instance, in 2007, China was piqued at the US and altered its firewall so that "users who typed in Web addresses for the three major US-based Internet search engines (run by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!) were taken not to their site of choice but rather to the Chinese-owned search engine, Baidu."

The report is transparently self-serving, but that doesn't mean the issues raised aren't legitimate (and Google did belatedly take some action of its own earlier this year when it stopped preemptively censoring its Chinese site's search results). The US government has already intervened with the WTO over similar access issues in the analog world, most famously in a recent case against China's strict limits on the importation of Western films and media (which the US won).

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled that she would go along with the tech companies' desire to make this a government-to-government issue. "New technologies do not take sides," she said in January. "But the United States does." She pledged that the US government would take a worldwide stand for a "single Internet" and would oppose the efforts of China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia to impose censorship, detain bloggers, and block Internet businesses.

The European Parliament has already indicated some willingness to go along with the "trade barrier" concept, and EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes endorsed it on a recent trip to China.

Of course, playing by the WTO's rules cuts both ways. The US outlaws its own set of Internet businesses, including online gambling, and it was the subject of a WTO complaint from the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, where many of these offshore gambling servers are located. Despite losing at the WTO for years on this issue, the US simply refuses to comply.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-trade-war.ars





250,000 Sensors to Fight Internet Traffic Jams
Frederic Lardinois

RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry for Europe, the Middle East and some parts of Central Asia is planning to install up to 250,000 sensors that can measure Internet speeds and help engineers to predict and diagnose online traffic jams. Instead of building small, separate, private infrastructures to measure online traffic, RIPE proposes to build a common infrastructure with sensors that could regular send ping and traceroute requests to measure the state of local connections to a group of central servers. RIPE hopes to install the first 10,000 sensors by the end of next year.

RIPE currently runs a relatively small network of complex traffic measurement boxes - consisting of a PC and a GPS antenna - but the non-profit group hopes to expand its measurements by introducing small autonomous USB-powered probes across Europe (50,000 sensors) and then later the rest of the world (250,000 sensors). RIPE works with large Internet carriers, so the organization probably expects these sensors to run on their servers. As far as we can see, RIPE doesn't expect individuals to host these sensors at home.

To finance this program, the organization is asking its member organizations to host probes and donate a small fraction of their bandwidth and electricity to run them. In return for paid sponsorships (starting at 2,000 euros for 8 probes), sponsors will be able to run a certain number of tests on the network. The data from all of these measurements will be public, though, and should allow scientists and engineers to better predict bottlenecks and online traffic jams.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...affic_jams.php





Swedish Prosecutor Wants to Question Wikileaks' Assange
Mikael Ricknäs

On Thursday, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the District Court in Stockholm to detain WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for questioning.

Ny wants to interrogate Assange about suspicions of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, according to a statement. Investigators have not been able to meet with him, Ny said.

A first arrest warrant stemming from the rape charges was issued for Assange in August, but after a change of prosecutor, it was quickly withdrawn. A few days later the rape charges were dropped. However, when Ny, director of prosecution, took over the case, she decided to reopen the investigation.

At the moment, due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, Ny declined to disclose information concerning the suspicions or how the investigation has been conducted.

Assange has denied any wrongdoing.

A hearing is set to take place at 2 pm CET on Thursday in the Stockholm District Court, according to the statement.
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=5EC...5D959802F121B1





House Bill Would Give DHS Authority Over Private Sector Networks
Gautham Nagesh

A new bill unveiled Wednesday by House Homeland Security chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to enforce federal cybersecurity standards on private sector companies deemed critical to national security.

The Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 authorizes DHS to establish and enforce risk and performance-based cybersecurity standards on federal agencies and private sector companies consider part of the country's critical infrastructure. Such firms include utilities, communications providers and financial institutions.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.). It will also create a new Cybersecurity Compliance Division within DHS that would make sure organizations comply with the new security regulations. The lawmakers argue DHS has not had sufficient authority or resources to fulfill its mission as the lead federal agency for cyversecurity.

“From a security and good-government standpoint, the way to deliver better cybersecurity is to leverage, modify, and enhance existing structures and efforts, rather than make wholesale bureaucratic changes," Thompson said in a statement. "This bill will make our Nation more secure and better positions DHS – the ‘focal point for the security of cyberspace’ – to fulfill its critical homeland security mission.”

Unlike the cybersecurity bill that passed the Senate Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, the House bill does not include any provision for a cybersecurity office within the White House. Instead it concentrates authority to prevent and respond to cyber attacks within DHS, where it would be subject to Congressional oversight.

"This bill will provide the DHS with the authority and resources needed to adequately protect our Nation’s cyberspace and infrastructure," Clarke said in a statement. "I believe the security of our cyber infrastructure is connected to our national security. This bill will protect our country from a growing risk of ‘hacks’ and better allow the Department to fulfill its duties of protecting our nation.”

Cybersecurity legislation is likely to be a tough sell during the lame duck session, particularly in the Senate where there is opposition to concentrating more authority in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. However, Thompson's bill is close enough to the Senate Homeland Security bill in its intent that some sort of compromise may be possible if Senate Majority leader Harry Reid elects to bring the matter to the floor before adjourning next week.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...ector-networks





F.B.I. Seeks Wider Wiretap Law for Web
Charlie Savage

Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, traveled to Silicon Valley on Tuesday to meet with top executives of several technology firms about a proposal to make it easier to wiretap Internet users.

Mr. Mueller and the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Valerie Caproni, were scheduled to meet with senior managers of several major companies, including Google and Facebook, according to several people familiar with the discussions. How Mr. Mueller’s proposal was received was not clear.

“I can confirm that F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller is visiting Facebook during his trip to Silicon Valley,” said Andrew Noyes, Facebook’s public policy manager. Michael Kortan, an F.B.I. spokesman, acknowledged the meetings but did not elaborate.

Mr. Mueller wants to expand a 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, to impose regulations on Internet companies.

The law requires phone and broadband network access providers like Verizon and Comcast to make sure they can immediately comply when presented with a court wiretapping order.

Law enforcement officials want the 1994 law to also cover Internet companies because people increasingly communicate online. An interagency task force of Obama administration officials is trying to develop legislation for the plan, and submit it to Congress early next year.

The Commerce Department and State Department have questioned whether it would inhibit innovation, as well as whether repressive regimes might harness the same capabilities to identify political dissidents, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Under the proposal, firms would have to design systems to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages. Services based overseas would have to route communications through a server on United States soil where they could be wiretapped.

A Google official declined to comment. Mr. Noyes said it would be premature for Facebook to take a position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/te...17wiretap.html





Stuxnet Virus Could Target Many Industries
Lolita C. Baldor

A malicious computer attack that appears to target Iran's nuclear plants can be modified to wreak havoc on industrial control systems around the world, and represents the most dire cyberthreat known to industry, government officials and experts said Wednesday.

They warned that industries are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the so-called Stuxnet worm as they merge networks and computer systems to increase efficiency. The growing danger, said lawmakers, makes it imperative that Congress move on legislation that would expand government controls and set requirements to make systems safer.

The complex code is not only able to infiltrate and take over systems that control manufacturing and other critical operations, but it has even more sophisticated abilities to silently steal sensitive intellectual property data, experts said.

Dean Turner, director of the Global Intelligence Network at Symantec Corp., told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the "real-world implications of Stuxnet are beyond any threat we have seen in the past."

Analysts and government officials told the senators they remain unable to determine who launched the attack. But the design and performance of the code, and that the bulk of the attacks were in Iran, have fueled speculation that it targeted Iranian nuclear facilities.

Turner said there were 44,000 unique Stuxnet computer infections worldwide through last week, and 1,600 in the United States. Sixty percent of the infections were in Iran, including several employees' laptops at the Bushehr nuclear plant.

Iran has said it believes Stuxnet is part of a Western plot to sabotage its nuclear program, but experts see few signs of major damage at Iranian facilities.

A senior government official warned Wednesday that attackers can use information made public about the Stuxnet worm to develop variations targeting other industries, affecting the production of everything from chemicals to baby formula.

"This code can automatically enter a system, steal the formula for the product you are manufacturing, alter the ingredients being mixed in your product and indicate to the operator and your antivirus software that everything is functioning as expected," said Sean McGurk, acting director of Homeland Security's national cybersecurity operations center.

Stuxnet specifically targets businesses that use Windows operating software and a control system designed by Siemens AG. That combination, said McGurk, is used in many critical sectors, from automobile assembly to mixing products such as chemicals.

Turner added that the code's highly sophisticated structure and techniques also could mean that it is a one-in-a-decade occurrence. The virus is so complex and costly to develop "that a select few attackers would be capable of producing a similar threat," he said.

Experts said governments and industries can do much more to protect critical systems.

Michael Assante, who heads the newly created, not-for-profit National Board of Information Security Examiners, told lawmakers that control systems need to be walled off from other networks to make it harder for hackers to access them. And he encouraged senators to beef up government authorities and consider placing performance requirements and other standards on the industry to curtail unsafe practices and make systems more secure.

"We can no longer ignore known system weaknesses and simply accept current system limitations," he said. "We must admit that our current security strategies are too disjointed and are often, in unintended ways, working against our efforts to address" cybersecurity challenges.

The panel chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said legislation on the matter will be a top priority after lawmakers return in January.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101117/..._cyber_threats





Dell Offering First Encryption Product
Ellen Messmer

Dell Wednesday announced its first endpoint encryption product, along with the possibility of factory installation on certain Dell PCs.

The software, Dell Data Protection, is file-based encryption software co-developed with Credant Technologies, according to David Konetski, Dell Business Client, Office of the CTO. The enterprise edition, especially suitable for small- to midsized businesses, includes a management console and policy templates that allow for automated encryption of certain files, along with a reporting capability to generate reports for compliance purposes.

"Many of our customers have small IT departments but the company is still required to be compliant with regulations," says Konetski, pointing to the Payment Card Industry (PCI) data-security requirements and the healthcare data privacy and security law, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as examples.

The Dell Data Protection product includes a way to generate reports based on specific regulatory regimes, like HIPAA or PCI, Konetski says. The encryption software, OEMed from Credant, is already certified under the government FIPS security-evaluation program.

Dell anticipates being able to offer additional security-related products in the future that are expected to also make use of the management console introduced with Dell Data Protection, which starts at about $60 per seat, with volume discounts available.
Dells says factory installation of the technology will be available on its Latitude notebooks, OptiPlex desktops and Precision mobile and desktop workstations.
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=5B1...F5B44DCE2DF268





Attacker That Sharpened Facebook’s Defenses
Riva Richmond

A friend on Facebook suggests that you watch an amazing or funny or sexy video. The link may seem innocuous enough. But with a few simple clicks, you could end up infecting your PC with the Koobface worm.

Koobface, whose name is an anagram for its preferred social network, is a malicious program that has plagued Facebook for more than two years, ensnaring hundreds of thousands of people and keeping the site’s security team on the defense.

The worm was Facebook’s first major security challenge and remains the most persistent threat on the site. As such, Koobface has played a big role in shaping Facebook’s approach to combating malicious software, or malware, and propelled the development of increasingly elaborate defenses.

Yet the worm continues to be a thorn in the side of Facebook’s in-house investigators, who say they are on the trail of the organized criminal group that created it but, so far, have been denied the satisfaction of arrests.

Koobface, which spreads only on social networks, appeared on Facebook in May 2008 and has hit nearly every major social network since then. While not the first or only worm to strike social sites, it is notable for the way it has relentlessly returned again and again, particularly to Facebook.

There have been 136 versions of Koobface’s main component alone, said Ryan R. Flores, a senior threat researcher at the security software company Trend Micro. By continually adapting to obstacles set up by Facebook and the security industry, “Koobface is the one that made it big,” he said.

The attacks have pushed Facebook to expand its security team, to develop a sophisticated apparatus for quickly detecting and stopping malicious activity, to create tools for talking with its users about security and to build relationships within the security industry. And the company continues to gather evidence that could help law enforcement arrest and prosecute those responsible.

“Our goal with regard to Koobface, and with every case, is to make sure that the damage stops, and that’s our No. 1 priority,” said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer at Facebook. “We want the message to get out that we will go on the offensive and that we will be aggressive in these types of cases.”

The saber-rattling comes after Nick Bilogorskiy, a malware expert at Facebook, told a crowd at a security industry conference in September that Facebook knew the identities of Koobface’s creators and was working with law enforcement. Mr. Sullivan declined to provide further details, citing a company policy on not discussing investigations.

The lack of arrests in the case underscores how difficult it is to find and apprehend online criminals, who often hide their tracks and live in countries where they have little to fear from the law.

Researchers at Information Warfare Monitor, a Canadian group, released a report on Friday that details the Koobface criminal enterprise, saying its operators live in St. Petersburg, Russia. “The Koobface gang might as well be living on Mars, so poorly developed are the mechanisms of international law enforcement cooperation,” wrote Ron Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski in the report.

Nart Villeneuve, the report’s lead researcher, estimated that the group earned more than $2 million from June 2009 to June 2010 by delivering the victims of its worm to unscrupulous marketers and makers of fake antivirus software. He said the release of the report coincided with a multiweek effort to dismantle the group’s infrastructure and take down its “botnet,” or network of Koobface-infected PCs, though he conceded it was likely to be rebuilt.

With the group still at large, Facebook can only limit the damage by acting quickly to stop attacks. The company’s security team has about 20 members, but at any one time, some 50 Facebook employees from various departments are focused on such problems.

“When it comes to malware, it’s kind of a companywide effort because it is one of our biggest threats,” said Mr. Sullivan, who spent eight years as a prosecutor with the Justice Department and was its first prosecutor to focus full time on high-tech crime, working closely with the F.B.I. and other agencies.

A Koobface attack starts with an invitation to watch a video and a message about updating the computer’s Flash software. Clicking to get the update begins the download of Koobface, which gives criminals control of the computer, while the worm tries to spread itself further through the victim’s social network contacts.

The computer then becomes part of the Koobface botnet, which the security software firm Kaspersky Labs estimates is made up of 400,000 to 800,000 PCs worldwide. “That definitely makes Koobface one of the most significant botnets out there,” said Roel Schouwenberg, a senior researcher.

To halt Koobface, Facebook uses algorithms that can detect suspicious posts and hijacked accounts, looking for unusual behavior like log-ins from odd places and a surge in messages sent. Facebook also keeps a blacklist of malicious Web links to prevent them from being shared on the site. When Koobface posts find a way through, members of the operations team remove them.

All this typically happens within an hour or so of the suspicious posts, Mr. Sullivan said. “The whole purpose of a social network is to help facilitate communication. So as a result, there’s the potential for fast propagation if we don’t stay on top of things.”

Facebook also has systems to detect the fake profiles the group uses to seed attacks. Still, researchers recently identified more than 20,000 fake accounts, which they reported to Facebook as part of the takedown effort. The profiles tend to include pictures of attractive women, and some accumulated as many as a thousand “friends,” even though Facebook warns users not to befriend strangers on the site.

Facebook developers have created roadblocks that can help halt the attacks. For instance, if Facebook detects malicious activity and suspects a user’s PC has become infected, it will temporarily suspend the account and require that the user run a free McAfee antivirus scan and remove infections.

The safeguards are not always foolproof. The Koobface group has managed to circumvent “Captcha” tests, or requirements to type words that are difficult for machines to read, by tricking its victims into solving them.

Some in the security industry express frustration over a lack of progress in the Koobface case. Mr. Rohozinski said his group decided to go public with its findings after becoming convinced that there would be no arrests.

Mr. Sullivan is taking a more patient approach. “The speed that investigations and prosecutions move, sometimes they can from the outside seem slow,” he said. While the obstacles are real — gathering evidence across borders is particularly time-consuming — American law enforcement is committed to fighting international Internet crime, he said.

Raymond A. Pompon, senior security officer at HCL CapitalStream, which provides electronic services for financial institutions, said such prosecutions were tricky. “Oftentimes you do know who it is, but you actually have to prove this person did it — his hands were on the keyboard.”

If or when the time for prosecution comes, Facebook is unlikely to hold back. It has pursued a number of civil suits against spammers and scammers that have led to record judgments.

“We’re pretty relentless,” Mr. Sullivan said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/te...gy/15worm.html





New Facebook Messaging Continues to Block P2P Links
Ryan Singel

Facebook’s “modern messaging system” may make it convenient to seamlessly move between instant messaging and a Facebook.com e-mail account, but not if you are sharing a link to a file sharing site.

Facebook began blocking BitTorrent link-sharing on Facebook walls and news feeds last spring, and also started blocking private messages between users that included a link to torrents on the Pirate Bay.

Facebook says that content censorship policy isn’t changing, even as its new Facebook Messages service gives users e-mail accounts and encourages them to communicate even more through Facebook.

“We have systems in place to prevent abuse on Facebook and prevent spam which we’ll continue to deploy with the new Messages,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a written statement. “We don’t share specifics on those systems.”

When a user tries to share a Pirate Bay link (including those to copyright-free content) in a message, Facebook analyzes the link and returns an error message saying “Message Failed. This message contains blocked content that has been previously flagged as abusive or spammy. Let us know if you think this is an error.” The block extends to all Pirate Bay links, including one for a Canterbury Tales file in the public domain.

As a communications service, Facebook isn’t liable for the content of any of the messages on its service or even on user’s profiles. Facebook’s blocking is legally questionable under federal wiretapping laws, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Facebook says it’s within its legal rights to block links, and does so to protect intellectual property rights.

But it’s an extraordinary step for an online messaging service to take — censoring users on the basis of content. Like other mail systems, Facebook weeds out malicious links and spam.

Facebook has a score for how closely you are “friends” with each of your Facebook friends, and it’s likely that the increased messaging on Facebook will be used to tweak those scores. Facebook declined to answer a question about whether it would do so. However, those scores are key to Facebook’s News wall, where the company selectively tells you what your friends are up to, so that you see more of what your best friend is up to, than what your long-lost friend from summer camp is doing.

So will Facebook begin using the content of messages to better profile its users?

The company says no.

“Facebook Messages is about person-to-person communication and messages are private,” the same spokesperson said. “Facebook is not using any content in messages for its own use.”

That’s an odd sentiment to square with the company’s filtering of messages before they are sent, but that’s their line and they are sticking to it.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...omment-page-1/





Start-Up Plans a More Personal Social Network
Claire Cain Miller

Facebook made oversharing with a small army of friends a mainstream activity. Now, one of its early architects is swinging in the other direction.

Dave Morin, who helped build Facebook Connect and the Facebook Platform, left the company this year to start his own venture, called Path. He says it is not another social network he has created, but a personal network, and on Monday, it will open to the public with an iPhone app for sharing cellphone photos with a limited circle of friends.

Each user cannot have more than 50 friends.

Path is a reaction to Facebook, where people must both agree to be friends, but can have thousands of them, and Twitter, where anyone can choose to receive a user’s posts.

“If you look at how these networks are grown, they start out really high-quality,” said Mr. Morin, “and as more and more people join, it becomes hard to find people you care about. With Path, you have to be friends with them in the real world in order for them to pop up on your screen.”

Path, which is starting with the iPhone app and a Web site and plans to build apps for Android and BlackBerry, has kept its plans shrouded in secrecy. It now joins a growing list of similar apps, like Instagram and PicPlz. The apps are part of several big trends. As cellphone cameras have improved, people are taking more photos than ever before. Tech entrepreneurs and investors are betting that these photographers also want to share their handiwork, especially in real-time and linked to their location.

Path, along with the other apps, wants to build a broader mobile network, not just photo-sharing apps. It envisions people using a new mobile social network, in addition to Facebook, to share photos, videos and other things with a close-knit group. However, the rival apps differ from Path by offering software filters, which change the way photos look. They also follow Twitter’s model, so any user can see anyone else’s pictures.

Path is counting on people wanting a more controlled network of trusted friends. Mr. Morin chose the number 50 based on the research of Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist who tried to pinpoint the maximum number of people with whom others could have stable relationships. The Dunbar number, generally thought to be around 150, is a popular topic of discussion in Silicon Valley among people building tools to communicate virtually with thousands of people.

But Mr. Morin is focused on a different one of Mr. Dunbar’s numbers — the number of people that an individual knows and trusts, like the group you would invite to a birthday party. That number is between 40 and 60, Mr. Morin said.

Though Facebook allows users to limit their friends or create private groups, Facebook abstainers “simply don’t feel like they have a private enough place to share,” Mr. Morin said. “The devil’s in the defaults,” he said, and Path’s default will be to limit sharing.

On Path, people tag photos with the names of people, places and things. At its makeshift office in an apartment on the 40th floor of a glass high-rise overlooking San Francisco Bay, people have tagged mocha, fireworks, foie gras, selling emotion and beer.
The tags stay in the database for others to use, which has given birth to memes, like one in the Path office for Happy Socks, a brand of patterned socks that are a favorite of Mr. Morin and Matt Van Horn, Path’s vice president of business.

Users can pick up to 50 friends to see their photos. The friendship does not have to be mutual, so they might send photos to someone who does not send photos to them. With one swipe, users can also make a picture visible only to the people tagged in it, so friends who were not invited to a dinner party won’t feel left out, for instance.

“We solve for that social ambiguity that we all have in the real world,” Mr. Morin said.

Academics who research the way we socialize online say that social networks that group all our friends, colleagues and acquaintances together do not accurately reflect our offline relationships, which can be a source of tension for Internet users.

“People are not able to see that this technology can offer them the same level of protection and behavior patterns that they are used to in their offline lives, so they feel violated,” said S. Shyam Sundar, co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University who is currently a visiting professor in South Korea.

But people already using Facebook — and LinkedIn, Ping, Foursquare, Google Buzz or others — may have a severe case of social-networking fatigue when asked to join yet another service.

“There were a whole slew of mobile-only social networks that you never heard of that were all trying to beat Facebook for this new medium,” said Greg Sterling, an analyst who researches the mobile Internet. “They either got bought or just shriveled up.”

Chris Kelly, Facebook’s former chief privacy officer, contributed to Path’s $2.5 million in angel investment. “I think everyone’s going to have a Facebook account and use it for broader distribution, but I also think they’re going to have a very tightly controlled set of friends they share deeply connected moments with,” he said. “I think that Path could be the network for that.”

Path has not yet figured out how it will make money, though it says it has considered selling services like filters or themes for photographs or advertising. The limited number of people could make it difficult to attract advertisers, but Mr. Morin thinks otherwise:

“Because people are posting such immense amounts of information about their lives, there could be more opportunities for brands to talk to Path users in a more personal way than they ever have before.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/te...y/15photo.html





The Hipster in the Mirror
Mark Greif

A year ago, my colleagues and I started to investigate the contemporary hipster. What was the “hipster,” and what did it mean to be one? It was a puzzle. No one, it seemed, thought of himself as a hipster, and when someone called you a hipster, the term was an insult. Paradoxically, those who used the insult were themselves often said to resemble hipsters — they wore the skinny jeans and big eyeglasses, gathered in tiny enclaves in big cities, and looked down on mainstream fashions and “tourists.” Most puzzling was how rattled sensible, down-to-earth people became when we posed hipster-themed questions. When we announced a public debate on hipsterism, I received e-mail messages both furious and plaintive. Normally inquisitive people protested that there could be no answer and no definition. Maybe hipsters didn’t exist! The responses were more impassioned than those we’d had in our discussions on health care, young conservatives and feminism. And perfectly blameless individuals began flagellating themselves: “Am I a hipster?”

I wondered if I could guess the root of their pain. It’s a superficial topic, yet it seemed that so much was at stake. Why? Because struggles over taste (and “taste” is the hipster’s primary currency) are never only about taste. I began to wish that everyone I talked to had read just one book to give these fraught debates a frame: “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,” by Pierre Bourdieu.

A French sociologist who died in 2002 at age 71, Bourdieu is sometimes wrongly associated with postmodern philosophers. But he did share with other post-1968 French thinkers a wish to show that lofty philosophical ideals couldn’t be separated from the conflicts of everyday life. Subculture had not been his area, precisely, but neither would hipsters have been beneath his notice.

He came from a family of peasants in the foothills of the Pyrenees. His father was elevated by a job in the village post office — although he always emphasized that he had attained his position by being neither better nor different. Pierre, as a child, was elevated yet more drastically by the school system. He so distinguished himself in the classroom that he was carried to studies at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. This was the pinnacle of French intellect, the path of Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

Yet Bourdieu chose to make it his life’s work to debunk the powerful classes’ pretensions that they were more deserving of authority or wealth than those below. He aimed his critiques first at his own class of elites — professors and intellectuals — then at the media, the political class and the propertied class.

“Distinction,” published in 1979, was an undisputed masterwork. In it, Bourdieu set out to show the social logic of taste: how admiration for art, appreciation of music, even taste in food, came about for different groups, and how “superior” taste was not the result of an enchanted superiority in scattered individuals.

This may seem a long way from Wellington-booted and trucker-hatted American youth in gentrifying neighborhoods. But Bourdieu’s innovation, applicable here, was to look beyond the traditional trappings of rich or poor to see battles of symbols (like those boots and hats) traversing all society, reinforcing the class structure just as money did.

Over several years in the 1960s, Bourdieu and his researchers surveyed 1,200 people of all classes and mined government data on aspects of French domestic life. They asked, for instance, Which of the following subjects would be most likely to make a beautiful photograph? and offered such choices as a sunset, a girl with a cat or a car crash. From government dietary research, they took data on the classic question: Do you think French people eat too much? The statistical results were striking. The things you prefer — tastes that you like to think of as personal, unique, justified only by sensibility — correspond tightly to defining measures of social class: your profession, your highest degree and your father’s profession.

The power of Bourdieu’s statistics was to show how rigid and arbitrary the local conformities were. In American terms, he was like an updater of Thorstein Veblen, who gave us the idea of “conspicuous consumption.” College teachers and artists, unusual in believing that a beautiful photo could be made from a car crash, began to look conditioned to that taste, rather than sophisticated or deep. White-collar workers who defined themselves by their proclivity to eat only light foods — as opposed to farmworkers, who weren’t ashamed to treat themselves to “both cheese and a dessert” — seemed not more refined, but merely more conventional.

Taste is not stable and peaceful, but a means of strategy and competition. Those superior in wealth use it to pretend they are superior in spirit. Groups closer in social class who yet draw their status from different sources use taste and its attainments to disdain one another and get a leg up. These conflicts for social dominance through culture are exactly what drive the dynamics within communities whose members are regarded as hipsters.

Once you take the Bourdieuian view, you can see how hipster neighborhoods are crossroads where young people from different origins, all crammed together, jockey for social gain. One hipster subgroup’s strategy is to disparage others as “liberal arts college grads with too much time on their hands”; the attack is leveled at the children of the upper middle class who move to cities after college with hopes of working in the “creative professions.” These hipsters are instantly declassed, reservoired in abject internships and ignored in the urban hierarchy — but able to use college-taught skills of classification, collection and appreciation to generate a superior body of cultural “cool.”

They, in turn, may malign the “trust fund hipsters.” This challenges the philistine wealthy who, possessed of money but not the nose for culture, convert real capital into “cultural capital” (Bourdieu’s most famous coinage), acquiring subculture as if it were ready-to-wear. (Think of Paris Hilton in her trucker hat.)

Both groups, meanwhile, look down on the couch-#surfing, old-clothes-wearing hipsters who seem most authentic but are also often the most socially precarious — the lower-middle-class young, moving up through style, but with no backstop of parental culture or family capital. They are the bartenders and boutique clerks who wait on their well-to-do peers and wealthy tourists. Only on the basis of their cool clothes can they be “superior”: hipster knowledge compensates for economic immobility.

All hipsters play at being the inventors or first adopters of novelties: pride comes from knowing, and deciding, what’s cool in advance of the rest of the world. Yet the habits of hatred and accusation are endemic to hipsters because they feel the weakness of everyone’s position — including their own. Proving that someone is trying desperately to boost himself instantly undoes him as an opponent. He’s a fake, while you are a natural aristocrat of taste. That’s why “He’s not for real, he’s just a hipster” is a potent insult among all the people identifiable as hipsters themselves.

The attempt to analyze the hipster provokes such universal anxiety because it calls everyone’s bluff. And hipsters aren’t the only ones unnerved. Many of us try to justify our privileges by pretending that our superb tastes and intellect prove we deserve them, reflecting our inner superiority. Those below us economically, the reasoning goes, don’t appreciate what we do; similarly, they couldn’t fill our jobs, handle our wealth or survive our difficulties. Of course this is a terrible lie. And Bourdieu devoted his life to exposing it. Those who read him in effect become responsible to him — forced to admit a failure to examine our own lives, down to the seeming trivialities of clothes and distinction that, as Bourdieu revealed, also structure our world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/bo...w/Greif-t.html





Steve Wozniak: Android Will be the Dominant Smartphone Platform
Thomas Ricker

Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, has never been one to mince words. Today's no different as demonstrated in an interview with the Dutch-language De Telegraaf newspaper in The Netherlands. The first revelation is an admission that Apple had collaborated with a well-known Japanese consumer electronics company in 2004 to develop a phone that was ahead of its time. Woz is quoted as saying that while Apple was content with the quality, it "wanted something that could amaze the world." Obviously, the phone was shelved followed by Apple's announcement of the iPhone in January 2007.

Woz then moved on to the topic of Android saying that Android smartphones, not the iPhone, would become dominant, noting that the Google OS is likely to win the race similarly to the way that Windows ultimately dominated the PC world. Woz stressed that the iPhone, "Has very few weak points. There aren't any real complaints and problems. In terms of quality, the iPhone is leading." However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.

Steve closed the interview with a jab at Nokia calling it, "the brand from a previous generation" suggesting that the boys from Finland should introduce a new brand for a young consumer. Hmm, so we guess he'll be in line for the launch of the MeeGo-based N9 then?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/s...hone-platform/





Android Ad Requests up 2182% Since January, Now Tied with iOS
Sarah Perez

For the first time ever, Android has tied with Apple's iOS platform in terms of mobile ad impressions on Millennial Media's mobile advertising network, according to its latest monthly report. Android's mobile operating system has seen rapid gains over the course of 2010, and has increased its ad requests by 2182% since January, growing at a rate of 65% month-over-month.

Android now has a 37% impression share, as does Apple's iOS, says Millennial Media.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2...d-with-iOS.php





Smartphone Sales Taking Toll on G.P.S. Devices
Kevin J. O'Brien

The auto navigation device, a fixture of dashboards around the world for the past seven years, may soon begin to disappear, industry experts say, as satellite-tracking technology is absorbed into smartphones and automobiles.

Berg Insight, a Swedish research company that tracks the navigation industry, estimates that the number of personal navigation devices shipped globally will peak in 2011 at 42 million, up from 40 million this year, before beginning a gradual, but inexorable decline.

Berg sees annual shipments of the devices, which fix location by communicating with global positioning satellites, falling to 30 million in 2015.

“The reason this is happening is basically the smartphone,” said Tom Slob, an analyst in Amsterdam for Rabobank, a Dutch bank. “Google and Nokia have both decided to give the technology away for free. That has changed the business.”

Whether competition from the mobile phone industry proves to be a fatal blow to the auto navigation market, however, remains to be seen. The industry leaders, Garmin and TomTom, are fighting back, honing real-time traffic technologies and building in-dash navigators for automakers like Renault, Mazda and Fiat.

“The technology is being partially absorbed into smartphones and in-dash devices,” said Kevin Rauckman, the Garmin chief financial officer. “We are also seeing the industry mature very rapidly. But that in no way means the end of the road for our business.”

Regardless of how companies like Garmin ultimately fare, the uncertainty surrounding the personal navigation industry, whose devices began appearing on dashboards in 2003, is another example of the way smartphones are disrupting many consumer electronics businesses.

Apple has seen sales of its iPhone and iPad, both popular Internet-connected devices, cannibalize those of its iPod music and video players. IPod sales peaked in 2008, one year after Apple introduced the iPhone, at 55.4 million units, according to figures released by Apple, and fell to 52.4 million last year.

Global shipments of digital cameras, another device now commonly integrated into smartphones, fell to 125 million units in 2009 from 140 million in 2008, according to André Malm, a senior analyst at Berg Insight in Goteborg, Sweden.

Mr. Malm said most of the decline probably had been caused by the global economic downturn but smartphones, some of which now come with 12-megapixel cameras, were definitely eroding sales of lower-end digital cameras. Nokia, which sells about 106 million smartphones a year, now claims to be the world’s largest maker of digital cameras.

“There is no doubt that the smartphone is transforming many of these markets, not just navigation devices, but cameras and media players, too,” Mr. Malm said. “These markets aren’t going to disappear, but they are going to change substantially.”

The auto navigation business was humming along until October 2008, when Google introduced Android, an operating system for mobile devices that extended Google Maps and its navigation programs to cellphones. Since then, 45 million people have bought GPS-enabled Android phones, according to Gartner, and many use them in their cars.

Not to be outdone, Nokia, which sells more mobile phones than anyone, began giving away its own navigation software, Ovi Maps, last January to its smartphone users. Nokia sells about 290,000 smartphones each day around the world, 26.5 million in the third quarter alone.

The fallout from Google’s and Nokia’s decisions has roiled the industry, which is dominated by Garmin, based in Switzerland, the market leader; TomTom, based in Amsterdam; and Mitac International of Taiwan, owner of the Mio, Navigon, Magellan and Navman brands. The three make up 68 percent of the market, according to Berg Insight.

Sales at Garmin, which has 35 percent of the global market, fell 11.4 percent in the third quarter to $692.4 million. The company, thanks to $68.6 million in a one-time tax benefit, reported a 30 percent increase in net profit during the quarter, to $279.6 million.

Mr. Rauckman, the Garmin chief financial officer, attributed the downturns in part to competition from smartphones and in-dash devices, but also to the rising availability of GPS navigators in cars. He estimated they were installed in 25 percent of the world’s 700 million cars.

At TomTom, the European market leader, sales rose 3 percent, to €375 million, or $512.4 million, in the third quarter, but the company’s net profit slumped 37 percent, to €19 million from €31 million a year earlier. On Oct. 20, TomTom said it expected 2010 sales and earnings to be unchanged from 2009.

Neither company is ceding the market to Google or Nokia.

TomTom is using anonymous location data from Vodafone cellphone customers in Europe to compile enhanced traffic reports for a dynamic traffic management service it sells in Europe. Garmin has diversified beyond car navigators, generating a third of sales from aviation, maritime and fitness/outdoor devices. Garmin, TomTom and Mitac also sell navigation tools as applications for the iPhone and BlackBerry.

Mr. Rauckman said smartphones could not compete with specialized navigators like Garmin’s Nuvi 3790LMT, which offers speech recognition and 3-D street displays.

“The user interface on our devices is much easier to use than a smartphone,” he said. “That is why people are willing to pay for our products.”

At a presentation to financial analysts Thursday in Amsterdam, the TomTom chief executive, Harold Goddijn, told investors his company was expanding its relationship with Renault, Fiat and Mazda, said Nicolas von Stackelberg, an analyst at Macquarie Securities in Frankfurt.

“Before, the outlook was rather uncertain, but it is brightening now,” Mr. von Stackelberg said. “The fear had been that nobody would need to buy a personal navigation device any more. And yes, there are some who will use their smartphones instead, but there are others who will still want to buy a high-end device from specialists like TomTom or do away with dangling cables and go for a reasonably priced in-dash solution.”

Tim Flight, editor of GPSReview.net, a Web site covering the industry, said it was far too early to write the obituary for auto navigation devices.

“A lot of GPS users are now buying their second device,” said Mr. Flight, who is based in Carrabassett Valley, Maine. “I’m sure the casual user might be satisfied with a smartphone, but people who rely on the devices are still going to opt for a real navigator.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/te...-navigate.html





App to Tailor News Streams Gets Boost
Claire Cain Miller

Publishers’ offices at print newspapers and magazines are tension-filled places these days, as executives watch readers and advertisers flock to the Web and cellphone screens.

Contrast that to the atmosphere at a sunny office on a residential street here, where, amid start-up accoutrements like a bouncy ball chair and a stuffed moose, a few engineers are working on Pulse News Reader, a mobile app that allows users to build a personal newsfeed with the newspapers, magazines and blogs of their choice.

Spirits are high here because the app has been one of the top-selling news iPhone and iPad apps since its debut in May. And its breakout popularity suggests that the people behind Pulse may have begun to answer a question that nags publishers everywhere — how to deliver news and make money in a post-print world.

Pulse’s success is underscored by two announcements expected on Monday from the company that makes the app, Alphonso Labs. The first is that the app, which has cost $1 to $4, will now be free; the goal is to attract more users, and with them, paid partnerships with publishers and advertisers.

The company will also announce that it has raised $800,000 in venture capital, the first step in moving along the path from building an app to running a profitable business.

Pulse allows people to search for publications, connect their Google Reader accounts or share publications by connecting their devices together, using an app called Bump.

The publications appear vertically on the screen, and users scroll horizontally through recent articles from a publication, tapping to read an item. Pulse sends readers to the newspapers’ or blogs’ Web sites.

“We were increasingly reading news on our mobile phones, and we were getting our news from a lot of different sources,” said Akshay Kothari, co-founder and chief executive of Alphonso Labs, explaining how he and his business partner, Ankit Gupta, came up with the idea. “Being able to aggregate all of that content in one place was interesting.”

Pulse was conceived and developed specifically for mobile devices; it is not even accessible on a computer. By contrast, in deciding how to deliver the news on a mobile platform, most news organizations have simply made cellphone versions of their Web sites.

“Older entrepreneurs are thinking, ‘We’ll take the Web and move it on to this new platform,’ ” said Emily Melton, a partner at Mayfield Fund, one of Alphonso’s investors. “But for them, it’s just organic, that this is how information is going to be consumed.”

Pulse is available on the iPad, iPhone and Android phones, and is coming to Android tablets, but it is particularly popular on the iPad, where it remains the top-selling app in the news category and among the top 40 paid apps over all. Readers say they find it attractive and intuitive to use.

Apple advertised the iPad as a news-reading device, and Pulse joins other apps trying to fulfill that promise. Flipboard turns links shared on Twitter and Facebook into a magazine, Instapaper saves long articles for reading offline later and Zinio produces digital versions of magazines. Yet Pulse has overtaken them all.

The success of the company has been a surprise for Mr. Kothari, 24, and Mr. Gupta, 23. Unseasoned entrepreneurs, both grew up in middle-class Indian families. Mr. Kothari came to the United States after high school, and Mr. Gupta after college.

In a class at the Institute of Design at Stanford in April, they built Pulse in six weeks. After it was approval by Apple, they sold it in the App Store. Although they did not publicize it, and despite what they described as its “awful” design, it quickly became the top-selling news app.

They hired a professional designer and introduced a new version two weeks later. Then they received what in Silicon Valley is akin to a blessing from the pope. At the introduction of the iPhone 4, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, highlighted Pulse onstage.

They were watching the event on their computers, with no idea that Pulse would be featured. “We flipped out,” Mr. Kothari said.

Next came a hiccup. The same day, The New York Times asked Apple to remove Pulse from the App Store, which it did. The main complaints from The Times were that its name was being used in marketing the app and that Pulse showed Times content in the frame of the app.

The showing of content is common practice for news aggregation services. Unless Pulse has an agreement with a publisher, it only displays articles and pictures that the publication makes public, usually a headline and the first few lines of an article.

Pulse stopped using The Times name in marketing, the app reappeared in the App Store, and both companies say they now have good relations. “We have an ongoing open dialogue with them,” said Kristin M. Mason, a Times spokeswoman.

So far, Alphonso Labs has made enough money selling apps to run the business, hire six other employees and have some cash left over. It is pursuing advertising and partnerships with publishers.

Alan Patricof, founder of Greycroft Partners, a digital media investment firm that backed Pulse, has introduced the founders to several major media companies.

“The interesting thing is that everybody wants to meet with them,” Mr. Patricof said. “It’s incremental viewership for all these online publications.”

Pulse already has agreements with some publications, like The Huffington Post, to get customized feeds, including bigger pictures and full-length articles. Though that means readers do not always click to The Huffington Post’s site, it is worthwhile because Pulse encourages people to share articles with friends, said Paul Berry, Huffington Post’s chief technology officer. Readers can e-mail Pulse articles or send them to Facebook, Twitter or Instapaper.

“We feel they are potentially capable of generating significant social traffic to publishers,” Mr. Berry said.

KQED, the Bay Area’s NPR station, gives Pulse feeds for its food, science and education blogs. Sharing articles is “always a push and pull,” said Tim Olson, KQED’s vice president for digital media and education. “Pulse and Flipboard are exciting because the interface is really different, the way you consume it flipping and navigating in a sit-on-the-couch kind of way.”

For small blogs that do not have the resources to build their own mobile apps, Pulse could serve as their main app, Mr. Kothari and Mr. Gupta say. To help readers discover new information sources, it features 10 publications, often small blogs, each week, and it is considering ways to incorporate recommendations from readers’ friends or experts in particular fields.

Jean Aw, founder of Notcot, a network of fashion and design blogs featured on Pulse, said that Notcot still planned to build its own iPad app, but that Pulse had been driving traffic to the sites. “I’ve heard from readers who said, ‘We discovered you when we were playing with Pulse.’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/te...y/15pulse.html





News Corp Confirms Tablet Publication is Close

News Corp is close to revealing a news publication developed especially for tablet computers like Apple's iPad, James Murdoch confirmed on Wednesday.

"It's a tablet-only product and it's very exciting," Murdoch, who heads the media group's operations in Europe and Asia, told journalists on the sidelines of an investor conference in Spain. "You'll hear more about that soon."

He said it was largely a U.S. product, but declined to elaborate further.

News Corp is leading a movement by some newspaper and magazine publishers to push consumers to pay for news they have been accustomed to reading for free on the Web.

The group's British newspaper arm has already put the Times of London, the Sunday Times and best-selling Sunday tabloid the News of the World behind so-called paywalls, and is making big bets on applications for tablets.

"The tablet in general, it lends itself to a type of journalism that is really new," Murdoch said, highlighting the way print looks on tablets and the multi-touch screens that encourage interaction from readers.

"These really are becoming our flagship products, even though they're very much in their infancy," he said.

Apple has sold more than 7.5 million iPads since they became available in April. Samsung has followed with the Galaxy, and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion plans its own offering, the PlayBook, early next year.

(Reporting by Georgina Prodhan, editing by Dave Zimmerman)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AG4RH20101117





WSJ Warnings About Privacy Invading Cookies Carry Privacy Invading Cookies

Can you move this one to the 'Irony' section?
Kevin Fogarty

The Wall Street Journal posted a story yesterday about the Obama administration's plan to add a privacy watching task force to evaluate rules on cookies, metacookies, flash cookies and all the other online threats to consumer privacy.

It's part of a pretty useful section tracking privacy issues, privacy protection tools and the threats thereof from online marketers, from the point of view and on the technical level of a relatively savvy consumer.

This presents an existential conflict for a publication spiritually more dedicated to the laissez-faire priorities of the marketers and lead-generators who work daily to invade the privacy of WSJ readers -- including an explanation of the financial justification behind prying that comes down, barely, on the side of consumers. But we'll overlook the conflict for now.

The section does look at sites voluntarily cutting back their online activity tracking, has how-tos on limiting the amount of surveillance you allow, stories on how to use IE's privacy filters and how some at Microsoft wanted to limit the incursions, as well as lists of some of the worst offenders.

In just one story (of many) the NYT covers most of those angles and links to even more tools.

Among the tools mentioned are Ghostery and Better Privacy, Firefox add-ons I'd installed but rarely used that, when I fired them up, showed an interesting result.

Of the threatening, deletion-resistant Flash cookies they revealed on in my browser, tracking my trip over to the NYT to read more: two from the Wall Street Journal.

At the WSJ, the "wall" between advertising and editorial clearly still exists; but there are bore-holes through which some of its business partners have snaked cameras watching readers enjoy their rights to privacy and freedom from exploitation.
http://www.itworld.com/security/1274...vading-cookies





Adblock Plus, The Popular Firefox Add-On, Hits 100 Million Downloads
Robin Wauters

You sure love blocking ads when you’re browsing the Web, don’t you?

Adblock Plus, the hugely popular Firefox add-on, has been downloaded over 100 million times, its creator is set to announce soon. That’s a record number of installs for a browser app, and one that will be hard to beat, too.

In hopes of avoiding the wrath of my fellow TechCrunch staff writer Jason Kincaid, here’s another interesting key stat that will be announced later today: more than 12 million people apparently use Adblock Plus to browse the Web advertising-free every day.

Adblock Plus is an open-source project that aims to “put users back in control” of their browsing experience, enabling them to block online ads and halt tracking by marketing agencies and publishers.

In a recently published blog post, Adblock Plus developer Wladimir Palant revealed that he had recently secured funding from an unnamed Samaritan, enabling him to quit his day job at Songbird and work on the ABP project full-time for the next two years.

Based on the add-on’s popularity and growth rate, he appears to have chosen wisely.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/17/adb...s-100-million/





Study: Wi-Fi Makes Our Trees Sick
Alex Williams

Data centers hum day and night. More often than ever before we connect to these cloud environments through Wi-Fi networks.

According to PCWorld, now it looks like the radiation from Wi-Fi networks is making our trees sick, "causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark."

All deciduous trees in the Western hemisphere are affected by the radiation. The study was conducted by the Wageningen University. The research was ordered by officials from the city of Alphen aan den Rijn who began discovering trees that had a sickness that could not be identified as a virus or bacterial infection.

After further study, it was discovered that the disease occurred throughout the Western world.

Trees in urban areas appear most affected. The study found that 70% of all trees in urban areas show the symptoms, compared to 10% five years ago. Trees in dense forests do not appear to be impacted.

Wireless LAN networks and mobile phone networks may be only partly to blame. Ultrafine particle emissions from cars and trucks may also be responsible.

According to PCWorld:

"The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a "lead-like shine" on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit the growth of corn cobs."

More research is needed to confirm the results and determine the long-term effects.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/20...g-our-tree.php





Colorless, Tasteless but Not Dangerous
Dwight Garner

WHITER SHADES OF PALE

The Stuff White People Like, Coast to Coast, From Seattle’s Sweaters to Maine’s Microbrews

By Christian Lander

Illustrated. 232 pages. Random House. $15.

“Being white these days is not what it used to be,” Nell Irvin Painter wrote near the end of her monumental survey, “The History of White People,” published earlier this year. Ms. Painter, an emeritus history professor at Princeton University, noted the achievements of the Obamas and Oprah Winfrey and many other blacks and Latinos and asked, tongue only slightly in cheek, “Is this the end of race in America?”

Not in bookstores it isn’t. So many volumes about race and its discontents are published each year that you could keep a specialty bookstore stocked with them. In the back of that imagined bookstore (where the “adult” stuff used to reside) there’d be a selection of vaguely self-loathing books you’d be tempted to label Ironic White Studies.

In 2010 these books have included “True Prep,” Lisa Birnbach’s sequel to “The Official Preppy Handbook,” and on the other side of the intellectual spectrum, “What Was the Hipster?: A Sociological Investigation,” published by the literary magazine n + 1. This lofty and invigorating book is in part, as one of its editors writes, “a parody of academic proceedings.”

Then there’s the book in front of us today, Christian Lander’s low-key but preternaturally excellent “Whiter Shades of Pale.” It’s a sequel to his first book, “Stuff White People Like” (2008), which was issued with a pleasantly biting subtitle: “The Definitive Guide to the Unique Taste of Millions.”

Mr. Lander’s books — like Ms. Birnbach’s and the n + 1 volume — are as much about class as they are about race. They’re about that demographic slice of educated (or self-cultivated) people who are drawn to places where the good cheese stores, coffee bars, bookshops, art movie houses and indie bands are — places where, perhaps as importantly, there are plenty of other people pretty much like themselves.

Needless to say, this bunch is easily satirized, and few people alive are as deft at this satire as is Mr. Lander. His books are painfully observant, and they take you places that “The Daily Show” and The Onion, those reliable dispensers of elite wit, mostly don’t. They’re among the prickliest guides through the American status system since Paul Fussell’s “Class” (1983).

The conceit of Mr. Lander’s books is that he’s explaining, like some cross-cultural docent, the absurd cultural tastes of white people — in his universe they’re as skittish and insecure as they are hypocritical and self-satisfied — to baffled nonwhites. The white people under Mr. Lander’s microscope are emphatically not those who enjoy Nascar, Sarah Palin, bratwursts, deer hunting, Metallica or “Ice Road Truckers” in any way except ironically. People who do gravitate toward these sort of things, he warns, sotto voce, might be “the wrong kind of white person.”

“Stuff White People Like” contained mini-disquisitions on things like “Wes Anderson movies,” “hardwood floors,” “making you feel bad for not going outside,” “acoustic covers,” “carbon offsets,” “public radio,” “hating their parents,” “not having a TV” and “knowing what’s best for poor people.” Funny, but also shooting fish in a barrel.

In “Whiter Shades of Pale,” Mr. Lander’s targets are more far-flung, and it’s a treat to watch him take aim. He takes note of the industries, in addition to classical music, that survive solely on white guilt: “Penguin Classics, the S.P.C.A., free-range chicken farms, and the entire rubber bracelet market.” About the chef Anthony Bourdain’s TV show — during which Mr. Bourdain eats arcane dishes and complains about tourists — the author writes, “There hasn’t been a show this reaffirming to white people since ‘Seinfeld.’ ”

He explains sea salt’s current vogue: “When white people think about regular salt, all they can think about is sodium and poor health. When they think about sea salt they think about France.”

Many of his observations are more pointed. About picking your own fruit: “When white people harvest a crop it’s known as ‘berry picking.’ ” About flea markets: “Once again white people have taken over something that poor people used to like and made it extremely expensive.” At a “Mad Men” theme party, he says, “you can severely curtail the amount of fun by saying, ‘I’m glad this isn’t really 1960 or else I’d be serving all of you.’ ”

Mr. Lander displays little knowledge of whiteness studies as an academic field, nor does he evince any awareness of its classic texts, including Toni Morrison’s “Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination” (1992) or David R. Roediger’s “Wages of Whiteness” (1991).

But his project does toy smartly with the relatively new notion that, as put by J. Craig Venter, among the first to sequence the human genome, “Race is a social concept, not a scientific one.” In Mr. Lander’s comic universe, the bar of entry into the white world is low and open to people of every race. You simply need to develop some slightly odd enthusiasms and deploy ease and irony whenever possible.

You may also need to put your children in harm’s way. Many white mothers refuse to vaccinate their children, Mr. Lander (who is himself white) suggests, because “deep down they are secretly hoping that all the vaccinated children have ‘caught’ autism, and that their child will be virtually guaranteed that top-of-the-class ranking.”

Other sections are simply stray rays of comic sunshine. Considering the phenomenon of Frisbee sports, he deadpans: “You will never see hippies get more upset than on an Ultimate Frisbee Field. It can be jarring to see people who look like they should be playing acoustic guitars yelling at each other about whether Blake stepped out of bounds.”

And what’s the appeal, besides its celebrity coverage, of The Huffington Post Web site over more serious news outlets? Those other outlets, he writes, “are required to show at least some level of journalistic integrity, which is defined by white people as ‘allowing conservatives to speak.’ ”

You’ll find “Whiter Shades of Pale” in that dimly understood and flimsy bookstore subdivision, the humor section. It belongs upfront, where the best new nonfiction walks point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/books/16book.html





Websites Publish Advice to Student Protesters on How to Avoid Arrest

Police act to close down anti-authority blog Fitwatch on grounds of 'criminal' activities

More than 70 websites today published guidance to student protesters about avoiding arrest, in defiance of a police ruling that doing so was unlawful.

The anti-police blog Fitwatch was suspended yesterday after detectives from C011, the Metropolitan police's public order branch, told the company hosting its website that it was "being used to undertake criminal activities".

In a blogpost published hours earlier, Fitwatch gave advice about avoiding arrest to students involved in last week's protest at the Millbank headquarters of the Conservative party. Fitwatch was removed soon afterwards, but tonight the offending blogpost, which recommended that students "get rid" of clothes they wore at the demonstration and change their appearance, had been republished on an additional 78 websites, including Facebook.

Many of the websites republishing the material were run by political activists, who disseminated the material via Twitter in what they described as a campaign to show the futility of police censorship.

Fitwatch campaigners said they planned to get their original website rehosted within 36 hours, adding that it was also likely that they would republish the offending article.

In its original letter to Fitwatch's website hosting service – JustHost.com – the Met's e-crime unit asked the domain provider to suspend the website "for a minimum of 12 months". The letter, seen by the Guardian, said the guidance to student protesters was "attempting to pervert the course of justice" and "authority to close the website" had been given by an acting detective inspector. The Met said in a statement: "We were concerned this website was giving information about destroying evidence. We drew this to the attention of the internet infrastructure providers and they suspended the site."

The force declined to say whether it would take the same course of action against dozens of other websites that published a verbatim copy of the guidance.

A largely peaceful demonstration against the proposed increase in tuition fees turned violent last Wednesday when a minority of the 50,000 protesters targeted Millbank. Around 200 entered the building and some reached the roof. During a period of rioting, windows and furniture were smashed and, in the most serious act of violence, a fire extinguisher was thrown towards police from the roof.

More than 50 people have been arrested, including an 18-year-old questioned on suspicion of attempted murder for throwing the fire extinguisher. Yesterday police released CCTV images of an additional 13 people they wanted to question over the disturbances. The Daily Telegraph had previously launched its own campaign to identify student protesters, posting photographs of activists it suggested had been involved in criminal activity.

The Fitwatch blogpost was presented as a response to the Telegraph's initiative, which it described as an "irresponsible and frenzied shop-a-student" campaign. Issuing guidance to students who might be worried they would be identified, the blog suggested they consider getting rid of clothes, spray cans and "dodgy texts/photos on your phone". It also recommended changing appearance. "Perhaps now is a good time for a makeover," said the post. "Get a haircut and colour, grow a beard, wear glasses. It isn't a guarantee, but may help throw them off the scent."

It added: "The police often use the psychological pressure of knowing they have your picture to persuade you to 'come forward'. Unless you have a very pressing reason to do otherwise, let them come and find you, if they know who you are."

Fitwatch was set up in 2007 by protesters seeking to oppose what they saw as objectionable surveillance tactics used by Forward Intelligence Teams (Fits), who use cameras to monitor political activists. The site has proved controversial among public order police officers, who found their own names, badge numbers and photographs uploaded on the internet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...s-avoid-arrest





Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic

For 18 minutes in April, China’s state-controlled telecommunications company hijacked 15 percent of the world’s Internet traffic, including data from U.S. military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies.

This massive redirection of data has received scant attention in the mainstream media because the mechanics of how the hijacking was carried out and the implications of the incident are difficult for those outside the cybersecurity community to grasp, said a top security expert at McAfee, the world’s largest dedicated Internet security company.

In short, the Chinese could have carried out eavesdropping on unprotected communications — including emails and instant messaging — manipulated data passing through their country or decrypted messages, Dmitri Alperovitch, vice president of threat research at McAfee said.

Nobody outside of China can say, at least publicly, what happened to the terrabytes of data after it entered China.

The incident may receive more attention when the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional committee, releases its annual report on the bilateral relationship Nov. 17. A commission press release said the 2010 report will address “the increasingly sophisticated nature of malicious computer activity associated with China.”

Said Alperovitch: “This is one of the biggest — if not the biggest hijacks — we have ever seen.” And it could happen again, anywhere and anytime. It’s just the way the Internet works, he explained. “What happened to the traffic while it was in China? No one knows.”

The telephone giants of the world work on a system based on trust, he explained. Machine-to-machine interfaces send out messages to the Internet informing other service providers that they are the fastest and most efficient way for data packets to travel. For 18 minutes April 8, China Telecom Corp. told many ISPs of the world that its routes were the best paths to send traffic.

For example, a person sending information from Arlington, Va., to the White House in Washington, D.C. — only a few miles away — could have had his data routed through China. Since traffic moves around the world in milliseconds, the computer user would not have noticed the delay.

This happens accidentally a few times per year, Alperovitch said. What set this incident apart from other such mishaps was the fact that China Telecom could manage to absorb this large amount of data and send it back out again without anyone noticing a disruption in service. In previous incidents, the data would have reached a dead end, and users would not have been able to connect.

Also, the list of hijacked data just happened to include preselected destinations around the world that encompassed military, intelligence and many civilian networks in the United States and other allies such as Japan and Australia, he said. “Why would you keep that list?” Alperovitch asked.

The incident involved 15 percent of Internet traffic, he stressed. The amount of data included in all these packets is difficult to calculate. The data could have been stored so it could be examined later, he added. “Imagine the capability and capacity that is built into their networks. I’m not sure there was anyone else in the world who could have taken on that much traffic without breaking a sweat,” Alperovitch said.

McAfee has briefed U.S. government officials on the incident, but they were not alarmed. They said their Internet communications are encrypted. However, encryption also works on a basis of trust, McAfee experts pointed out. And that trust can be exploited.

Internet encryption depends on two keys. One key is private and not shared, and the other is public, and is embedded in most computer operating systems. Unknown to most computer users, Microsoft, Apple and other software makers embed the public certificates in their operating systems. They also trust that this system won’t be abused.

Among the certificates is one from the China Internet Information Center, an arm of the China’s Ministry of Information and Industry.

“If China telecom intercepts that [encrypted message] and they are sitting on the middle of that, they can send you their public key with their public certificate and you will not know any better,” he said. The holder of this certificate has the capability to decrypt encrypted communication links, whether it’s web traffic, emails or instant messaging, Alperovitch said. “It is a flaw in the way the Internet operates,” said Yoris Evers, director of worldwide public relations at McAfee.

No one outside of China can say whether any of these potentially nefarious events occurred, Alperovitch noted. “It did not make mainstream news because it is so esoteric and hard to understand,” he added. It is not defined as a cyberattack because no sites were hacked or shut down. “But it is pretty disconcerting.”

And the hijacking took advantage of the way the Internet operates. “It can happen again. They can do it tomorrow or they can do it in an hour. And the same problem will occur again.”
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...st.aspx?ID=249





China Denies Hijacking U.S. Web Traffic
AFP/Reuters

China Telecom denied on Wednesday that it had "hijacked" U.S. Internet traffic in April, after a U.S. congressional advisory group said the company had sent incorrect routing information.

The incident resulted in Internet traffic to major corporate websites and U.S. military and government sites being sent through China for 18 minutes, according to the report, a draft copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

"The spokesman of China Telecom Corporation Limited denied any hijack of internet traffic," the state-controlled company said in a brief statement emailed to Reuters.

A report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said the Web traffic, much of which originated in the United States and was directed toward U.S. corporate and government websites, should have travelled by the shortest available route, and not through China.

The incident was one of several discussed by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Some of the traffic was headed to sites owned by the U.S. Senate, the office of the Secretary of Defense, NASA and the Commerce Department, the draft said.

The commission said it was unclear whether the hijacking was intentional or whether any data was collected or stopped, or if the massive amount of data affected concealed a targeted attack.

The body which wrote the report was set up in 2000 to advise the U.S. Congress on the economic and national security implications of the U.S.-China relationship.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...g-web-traffic/





A Political Persona as Big as the Crowd Will Allow
Matt Bai

The premiere of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on cable television this week felt more like a formality than a new career direction. In any meaningful sense, Ms. Palin has starred in her own reality show since she left the governor’s office last year, functioning more as a cultural symbol than as a politician and earning a Hollywood-size fortune in the process.

What made all this possible, when you think back to Ms. Palin’s debut as a national figure in 2008, wasn’t actually her recognizable identity as a scourge of liberal government and values, but rather her lack of a political identity altogether. Ms. Palin expertly allowed herself to be shaped by the demands of the marketplace, and in this way she became the best example yet of a new phenomenon in our politics — what we might think of as the crowd-sourced candidate.

Ms. Palin, you will recall, exploded into the national consciousness as a relatively inexperienced and unformed politician, a small-town mayor who had served fewer than two years as Alaska’s governor. Her chief message, up to that point, had been about reform and good government.

Yes, she was a cultural conservative, but her principal critique of her own party’s establishment, which she leveled in successfully running against the incumbent Republican governor, Frank H. Murkowski, in 2006 was that it had become mired in cronyism and corruption.

This was what Senator John McCain’s team knew about Sarah Palin when she tentatively stepped on stage for that first rally as his vice-presidential pick, with the nominee whispering stage directions in her ear. As a solidly pro-life and religious conservative, Ms. Palin was expected to mollify the wary base of the party, but her central purpose was to revive Mr. McCain’s faded image as an independent, “mavericky” kind of Republican.

Ms. Palin’s more recent incarnation as a high-tech warrior for the culturally oppressed — the Twitter and Facebook diatribes on mosque-building and state-sanctioned prayer and all of that — took shape mostly after she internalized the anger of her disenchanted audience. Her anti-intellectual “Mama Grizzly” persona is the amalgamation of many thousands of disparate inputs, the product of a gathering fury that Ms. Palin was quick enough to sense and distill.

Ms. Palin isn’t the first modern candidate to find herself buffeted in a digital storm of emotion. It’s easy to forget that when Howard Dean set out on what seemed like a quixotic run for president in 2003, he advertised himself as a centrist former governor, promising to reform the health care system (without a government-run plan) and to balance the federal budget. Mr. Dean, who had aligned himself for a time with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, even called himself a “triangulator” in the mold of Bill Clinton.

A year and a few thousand meet-ups later, Mr. Dean emerged as the booming voice of the ascendant progressive movement in Democratic politics, a hero to antiwar liberals who detested not only the Republican-controlled government but the Clintonian strain of the Democratic Party as well. So far had Mr. Dean traveled that when President Obama was on the verge of passing his own version of a health care overhaul last year, Mr. Dean condemned the bill as ineffectual because it did not include a public option.

None of this is to suggest that Ms. Palin and Mr. Dean aren’t sincere in their convictions. Quite the opposite seems to be true. Nor is there any reason that politicians should not be allowed to evolve, just like the rest of us.

The point is that in an increasingly interactive society, candidates can get an instant and amplified reaction to everything they say. And a candidate who happens to be more malleable in her political philosophy, either because she hasn’t yet settled on one or because she is temperamentally susceptible to the passions of the crowd, can be transformed by the moment.

The journalist Jeff Howe, writing for Wired magazine, first explored and named the concept of crowd-sourcing in 2006. His theory, to crudely summarize it, was that businesses that once relied on a single contractor for the content they needed could now turn to the crowd for cheaper, more varied alternatives, instead.

In other words, why buy professionally-shot photographs for your Web site when thousands of amateurs are willing to provide them at the click of a button? Why invest heavily in research and development when some online hobbyist may have figured out the answer to your problem already? Just ask the crowd.

Ms. Palin hasn’t exactly asked the crowd to supply the content of her political appeal. But she absorbed its message, and in this she embodies the political version of crowd-sourcing, in which some segment of activists — rather than a party or think tank or image consultant — provides the answer to the fundamental question of what a politician hopes to accomplish.

We can probably expect this class of politician to expand with each new popular uprising. Such candidates may have limited potential for actually winning elections, since they play to more vocal, populist segments of the electorate. But politicians who forge their identities among the crowd may continue to find a broader kind of success.

Ms. Palin, after all, is said to be earning about $250,000 per episode of her new show, in which she hunts and hikes her way through the Alaskan frontier. Taking down the Republican machine could never have paid so well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us...ics/16bai.html





As Netflix Bears Down, Hulu Plus Cuts Price
Greg Sandoval

Hulu Plus is trying to become a better bargain.

The video portal backed by Disney, Fox, and NBC Universal said today that it has trimmed the monthly price of its subscription to $7.99, an obvious sign that the service is struggling to acquire customers.

In June, when Hulu first began charging for a premium service, the cost was $9.99. Then Hulu Plus met with considerable criticism from users. Much of the content was also available at Netflix, and while that Web video service charged the same price, it didn't force subscribers to also sit through ads like Hulu Plus.

Hulu Plus had other problems as well, such as not being available on as many devices as Netflix. But Hulu has also announced that its service can now be accessed via Roku and all PlayStations whose owners possess a network account for the console. Web-connected devices from LG, Vizio, and Panasonic will also soon be Hulu Plus-enabled.

Still, Netflix is pressuring Hulu Plus, even in its own backyard. NBC's decision to hand over episodes of "Saturday Night Live" the day after they're broadcast by the network had Hulu execs "fuming," according to a story in Adweek.

Hulu was free of charge to users when it debuted in October 2007 and the service was a hit with consumers. The network backers, however, weren't satisfied with the revenue generated and clamored for a subscription service. Now, according to the Adweek piece, some observers predict Hulu's backers will eventually dismantle the service.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20023039-261.html





Netflix Charges Ahead Amid Mad Competitive Scramble for Internet TV
Dean Takahashi

Netflix is charging ahead on providing a streaming-only movie service in the United States, according to chief executive Reed Hastings.

Speaking on stage on Wednesday at the Web 2.0 Summit with former News Corp. president Peter Chernin and journalist John Heilemann, Hastings said that the plan to offer subscriptions for movie-streaming only is part of the company’s overall plan to reach as many customers on as many platforms as possible with its movie service.

The streaming-only move will be a counter-move to rival Hulu’s announcement that it would offer a video-streaming service for $7.99 a month. Right now, Netflix offers a movie-streaming only subscription in Canada, but in the U.S. it still offers subscriptions that tie together DVD-by-mail and the movie-streaming service.

During the conversation, Chernin said that his lessons from the past media wars are simple. He thinks that Netflix should get as much distribution as it can and offer as wide a selection of content as it can. One of the problems is that the traditional content owners will try to charge high fees because so many other digital movie distribution companies are bidding up the prices for distribution rights. Hastings said that made sense to him.

Hastings also said that he expects to expand Netflix’s business on a global business. Chernin himself said he is very focused on bringing interesting new digital media services to the big populations of China and Indonesia.

Hastings said that Netflix apps on the iPhone and iPad are doing only moderately well and are far less than the business the company does on the Mac or the TV. That’s because users want to watch their movies, for the most part, on large TV screens. So the Netflix apps on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii are very popular.

“Long-form video is not inherently mobile,” Hastings said. “There are some use cases where the kids can watch in the car or you finish a movie on mobile that you started watching on TV. The big deal is watching on TV where you click and watch the movies there.”

But Chernin said he believes that users in emerging markets are far more likely to watch digital videos on small screens such as smartphones and tablets.

“It will get interesting when you get a $50 to $70 tablet in the hands of 3 billion people,” he said.”Bring internet video to them is a very big deal. People spend three hours a day on the web. But they spend eight hours a day on TV.”

Hastings said that web-connected TVs are likely to be a third of the TV market this fall, two-thirds of the TV market next year, and 100 percent of the TV market in 2012 or so. But he cautioned it could take 10 years for new features on TVs, such as web connectivity, to spread to most of the population of TV owners.

Hastings said he is bullish on the growth of Google TV and Apple TV in the long-term, but both have problems in the near term in terms of getting access to content and, in Apple’s case, being open enough as a platform.

“Apple has to open it up and include a browser on it,” Hastings said.

But Chernin said that the content owners at the TV networks and movie companies are likely very worried that Google and Apple could hurt their primary revenue source of distribution of content on cable TV networks.

“Cable distribution is one of the great business models of all time,” Chernin said. “Fifty to 90 percent of profits at these media companies come from the cable business. They are nervous about being disenfranchised. Piracy is a major concern. But Chernin said he believes that most people will pay a reasonable fee for digital media content if you present it to them in an easy and manageable way.

Beyond Google and Apple, Chernin believes other players such as Microsoft, which operates Xbox Live on the Xbox 360, will also become an important player, as will Samsung and Sony.

“TV is a half trillion-dollar business,” Chernin said. “There are huge amounts of money at stake.”

During the next three to five years, Hastings said Netflix’s plan is to “get everywhere,” including expansion into countries in Europe where users have the propensity to pay for movies.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/18/ne...r-internet-tv/





Time Warner Cable to Test Cheaper TV Package
Marguerite Reardon

Time Warner Cable will soon test a less expensive cable TV package called "TV Essentials" as the company tries to cater to lower income consumers.

Time Warner Chief Marketing Officer Sam Howe provided details of the new low-end video offering for the first time at the SNL Kagan Cable MSO Summit in New York on Thursday. The new package will be offered as a test in New York City starting Monday, where it will cost $39.95 per month. It will also be offered in parts of Ohio, where it will be priced at $29.95 per month. These are promotional offers and the price will go up to $49.99 per month after one year, the company said.

The service will include all local broadcast stations and major broadcast channels, as well as 12 of the most popular 20 cable channels. But there will be some notable channels missing in this version of the service including, ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, Fox News, MSNBC, Fox regional sports, and MSG.

The paid TV industry has been losing TV subscribers over the past two quarters. Cable operators have been blaming the weak housing market and the slow economy as a reason why people are canceling cable TV service. In total, taking into account losses and gains between different types of providers, the paid TV market lost a net 119,000 subscribers in the third quarter, compared with a gain of 346,000 during the same quarter last year, according to research released today by SNL Kagan.

Specifically, Time Warner Cable reported in the third quarter that it lost 155,000 video subscribers of which about 46,000 were digital video subscribers.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street equities research analyst with Sanford Bernstein, noted in a recent report that 40 percent of U.S. households have no disposable income to pay for services, such as cable TV. And he called on the cable industry in particular to revisit pricing to address the low end of the market.

The new "TV Essentials" package is designed to do just that. CEO Glenn Britt hinted at the new scaled-down version of the service during the company's third quarter conference call earlier this month.

"We recognize there is a segment of our population and economy under economic duress," Britt said during the call. "And it's important for the broader industry to be responsive to that. So we have sought in our programming negotiations to get more flexibility [to offer lower cost packages.]"

While the promotional pricing of the new service is lower than existing tiers of service, it still may not be low enough. Time Warner Cable's expanded basic cable package costs about $50 per month. And its basic digital cable costs around $60 per month. Prices vary between different markets, and promotions also vary by region.

Meanwhile, consumers with broadband services can still get video content for much less. Hulu has just reduced the subscription price of its Hulu Plus service, which provides access to recently aired shows on TVs, to $8 a month. And Netflix subscribers can stream as many movies and TV shows from its on-demand service for $9 a month. These services, when used in conjunction with free over-the-air TV that uses an antenna, would provide a similar breadth of programming to consumers as the new "TV Essentials" package, which excludes most premium live local and national sports broadcasts.

But it seems the group Time Warner is really addressing with this offer is not the group of consumers who subscribe to broadband and are looking to cut the cord. Instead, the target audience appears to be consumers who do not subscribe to broadband or phone service, since the new "TV Essentials" package will not be eligible for any of the broadband and phone bundle discounts the company offers.

There are other limitations of the service, as well. The Wall Street Journal reports that the service will not include high-definition programming, DVR capability, or free on-demand programming. But it will offer paid on-demand service, such as newly released movies.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20023322-266.html





As Studios Cut Back, Investors See Opening
Michael Cieply

When Timmy Thompson, who made a lot of his money in oil field services, took a close look at the movie business a couple of years ago, he saw companies folding, credit collapsing and talent knocked down a peg in the aftermath of a labor war.
In all, it looked like a pretty good place to invest.

“We’ve always made our living by buying when things are down,” said Mr. Thompson, who spoke by telephone from Louisiana.

How down?

A few hours earlier, George Clooney had appeared in Santa Monica, Calif., at the American Film Market, where he joined operatives from Mr. Thompson’s newly established Cross Creek Pictures and others in selling rights to “The Ides of March.” It is a political morality tale that will be directed by Mr. Clooney, and will feature him in a cast that includes Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood.

All worked for union scale, with the expectation of a future payday if the picture hits when Sony Pictures Entertainment releases it. (The minimum payment on a feature film under the Screen Actors Guild contract in the last few years has been about $65,000 plus food and overtime.)

With studios financing fewer movies, a wave of equity investors stepped up their presence in a Hollywood that suddenly made sense to hard-headed business types who were more accustomed to bottom-fishing in the real estate market or drilling for oil.

Snagging an added bonus from states like Louisiana and Michigan, which offer generous subsidies for local film production, the new players — who mind the old saw “cash is king” — are typically risking just a few million dollars to get a substantial ownership position in films that are cheap enough to yield a profit even in an era of diminished home-video revenues.

“If you have capital, you’re positioned well,” said Brian Oliver, a producer who joined Mr. Thompson and others in starting Cross Creek. Among its first ventures, the company provided backing for “Black Swan,” which is directed by Darren Aronofsky and stars Natalie Portman. It will be released by Fox Searchlight Pictures on Dec. 3.

Hollywood has played host to a succession of outside investors, some of whom fared better than others. Marvin Davis, the oil entrepreneur, made a tidy profit buying and then selling 20th Century Fox, while Crédit Lyonnais, the French bank, became mired in failed loans to a string of film companies. Waves of investment came from doctors and lawyers who were dabbling with film partnerships, Japanese conglomerates, the German stock market, Internet entrepreneurs and cash-laden hedge funds.

Even a few years ago, the industry took a toll on investors as savvy as the garment magnate Sidney Kimmel, whose long-established film company was burned by disappointments like “Charlie Bartlett” and “Synecdoche, New York.”

But only lately have falling salaries, rising subsidies and a thinning of competition turned the financial equation in favor of the investor.

The current crop of equity investors includes Joe Ricketts, the Chicago Cubs co-owner whose American Film Company recently backed “The Conspirator,” directed by Robert Redford; Steven M. Rales, who is chairman of the Danaher Corporation, and whose Indian Paintbrush company was a co-financier of “The Fantastic Mr. Fox,” directed by Wes Anderson; and Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, the Colorado investors whose Smokewood Entertainment Group backed “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” which had six Oscar nominations, winning two, this year.

Among those who seek to build a large-scale enterprise is Tim Headington, the oil entrepreneur based in Dallas who recently joined the producer Graham King in starting FilmDistrict, a company that plans to distribute as many as eight films a year, in an alliance with Sony Pictures Entertainment.

“We’re taking advantage of the extra capacity at Sony, to bring them theatrical product,” Peter Schlessel, FilmDistrict’s chief executive, said of a situation in which Sony has the ability to put more films in theaters and into home entertainment outlets than it currently chooses to finance.

More often, however, Hollywood’s newer investors resemble Michael Benaroya, a 29-year-old whose family built a real estate fortune in Seattle. “So far, we’ve been doing very well,” said Mr. Benaroya, who spoke by telephone last week from the American Film Market, where he, like many of his peers, were courting foreign buyers.

Benaroya Pictures is currently offering rights to “Margin Call,” a film about 24 hours among a group of investment bank employees during the 2008 financial crisis, with performances by Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore, Stanley Tucci, Paul Bettany and Jeremy Irons, among others.

The budget, said Mr. Benaroya, was less than $4 million, only about a quarter of which was paid to the cast. The film was shot in New York, where government incentives help cover the cost — so even modest sales in video, foreign or theatrical markets assure a profit.

Alcon Entertainment, which has been in the business since 1997, had a major hit in “The Blind Side,” which took in about $256 million at the domestic box office and had a budget of only about $35 million. The State of Georgia covered $5.5 million of that cost, and Sandra Bullock, the film’s star, in keeping with the new economics, worked for a sharply reduced upfront salary.

“It has been great,” said Andrew Kosove, who joined Broderick Johnson in starting Alcon with backing from the FedEx founder, Frederick W. Smith. “But if you had asked me that question not long ago, the response would have been more measured,” he added.

A flood of new investors, cautions Mr. Kosove, might easily expand the number of films being made, once again pushing up costs and making it difficult to find distributors. For the moment, however, “it’s a great time” for those with ready capital, said Rick Schwartz, a producer who has been aligned with Alan Bernon, a Texas dairy executive and investor.

Among their projects is “Machete,” an over-the-top action caper that was directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis, and took in about $26.6 million at the domestic box office after 20th Century Fox released it in September.

Mr. Schwartz reckons that the film cost $10.5 million, after some help from a Texas subsidy program. Domestic rights went to Fox for about $9 million, and foreign rights, he said, brought nearly $12 million — so the film’s revenue to the producer and partners was roughly double its cost.

And that, he said, “is a pretty good model.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/bu...ia/15cash.html





Baby Marie Osborne, Silent-Film Child Star, Dies at 99
Robert D. McFadden

They called her Baby Marie Osborne, and in silent films nearly a century ago she was America’s little sweetheart, a precocious, chauffeured, $1,000-a-week prodigy who could turn on the tears or a sunshine smile and break your heart. She had sparkling eyes and dimpled arms. She also had a lisp, but no matter.

She was a toddler when she made her debut in “Kidnapped in New York,” a 1914 potboiler with a tinkling piano to cue the drama. She made 28 more films in five years, including the memorable “Little Mary Sunshine,” her 1916 portrayal of a motherless 5-year-old whose love for a drunken father turns him away from the devil brew.

She retired at age 8, and might have lived happily ever after.

But her mother and father turned out to be foster parents who never told her she was adopted and frittered her fortune away before splitting up. She grew up fast, married twice, had a daughter and was divorced and widowed. She worked in a dime store, became a stand-in for Ginger Rogers in the 1930s and wound up draping actors in Hollywood wardrobe departments. She retired — for real — in 1976.

One of America’s earliest child stars, long forgotten except for Internet nostalgia buffs and silent-film aficionados, Baby Marie — Marie Osborne Yeats — died Thursday at her home in San Clemente, Calif. She was 99. Her daughter, Joan Young, confirmed her death. Five grandchildren also survive her.

With its triumphs, setbacks, poignant struggles and unpredictable turns, her life churned with the stuff of silent films. She was born Helen Alice Myres in Denver on Nov. 5, 1911, the daughter of Roy and Mary Myres. She soon became — under mysterious circumstances — the child of Leon and Edith Osborn, who called her Marie and added the “e” to the surname, apparently to obscure the adoption.

In 1914, the Osbornes moved to Long Beach, Calif. She was an actress calling herself Babe St. Clair, and he was a theatrical promoter. They rented a room and, unable to afford a baby sitter, took Marie along to the Balboa studios, where they had found work in silent films.

The cute kid was spotted and cast in one of the hundreds of forgettable silents made in 1914. In 1915, the actor-director Henry King put her in “The Maid of the Wild.” She was talented, and Balboa signed her to a contract. Mr. King had “Little Mary Sunshine” written especially for her.

The picture, one of her few that survive, was a huge success and made her an international star. She soon had her own production company and was churning out Baby Marie films. She was cast as an orphan, a child of social climbers, the charmer of a crotchety millionaire, a diplomat, a cupid. She could register fear, shock, delight, pity, sorrow; could cry real tears — and always made things turn out right.

Behind the scenes, her parents squabbled over custody, money and infidelities. In 1919, Baby Marie’s career waned. She made a last film, “Miss Gingersnap,” and retired. In 1920, The New York American ran a cautionary tale of lost money and bitter divorce under a banner headline: “How Baby Marie’s Big Salary Ruined Her Happy Home.”

The trauma faded, Baby Marie grew up, silent movies became talkies in the late ’20s, and in 1931 Ms. Osborne married Frank Dempsey. They had a daughter, Joan, in 1932, but were divorced four years later. In 1945 she married Murray Yeats, who died in 1975.

In 1933, as her first marriage deteriorated, Ms. Osborne took a job in a dime store. It was a low point. Then came an astonishing call from the superintendent of the Colorado Children’s Home, who informed her that she had been adopted as an infant by the Osbornes! And that a man who said he was her real father, H. L. Shriver, had become a tycoon!! And that he had left her a substantial inheritance!!!

Next, with the help of her old mentor, Mr. King, now a major Hollywood director, she got minor parts in a dozen films from 1934 to 1950. She also became a stand-in for Ginger Rogers in “The Gay Divorcee” (1934), “Swing Time” (1936) and “Shall We Dance” (1937), and for Deanna Durbin and Betty Hutton.

In 1954, she joined 20th Century Fox as a costumer. She later became a wardrobe supervisor. Over two decades she draped Jean Simmons, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Rock Hudson, Robert Redford, Lucille Ball and Elizabeth Taylor. Her work appeared in “Around the World in 80 Days” (1956), “How to Murder Your Wife” (1965), “The Godfather, Part II” (1974) and other films.

She was featured in Michael G. Ankerich’s 1993 book, “Broken Silence: Conversations with 23 Silent Film Stars,” and in 1999 she was interviewed by Billy Doyle for ClassicImages.com.

“It means little to her that she is regarded by film historians as an icon of film history,” Mr. Doyle wrote. “We cannot share her modesty. For historians, her contributions to the film industry give her an almost legendary status as one of the last living witnesses of the crucial early years when Hollywood rose to a position of international importance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/arts/17osborne.html





Time for Young Wizards to Put Away Childish Things
A. O. Scott

The midnight bookstore parties are all in the past, and, with the opening of the first half of the film adaptation of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” an extraordinary pop-culture cycle is on the verge of completion.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was published in America in 1998 — a lifetime ago for many young readers, just yesterday for their parents — and that tale and its six sequels now seem like permanent fixtures of the literary landscape. Under the spell of J. K. Rowling’s prose, a great many middle-aged readers were temporarily changed into 10-year-olds. That none of the movies have demonstrated quite the same power makes it easy to underestimate their success. But in the past decade more than a few promising franchises based on popular book series have failed to turn loyal readers into enthusiastic audiences or to bring in legions of new fans. Their fate (think of “Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events” and “The Golden Compass”) suggests that the perennial appeal of “Harry Potter” on screen was hardly a foregone conclusion.

So by now it is beyond doubt that “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1” will attract the passionate, the curious and the nostalgic in large numbers. And they are likely to be pleased. David Yates, who directed the fifth and sixth installments in the series, has shown a knack for capturing and quickening Ms. Rowling’s storytelling rhythm. He has also demonstrated a thorough, uncondescending sympathy for her characters, in particular the central trio of Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger and Harry himself.

In this chapter their adventures have an especially somber and scary coloration, as the three friends are cast out from the protective cocoon of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry into a bleak, perilous grown-up world that tests the independence they have struggled to obtain under the not always benevolent eyes of their teachers. Childish things have been put away — this time there is no quidditch, no school uniforms, no schoolboy crushes or classroom pranks — and adult supervision has all but vanished. Albus Dumbledore is dead, and though Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Alastor Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson) offer some assistance early on, Harry and his companions must rely on the kindness of house elves, on their own newly mastered wizarding skills and, above all, on one another.

This is not always so easy. The implicit rivalry for Hermione’s favor that has always simmered between Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron (Rupert Grint) bubbles to the surface, as does Ron’s resentment at being the Chosen One’s sidekick. The burden of chosenness weighs on Harry as well; it is easier for him to accept being singled out for death by Lord Voldemort than to countenance the willingness of his allies and protectors to sacrifice their lives for him. Hermione (Emma Watson), for her part, seems lonelier than ever. She has broken entirely with her Muggle parents, expunging herself from their memories to prevent them from being caught up in an increasingly vicious intrawizard civil war.

For most of this film Voldemort’s forces are very much in the ascendant. The production design is dense with visual allusions to 20th-century totalitarianism, while the battered and dispersed good guys carry some of the romance of guerilla resistance, taking to the countryside and living rough as they search for weak spots in their enemy’s strategy. They also pop into nonmagical neighborhoods of London, visits that add a jolt of realism to this fantasy. The brilliant composer Alexandre Desplat has constructed a haunting, spooky sonic atmosphere with only an occasional splash of youthful whimsy.

Not that “Deathly Hallows” is grim, exactly. But it is, to an unusual and somewhat risky degree, sadder and slower than the earlier films. It is also much less of a showcase (or bank vault, as the case may be) for the middle and senior generations of British actors. Many of the familiar faces show up — including Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix LeStrange, and, of course, Alan Rickman as Severus Snape — but they move along after a scene or two. So do the two notable newcomers, Bill Nighy as a government official and Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood, a wondrously eccentric underground journalist and father to the ethereal (and in this movie, briefly glimpsed) Luna (Evanna Lynch).

The movie, in other words, belongs solidly to Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Grint and Ms. Watson, who have grown into nimble actors, capable of nuances of feeling that would do their elders proud. One of the great pleasures of this penultimate “Potter” movie is the anticipation of stellar post-“Potter” careers for all three of them.

While there is still one more film to go (Part 2 is scheduled for release in July), this one manages to be both a stepping stone and a reasonably satisfying experience in its own right. Some plot elements are handled with busy, “DaVinci Code”-like mumbo jumbo as the three friends must hunt down not only a bunch of horcruxes, but also the mysterious objects alluded to in the title. The deathly hallows at least provide the occasion for a lovely animated sequence, much as the inevitable preliminary battle scenes allow for episodes of explosive wand work. Even though it ends in the middle, “Deathly Hallows Part 1” finds notes of anxious suspense and grave emotion to send its characters, and its fans, into the last round. The sorrow you experience may well be a premonition of the imminent end of a long and, for the most part, delightful relationship.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/11/19...s/19harry.html





Senator Threatens to Block Online Copyright Bill
Grant Gross

A U.S. senator has vowed to fight attempts to pass a controversial copyright protection bill that would allow the U.S. government to shut down websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said late Thursday that he would seek to block the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, from passing through the full Senate, unless the legislation is changed. Earlier Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 to approve the bill and send it to the full Senate.

Wyden called the bill the "wrong medicine" for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through court orders, to order U.S. ISPs to redirect customer traffic away from infringing foreign websites.

"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. "If you don't think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."

Wyden's opposition means the bill is likely dead this year. Individual senators can place holds on legislation, and there are only a few working days left in the congressional session this year. Sponsors of the legislation, including fellow Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would have to reintroduce the bill if it doesn't pass this year.

Supporters of the bill say it's needed to rampant combat copyright and trademark infringement online. The bill would protect legitimate sites by targeting only sites that have no other purchase than the distribution of infringing materials, supporters said.

"The Internet serves as the glue of international commerce in today's global economy," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and bill sponsor, said in a statement. "But it's also been turned into a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property."

COICA has bipartisan support and will help copyright holders and police better coordinate their efforts to fight online piracy, Hatch added.

Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to censorship. Even websites with infringing materials have content that's projected by free-speech rights, opponents have said.

The bill could also lead to a fragmentation of the Internet, with other countries emboldened to enforce their own laws, including censorship, said critics, including the Center for Democracy and Technology.

COICA is an example of repeated efforts to fix long-time problems through Internet restrictions, said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group. The Judiciary Committee pushed through the bill without adequate hearings and input from the public, Black said.

"The significance and implications of the legislation I don't think have been well thought through," Black said during the hearing on digital trade. "Sadly, it's an example of what not to do in an important, complicated digital ecosystem."
http://www.itworld.com/internet/1283...copyright-bill

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

November 13th, November 6th, October 30th, October 23rd

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black

[multi]