P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 16-05-12, 07:10 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - May 19th, '12

Since 2002


































"Don't trade away our digital future." – The National Business Review


"Domestic [movie] receipts for the year are at $3.83 billion, 17.6 percent ahead of last year's with a huge summer lineup yet to come." – AP


"File sharing an album benefits its sales. I don’t find any evidence of a negative effect in any specification, using any instrument." – Robert Hammond



































May 19th, 2012




Admitted File-Swapper Begs Supreme Court for Help

Says RIAA sought huge damages to create an "urban legend."
Nate Anderson

"Joel Tenenbaum is a fine and courageous young man who has just received his doctorate in statistical physics,” begins Tenenbaum's recent plea to the Supreme Court. He is also an admitted file-swapper. At trial, a jury of his peers decided that he should pay the record labels $675,000 in statutory damages.

Tenenbaum's lawyer, well-known Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, wants the Supremes to understand that the industry's "litigation assault" on people like Tenenbaum is "procedurally unfair and profoundly unethical.” Such damage awards, Nesson continues, seek to:

punish [Tenenbaum] beyond any rational measure of the damage he conceivably caused, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by him, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the Internet, and so frightening for parents and teachers of students using the Internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.

As part of its massive legal campaign against online file-swapping, the Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] sued nearly 20,000 people during the middle part of the last decade. Only two took their cases all the way to a trial and verdict. The first was Jammie Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota; Tenenbaum, from Massachusetts, was the second. In both cases, judges overturned the absurd verdicts (Thomas-Rasset owed $222,000, $1.92 million, and then $1.5 million after her three trials, respectively) and said that anything above $2,250 per song had entered "monstrous and shocking" territory.

The recording industry, keen to avoid this as a precedent, appealed both cases. The Thomas-Rasset case continues at the appellate level; the Tenenbaum case was sent back to the trial court last September with a demand that Judge Nancy Gertner simply cut the $675,000 down to size using a common-law process called "remittitur" rather than concluding (as she did) that the award was so disproportionate to harm as to be constitutionally impermissible.

This might sound like a technicality—in both cases, Tenenbaum's payout would be cut to $67,500—but it has a serious implication. If Judge Gertner "remits" the award, the labels could choose to have another trial against Tenenbaum. If Judge Gertner reaches the constitutional question, the trial stage ends.

These aren't hypotheticals; this happened in the Thomas-Rasset case. After a $1.92 million verdict was slashed using remittitur, the labels took Thomas-Rasset to trial once more. It's an expensive, lengthy process, and one that's probably pointless. In the four trials to date on this particular issue, no jury has ever come in beneath the upper bound set by the judges. (The juries are told nothing of previous judgments or of the judge's own rulings in these matters.)

Nesson complains that the requirement to conduct remittitur first simply helps those with enough money to see a lawsuit through to the end. “The deployment of remittitur as a means of fending off constitutional issues empowers the copyright-holding corporations to subject any individual who is seeking to protest the unconstitutionality of their settlement methods to years and then further years of endless litigation and repeated trials,” he wrote to the Supreme Court.

The whole issue might seem moot (except for Tenenbaum), since the recording industry has dropped its mass lawsuit campaign. But Nesson notes that, in the last few years, scores of others have adopted similar tactics, especially when it comes to pornographic films.

Nesson tells me that the Supreme Court will decide later this week whether it will hear Tenenbaum's appeal.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ourt-for-help/





Judge Rules Largely for Georgia State in Copyright Case
Bill Rankin and Laura Diamond

A federal judge in Atlanta has ruled mostly in favor of Georgia State University in a copyright case that would allow professors to continue posting excerpts of published works online for their students.

In a case closely watched by academia and publishers, Senior U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans rejected 69 copyright claims filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Sage Publications. She found that Georgia State had violated copyright infringement law by using five excerpts from four books.

The suit was the first of its kind in the country and examined a key way college professors teach and students learn in the digital age. In the lawsuit, publishers accused Georgia State of "massive" copyright violations for allowing professors to download and reproduce excerpts from published works for course materials without getting publishers’ permission or paying licensing fees.

The decision, if upheld on appeal, means students will continue to have easy access to excerpted academic and scholarly material posted in online reading rooms managed by colleges.

The publishers' highly publicized lawsuit, filed in 2008, was heavily watched by research librarians across the country, and several blogged about the verdict, which was issued Friday, over the weekend.

"The judge's ruling is significant not only for Georgia State University, but for all educational fair use in general,” Georgia State University President Mark P. Becker said. “While the broader implications of this case will be analyzed for weeks and months to come, Georgia State is very pleased to have been a trailblazer in this increasingly complex digital copyright environment."

The case tested the application of the "fair use doctrine," which allows someone to use published material without the consent of the copyright owner. It also limits the amount of material that can be used and serves to ensure that the use of copyright material does not diminish the market for it.

The decision highlights the importance of providing academic faculty a cost-effective, legal way to spread important knowledge to students, said Kerry Heyward, a Georgia State attorney.

"While the practicality of the ruling still needs to be determined, it will most definitely provide faculty across the country a clearer and more consistent road map on fair use," Heyward said.

In a statement, the Association of American Publishers said that Georgia State, in response to the suit, scrapped its existing copyright policies and adopted a new one to correct practices that gave rise to the complaint. The association also noted that the new policy did not achieve its objective because Evans found copyright infringements.

At the same time, the association expressed disappointment with the ruling and called Evans' fair use analysis legally incorrect in some places and, as a result, instances of copyright infringement were incorrectly found to be permissible. "If institutions such as [Georgia State] are allowed to offer substantial amounts of copyrighted content for free, publishers cannot sustain the creation of works of scholarship."

The publishers' litigation was financed by the nonprofit Copyright Clearance Center, which licenses copyright works for business and academia.

In her 350-page order, Evans said that when the Board of Regents introduced a new copyright policy for the University System in 2009, Georgia State tried to comply with the Copyright Act. "The truth is that fair use principles are notoriously difficult to apply," she wrote.

The policy, which applies to the system’s 35 colleges, was implemented a year after the lawsuit was filed and tightened existing guidelines. Evans only considered claims against the new policy.

Evans acknowledged her ruling could be a "two-edged sword."

Allowing students access to unpaid, small excerpts of copyrighted works promotes the spread of knowledge because it reduces the cost of education, the judge said. On the other hand, decreased income for publishers could reduce their ability to produce academic textbooks and scholarly works, thereby diminishing the spread of knowledge.

Evans said that "decidedly small" excerpts could be copied by Georgia State. In most circumstances, she determined, it is permissible for universities and colleges to copy 10 percent of a book or one chapter of a book with 10 or more chapters.

Brandon Butler, director of public policy initiatives for the Association of Research Libraries, said the publishers' lawsuit had had a chilling effect on university libraries. "There was a feeling of being under siege," he said. "They took us to court saying we were shameless pirates."
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/jud...r-1437124.html





Finnish Court: Open WiFi Owner Not Liable for File-Sharing Copyright Infringement

*Press Release 14.5.2012*

*Helsinki, Finland*

*Finnish Court: Open WiFi Owner Not Liable for File-Sharing Copyright Infringement *

In a landmark ruling, a Finnish District Court (*Ylivieskan käräjäoikeus*)
has today clarified the legal status of WiFi owners for internet
file-sharing in the light of various pieces of EU legislation.

Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a coalition of entertainment industry
rights-holders, had sued a Finnish woman for copyright
infringement, demanding compensation of circa 6000 euros for internet
file-sharing conducted with the Direct Connect (DC++) protocol through her
internet connection.

This alleged copyright infringement had taken place in a specific 12-minute
period in July 14 2010, a date when a summer theater play with an audience
of around hundred people was held at the premises of the former school
owned and resided by the lady.

The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the
connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing. The court
thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not
protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a
copyright-infringing act.

Crucially, the applicants also sought an injunction to prevent the
defendant for committing any similar acts in the future. Had the injunction
been granted, the legal status of various open WiFi providers would have
turned out extremely difficult, as rights-owners would have been provided
with a powerful legal weapon to shut them down in cases of similar,
arguably insignificant infringements by incidental visitors and customers.

In practice, the court interpreted the Finnish legislation involving the
implementation of several directives in force throughout the EU (especially
the Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information
societyservices,
the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC and the Copyright Enforcement Directive
2004/48/EC.)

Finally, the court concluded that the WiFi owner cannot be deemed liable
for the infringements actually committed by third parties.

If the applicants appeal, the case will be examined in the Vaasa Court of
Appeals. A preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice, settling
the issue once and for all throughout Europe, still remains a conceivable
option.

The defendant was represented in the district court by Turre Legal lawyers

Ville Oksanen and Lassi Jyrkkiö.

Additional Information:

Ville Oksanen
LL.M, PhD, Partner
Turre Legal Oy
ville.oksanen@turre.com
+358 40 5368583

http://www.turre.com/2012/05/finnish...-infringement/





Pirate Bay Founder Takes Case to European Court

One of the founders of Swedish file share site The Pirate Bay is turning to the European Court of Human Rights in the hopes of having his guilty verdict overturned, claiming his conviction violates his freedom of speech.

“It’s just like saying the post office should be in court for delivering a letter with illegal content,” wrote Joans Nilsson, the lawyer for Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij, in an opinion article published Monday in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.

Neij was one of four men convicted in April 2009 by a Swedish court for being accessories to copyright violation for their role in founding and operating the Pirate Bay.

They were sentenced to a year's imprisonment apiece and a combined fine of 30 million kronor ($4.4 million).

Neij, along with co-defendents Carl Lundström, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, and Peter Sunde, appealed their sentences, with the Svea Court of Appeal ruling in November to uphold the convictions, with the exception of Gottfried Svartholm Warg, who was absent due to illness.

In February, however the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta Domstolen), announced it would not grant the right to appeal in the case, meaning the appeal's court sentence would stand.

But now Neij is taking his case to the European Court of Human rights.

“We want deeper scrutiny to determine whether it’s actually right to convict Fredrik Neij as the responsible party for how others have used The Pirate Bay,” Nilsson wrote in DN.

"The fact that there is no clear legislation or legal precedent in an area that affects us all - the internet - constitutes a problem for the rule of law."

Meanwhile, Neij's fellow Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde last week requested a pardon for his conviction in the case, which left him facing an eight-month prison sentence.

While his prison sentence was due to begin on Wednesday, Sunde sought a pardon due to health reasons and his work with Flattr, a micro-donation file and money sharing site, according to documents filed by his lawyers.

It was revealed in March that Sunde, who was also the spokesperson for Pirate Bay, was set to head to the Västervik Norra prison in south eastern Sweden for his prison stint.

Fredrik Neij, meanwhile, was headed for Kirseberg in Malmö for his ten months.
http://www.thelocal.se/40818/20120514/





Pirate Bay Down After DDoS Attack
Alana Horowitz

The Pirate Bay has been down for over 24-hours as a result of a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, according to the website's Facebook account.

It's not uncommon for the popular file-sharing website to be down for a few hours, but an outage this long is rare.

Torrent Freak and ZDNet have speculated that Anonymous may be behind the attack. Last week, The Pirate Bay criticized Anonymous for taking down Virgin Media's website after the service provider blocked The Pirate Bay under an order from the British High Court.

The Pirate Bay responded to the attack on Virgin Media by saying, "We do NOT encourage these actions. We believe in the open and free internets, where anyone can express their views. Even if we strongly disagree with them and even if they hate us."

The BBC reports it is unlikely that Anonymous is behind the current Pirate Bay DDoS though, since they typically defend--not attack-- sites like The Pirate Bay.

The attack may be the least of The Pirate Bay's problems, though. Founder Fredrik Neij is currently serving jail time in Sweden over copyright violation charges. The Hague recently ordered Dutch internet providers to block the Torrent-friendly website, making it virtually inaccessible to the entire country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1521828.html





The Pirate Bay Returns, Anonymous Hater Takes Credit for DDoS
Emil Protalinski

Summary: The Pirate Bay is back online. An Anonymous traitor who goes by the name AnonNyre has claimed responsibility for the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack that kept the site offline for days.

After being the victim of a massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack by an unknown party, The Pirate Bay has returned (and by the way, so has Wikileaks). While the torrent site has yet to reveal the details of who it believes was behind it all, it did post the following triumphant message on Facebook today:

We’re back in full effect!
Show your support by adding this badge to your profile picture!

If you wanna add it manually, it’s here:
http://www.picbadges.com/badges-asse...1336391025.png


The news not only follows yesterday’s revelation that a massive DDoS attack has kept The Pirate Bay down in many countries across the globe, but also the hacktivist group Anonymous’ denial of responsibility, which was then confirmed by The Pirate Bay. Now, an Anonymous hater has claimed he or she is behind the attack.

It all started with these two angry messages yesterday from Twitter user AnonNyre:

The Pirate Bay, I am so f******* pissed, WHY THERE IS NO ANAL PORN IN HERE. F*** YOU PIRATE BAY.
F*** that shit, N**** Bay.


These were then quickly followed by several more:

Tango Down - thepiratebay.se - Shitty Torrents..#F***TheJew
You dumbf****, it’s me. @YourAnonNews
Tango Down - thepiratebay.se - The Reason - http://pastebin.com/j0PLqynP @YourAnonNews @AnonOpUK @Anon_Central @MalSec
@AnonIRC You dumb-ass, check my last tweet, It’s so sad to see that Anonymous can be so stupid at sometimes..
ThePirateBay was a main-press release point of Anonymous - Why not piss off Anonymous when you got a chance? Nuff' attacking TPB, You can start sailing your ships now, Anonymous.


The Pastebin message is as follows (by the way, Anonymous now mainly uses its own alternative, AnonPaste):

You must be wondering why did I attacked The Pirate Bay..

I am Nyre. I am highly against Anonymous. I do not support Anonymous anymore. I sometimes help the feds.

The Pirate Bay was a press-release website for Anonymous, then I had a idea, why not take it down? Why not make it impossible for Anonymous?

Get on your knees, Anonymous. I am a one-man army. I am not a hacker. I am a security killer.

Expect yourself, faggots.

THEPIRATEBAY.SE - Idea is, to keep it down for a week, Will try?


Nyre doesn’t explain how he pulled the feat, though it is likely he used a botnet of a respectable size. He doesn’t mention anything about Wikileaks, which was also under a DDoS attack, and for much longer.
https://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/...for-ddos/12233





Video Sharing Sites Mysteriously Blocked in India
Heather Timmons and Nikhila Gill

Popular video-sharing Web sites like Vimeo and The Pirate Bay were blocked this week by two of India’s major Internet service providers, cutting millions of people from the Web sites.

Indian and foreign media companies, including Reliance Entertainment, which is controlled by billionaire Anil Ambani, Viacom and UTV Group, appear to have sparked the block by filing a series of lawsuits in Indian courts related to movie piracy.

The shutdown could create friction in the film community: Vimeo is a favorite of independent, aspiring filmmakers, while Reliance Entertainment is the financial partner behind Steven Spielberg’s Dream Works Studios.

Bharti Airtel customers who tried to access Vimeo and other movie-sharing Web sites from India earlier this week were greeted with a notice that said “Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders.” Reliance Communications customers saw a similar notice. Reliance Communications is also controlled by Mr. Ambani. By Friday morning in India, service to the sites had been restored for some Bharti Airtel customers but not all.

The two companies combined serve about a third of all telecommunications customers in India.

Bharti Airtel has more than 190 million mobile phone, broadband and landline customers in India. Reliance Communications has over 150 million. Internet penetration is tiny but growing rapidly in India, as customers increasingly access the Internet via their mobile phones. India has an estimated 10 million Internet users.

In addition to The Pirate Bay and Vimeo, movie-sharing sites DailyMotion.com and BitSnoop.Com were inaccessible to Reliance and Bharti Airtel users earlier this week, but were accessible to some customers on Friday.

Reliance Communications did not return numerous calls asking for comment, and Airtel sent a statement that said “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders.”

Reliance Entertainment executives said internet service providers, or ISPs, were to blame. “Our requirement from ISPs has never been to block entire sites,” said Sanjay Tandon, vice president of music and anti-piracy. “We only asked them to block access to our films,” he said.

“Unfortunately ISPs just want to block the entire site because it’s less work than to identify content individually,” Mr. Tandon said.

Vimeo said in a statement Thursday evening “We care deeply about our users in India and are concerned about reports of their being blocked from Vimeo. We are working diligently to obtain documentation as to why our service may have been blocked, as we have yet to receive any official notice.”

YouTube, another video-sharing Web site, remained unaffected in India.

Internet activist group Anonymous said on Twitter Thursday afternoon it had shut down the Web sites for India’s Supreme Court in response, but the court’s Web site was functioning Thursday evening in India.

Reliance Entertainment has filed several lawsuits in India on behalf of films it produced, including “Don 2” and “Bodyguard,” said Rishi Agrawal at Agrawal Associates, a New Delhi law firm who represented Reliance Entertainment in the suits. Reliance Entertainment is not the only company to have filed such cases, he said. UTV was the first to file such a case sometime in February 2011, and Viacom has also filed about 20 such cases, he said.

In response to the suits, New Delhi’s High Court issued “John Doe” orders, also known in India as “Ashok Kumar” orders, which ask any party, no matter what their name is, to halt certain actions.

For example, in an order issued July 20, 2011, High Court judge A.K. Pathak ruled that:

Plaintiff has exclusive copy right over the film Singham which is yet to be released. In case, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD are made by unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie “Singham” in any manner without proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff’s copyright.

Why the telecommunications companies chose to block the sites this week and the Indian government’s role in the situation are both unclear.

Mr. Agrawal said India’s director general of Internet services has issued a directive asking I.S.P.’s to block video-sharing websites. A spokesman for the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications, which oversees Internet regulation in India, said the ministry has “not issued any order blocking any Web site.”

Malavika Vyawahare contributed reporting to this article from New Delhi.
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...cked-in-india/





Microsoft Funded Startup Aims to Kill BitTorrent Traffic
Ernesto

The Russian based “Pirate Pay” startup is promising the entertainment industry a pirate-free future. With help from Microsoft, the developers have built a system that claims to track and shut down the distribution of copyrighted works on BitTorrent. Their first project, carried out in collaboration with Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures, successfully stopped tens of thousands of downloads.

Hollywood, software giants and the major music labels see BitTorrent as one of the largest threats to their business.

Billions in revenue are lost each year, they claim. But not for long if the Russian based startup “Pirate Pay” has its way. The company has developed a technology which allows them to attack existing BitTorrent swarms, making it impossible for people to share files.

The idea started three years ago when the developers were building a traffic management solution for Internet providers. The technology worked well. It was able to stop BitTorrent traffic if needed, which made the developers realize that they might have built the holy anti-piracy grail.

“After creating the prototype, we realized we could more generally prevent files from being downloaded, which meant that the program had great promise in combating the spread of pirated content,” Pirate Pay CEO Andrei Klimenko says.

With this new business model in mind the company continued to develop their product, and it didn’t take long before an investor was willing to support it. Last year Pirate Pay received a $100,000 investment from the Microsoft Seed Financing Fund.

Microsoft Russia’s president praised the innovative idea, which his company would also be able to use in the future.

With the cash injection the company continued working on their anti-piracy solution and December last year Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures were the first to hire Pirate Pay’s services. For a month Pirate Pay’s technology protected the film “Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I’m alive,” with moderate success.

“We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other,” Andrei Klimenko says.

The end result was that 44,845 transfers were successfully stopped. How many downloads slipped through, and whether the downloaders didn’t simply try again later is unknown. Pirate Pay don’t disclose their exact rates but say they charge between $12,000 and $50,000 depending on the scope of the project.

While Pirate Pay claim their technology is truly unique, it is not the first company to tackle BitTorrent piracy. The now defunct MediaDefender charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to attack BitTorrent trackers and upload fake torrent files.

MediaDefender was rebranded to Peer Media, and under this brand they continue to offer these and other anti-piracy services.

Whether Pirate Pay is truly different and more effective than any of the other solutions remains to be seen. Even if it’s hugely effective, the scattered nature of BitTorrent makes it practically impossible to stop all infringing downloads of a movie, while the costs may outweigh the “losses” that are prevented.

Companies that really want to make Pirates Pay are probably better off investing in improvements to their legal offers.
https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-f...raffic-120513/





An Example of the Usefulness of Bittorrent for Entirely Legal Purposes
Wil Wheaton

I frequently find myself in an unpopular position in the entertainment industry: I believe in network neutrality, I don't believe that piracy is the end of the world as we know it (I particularly don't believe that a download or file shared automatically equals a lost sale*) and I don't believe in crippling the Internet to protect a business model that desperately needs to change.

One of the things that drives me crazy is the belief in Hollywood that bittorrent exists solely for stealing things. Efforts to explain that this is not necessarily true are often met with hands clamped tightly over ears, accompanied by "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA."

So yesterday, I decided that I'd download Ubuntu and put it in a Virtualbox on my iMac, just to see how the distro is doing these days. As you can see from the images above, if I'd downloaded the iso straight from their server, it was going to take the better part of an hour, so I decided to grab the torrent instead. Turns out it was a good choice, because it was finished in about six minutes.

I was so happy with the speed and performance, I seeded it until I got to a ratio of 3.0, to give back, you know?

Some ISPs are blocking all bittorrent traffic, because bittorrent can be used to share files in a piratical way. Hollywood lobbying groups are trying to pass laws wich would force ISPs to block or degrade bittorrent traffic, too. Personally, I think this is like closing down freeways because a bank robber could use them to get away, which I know is an imperfect comparison, but is the best I can do after a night of not-especially-good sleep.

Anyway, my point with this post is to illustrate that the bittorrent protocol is useful for more than just infringement, so when you hear industry lobbying groups making a lot of noise about piracy, you'll remember that they aren't giving you all the facts.

*Longtime readers may recall that I did not always believe this, but I've, uh ... evolved ... on the issue.
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnba...-purposes.html





BitTorrent Piracy Increases Sales of ‘Leaked’ Albums: Study
Andrew Couts

A new study from a North Carolina State University researcher shows that BitTorrent helps increase the sales of leaked albums, but does not prove that online piracy is good for overall music sales.

A new study from a North Carolina State University economist shows that BitTorrent piracy slightly boosts sales of albums that leak onto the Web prior to their official release. The academic evaluation, brought to our attention by TorrentFreak, contradicts claims by organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which claim that the leak of albums has a detrimental effect on sales of that album, and have made a particular point to go after those who leak albums in the courts.

The study, authored by Robert Hammond, Assistant Professor of Economics at North Carolina State University, focuses on the effect of BitTorrent downloads of leaked albums, those made available for download prior to their official release date, rather than albums that are uploaded to BitTorrent sites after their commercial release. Hammond also focuses only on full album downloads and sales, not individual songs, because full albums remain the primary source of income (74.4 percent, according to the RIAA) for the music industry.

According to Hammond’s findings, leaked albums enjoy a sales increase of about 60 (59.6) units — a tiny number, but in the positive nonetheless — as a “casual” result of BitTorrent piracy.

“I isolate the causal effect of file sharing of an album on its sales by exploiting exogenous variation in how widely available the album was prior to its official release date,” writes Hammond. “The findings suggest that file sharing of an album benefits its sales. I don’t find any evidence of a negative effect in any specification, using any instrument.”

Hammond also finds that the positive effect of file sharing only applies to well-established, major artists, rather than “new or smaller” artists.

Of course, an uptick of just 60 additional sales is essentially nothing compared to the benefits of other kinds of exposure.

“[T]he effect of radio play is much larger,” writes Hammond. “Specifically, $8,800 worth of airtime… has been found to generate 4,135 additional sales on average. More anecdotally, sales are affected by the so-called ‘Grammy lift’ that follows an artist’s appearance on the Grammy Awards show, including 6,000 additional sales for Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs, 24,000 additional sales for Mumford & Sons’ Sigh No More, and a record-breaking 730,000 additional sales for Adele’s 21. These comparisons suggest that, while I find that file sharing of an album has a positive effect on its sales, those effects are small relative to other promotional efforts that affect music sales.”

Conducted between May 2010 and January 2011, the study compares the the number of downloads and the sales figures for 1,095 albums from 1,075, across a variety of genres. Unlike previous studies on the effects of file sharing on music sales, Hammond uses the number of downloads of albums, rather than the number of total files available via BitTorret, as the basis for his study. All of the download figures come from one of the Web’s “largest” private torrent trackers, though Hammond does not name the tracker he used because of “the illicit nature of the activities of the tracker’s users.”

While Hammond’s findings certainly provide fodder for those looking to argue in favor of online piracy, the evidence does not prove that file sharing is good for music sales as a whole. Moreover, it is likely that the leak of an album from a popular artist — the only category of musician that benefits, according to Hammond — simply serves as additional advertising for the album, rather than there being some inherent benefit to file sharing itself.

Furthermore, Hammond is far from the first academic to study file sharing and music sales — and not a single one has found a positive correlation between file sharing and overall music sales. In fact, a review of past studies on the matter released in 2011 by economics professor Stan Liebowitz found that “the majority of all studies support a conclusion that the entire decline in sound recording sales can be explained by file sharing.” Hammond concedes that his findings do not contradict these past conclusions “because I do not focus on the industry-wide implications of file sharing.”

Read or download Hammond’s study below:

Hammond File Sharing Leak
http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/b...-albums-study/





EMI Group Forces File-Sharing Service MP3tunes Into Bankruptcy
Zach Epstein

As the company’s court battles with major music label EMI Group, file-sharing service MP3tunes was forced to file for bankruptcy in a United States court earlier this week, Reuters reports. Mp3tunes, which bills itself as “a Music Service Provider (MSP) and the home of MP3tunes Locker: the only secure, online music space to feature unlimited listening,” is one of a number of online services targeted by major labels and the MPAA for allegedly facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials; Megaupload was shuttered earlier this year after authorities raided the home of company founder Kim Dotcom, who was arrested and now awaits trial. A federal judge ruled in 2011 that MP3tunes and its CEO, Michael Robertson, did not violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act when they allowed users to download music from the service, except as pertaining to music files that were identified as having been pirated. The judge also said that Robertson was personally liable for a number of pirated songs downloaded from other file-sharing services and hosted by MP3tunes. The case is still pending.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/05/11/emi-gr...es-bankruptcy/





Counting Crows Says File-Sharing is 'the New Radio Station,' Releases BitTorrent Promo
Adi Robertson

Content creators have expressed mixed feelings towards peer-to-peer file-sharing, from vehement opposition to resignation to outright celebration. California-based band Counting Crows is firmly in the latter camp: it's released a selection of four songs for free in a partnership with BitTorrent, asking listeners to buy the full album if they want to hear more. Adam Duritz, the band's lead singer, compared file-sharing to more traditional promotional methods or album bootlegging. "If you got 150 million people on BitTorrent, then that’s the new radio station," he said. "That’s a better radio station in fact, because people have the choice to play it as much as they want and stop when they get sick of it."

Duritz admits that bands that rely on the internet rather than record companies may not become "megastars," but he also cites problems with the traditional label system, where bands often traded autonomy and revenue for publicity (Counting Crows left its label, Geffen Records, in 2009.) The internet, he says, has been great for artists, especially those who use it to connect to fans. "File-sharing is no different from the rest of the internet; it is a tool that connects the entire world."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/14/30...undle-released





Disrespect, or Disruption? Beastie Boys File-Sharing Volumes Are Surging...
paul

How do you justify file-swapping Adam Yauch? After all, you can't say you're going to the show anymore! Maybe the flip side is that many of these swappers are discovering earlier Beastie Boys stuff for the first time, and merely going to the platform they prefer.

Either way, here are the facts: it turns out that file-swapping volumes on the Beastie Boys have been surging since the death of Yauch (aka MCA), despite the obvious issues involved. The stat comes from Musicmetric, a tracking firm that noticed a quick file-trading uptick in the moments following Yauch's death.

Maybe this all seems obvious to you, though it seems slightly out-of-place alongside surging sales of paid Beastie Boys downloads and CDs. "License to Ill... is the most popular among file-sharers," a Musicmetric data-cruncher told Digital Music News. "The top city for torrents is their hometown of New York with LA, Chicago, Philadelphia and Toronto making up the top five."

A time-worn truism of the music industry is that artist deaths frequently provokes sales surges. It's just that in the 2010s, perked-up awareness, nostalgia and rediscovery are reflected across nearly every format. Which would explain why CDs, downloads, streams, and swaps have all been surging on the Beastie Boys. "Similar spikes were seen across social networks with regards to numbers of online fans added per day (which increased by 700 percent) and total online plays (which increased by 2,000 percent)," the group relayed.

There's also the reality that many younger listeners weren't aware of earlier Beastie Boys material - or, even the Beastie Boys themselves. And the reason is simple: the younger set wasn't around to experience the magic in the 80s and 90s, and MCA's death provoked a rewind blitz among media outlets large and small. That includes endless clips and retrospectives, starting with License to Ill.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...12/120513yauch





Support for File Sharing Remains High in Sweden

File sharing is still going strong in Sweden. Levels have barely been affected by new, harsh laws, and most Swedes have no problem with file sharing, a new study from Lund University shows.

Following 2009’s introduction of anti-file sharing IPRED law (named after the EU intellectual property rights directive), file sharing rates dipped momentarily, but soon buoyed up again.

And the law has failed to affect public opinion, according to the study. Neither active file sharers nor those around them think they’re doing anything wrong.

“This law has no support in the public’s sense of justice,” said Måns Svensson of Lund University’s Internet Institute, who conducted the study together with Stefan Larsson.

According to Svensson and Larsson, such a rift between what the law says and what people think of it is unique.

“We’ve never ever seen a law with such weak support from social norms. There’s a flagrant rift. This is unique,” Svensson said in a statement.

"The fact that file sharing diminished somewhat simply shows that the law works as a deterrent, as people are scared of being punished,” he went on.

Usually, legislation has a normative function, meaning that social values are affected by the law’s introduction.

This effect has yet to kick in for file sharing, the study shows.

A wide majority of the Swedish youth file share. Some 61 percent of Swedes between 15 and 25 file share, according to a survey conducted in January 2012.
http://www.thelocal.se/40922/20120519/





Music Kickstarter Puts A Record Label In The Cloud
Greg Anderson

(Edit: Music Kickstarter is launching a service with the name KickUp. The article has been changed to call it the name it is launching with)

Launching this Saturday by Music Kickstarter is Kickup, the "world's first cloud-based record label." The Helsinki-based company aims to update the recording industry by throwing a lot of the standard recording label tasks into the cloud. The platform aims to both give artists a publishing platform for physical and digital distribution, while also giving bands new ways to collaborate and support each other.

The cloud platform will run artists €99 a year, and handle contracts, rights management, and industry connections.

"We build a smart layer that constantly works for the artists," says Antti Silventoinen, CEO and co-founder of Music Kickstarter. "Say you send me a track. What the cloud starts doing is it looks for the appropriate points of transactions, for example whether it needs to be sent to print press, if PR needs to be notified. Do we need to alert our fans. Do we put it on Facebook."

On top of that KickUp provides other services like crowdfunding, tour creation and venue booking, customer analytics, SEO optimization, and PR.

It also should be noted that it's an open platform. KickUp does not take any music rights from artists, and if a band feels like parting ways with KickUp, there are no fines or strings attached to tie an artist up, like a typical label.

Getting that critical mass of musicians may be a challenge for KickUp, but I think any artist or outsider can see value in what they're creating. One thing that Silventoinen said over and over in his pitch is that the label is now the product, which is unlike what any traditional label would call themselves.

One thing I have to wonder about is whether they can just throw around the word Kickstarter in their company name, especially since they also provide crowdfunding services. I'll let the two companies figure that out. Edit: Music Kickstarter is launching with the name KickUp, sidestepping any trademark issues.

KickUp is launching its service on Saturday. To kickstart their service, they're throwing together a workshop at Gloria in Helsinki with food and drinks. More information can be found here.
http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/05...starter-launch





TappIn P2P File Sharing Review
Karl Wright

A P2P file sharing tool, which has an attractive £13 per year price point and comes with SSL encryption and password protection. However, the lack of online backup and need for high-speed internet lets it down.

TappIn is a peer-to-peer sharing application, which lets you open, read, download and share files stored on your primarily machine with other PCs, mobile phones or tablets.

Think of TappIn as a cross between a remote desktop tool such as GoToMyPC and a cloud storage service like Dropbox.

The standard version of TappIn costs £13 a year. It's cheap, but then it should be as you're not actually buying storage - just a gateway to get access to your own files. The desktop agent is compatible with Windows, Mac OS and Linux. There are versions of the mobile app for iOS (iPhone and iPad), Android and for Windows Phone 7, but no Blackberry support at present.

As would be expected with a file sharing app, getting started is easy. Both the desktop and the mobile apps are simple to install.

However, it would have been helpful if the user guides were more comprehensive. They had nothing to say on the subject of setting up specific features.

File sharing

TappIn doesn’t just make selected folders on your PC visible over the network. The service allows you to control access to shared folders, so only people you invite can see content.

Click on the folder name in your browsers, enter the email address of the person you want to share with and specify whether or not the folder should be password protected

Sharing content is easy and secure. As soon as you open your TappIn account, you’ll see a list of all the folders on your host computer. Click on the one you want to share, specify whether or not you want to password protect it, and then send a link to the person with whom you wish to share. You can choose to make a folder read-only, if you are sending documents to third-parties, for example.

File transfers are secured with industry-standard SSL encryption and it is also possible to see who has accessed files since your last login. This is useful if you are storing confidential files and also helps to see who has done what when working to deadlines.

TappIn users can stream video and music from a host PC to any compatible target device such as a laptop, iPad, iPhone, Android or Windows Phone device via the inbuilt multimedia player. This will be useful for those who want to have access to multimedia content on the move. We had no problems with streaming content to a laptop and an iPhone over a 7Mbps connection.

Developers are also working on other features, which will be known as SocialShare. This will allow users to share content via text messages and through Facebook.

However, reading the blurb on the website, features such as 'Syncing photos with Facebook' appeared to be available and we were annoyed when we couldn't find them and were eventually told they were still in development.

With its built-in media player, TappIn makes it easy to listen to music or watch videos stored on a remote PC

No Backup

Although the P2P system saves you having to upload files to another server before being able to share them, we do have some reservations about this.

The lack of online backup is the primary concern. If your PC goes up in smoke or gets stolen you'll lose your files. And because people connect directly to your computer, rather than a server to which you have uploaded your files, their experience will depend totally on your broadband connection.

Companies such as Dropbox operate data-centres, with multiple high-speed inbound and outbound network connections. Upload your files to their servers, and once the upload is done, your colleagues can get to those files quickly and easily. With TappIn, if you’re in a fleapit motel using dodgy Wi-Fi, any colleagues will have a similarly poor experience.

Overall

If you're going to be sharing files using a high-speed broadband connection, then TappIn is cheap and easy to use. You don’t get the extra peace of mind afforded by an online backup, so you’ll need a local backup system. But you should be backing up anyway.

In its current form, TappIn doesn’t feel like it’s ready for a commercial release. It would help if the features available were clarified to avoid frustration.

However, the £13 per year price makes TappIn a good investment and it is cheaper than full remote desktop offerings such as GoToMyPC, which costs £7.19 per month.

We envisage TappIn working well in conjunction with other cloud storage services such as Dropbox and Google Drive, which offer 2GB and 5GB of free storage, respectively.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/640633/tappin...haring-review#





The Rise of Europe's Private Internet Police

Activists are fighting to rein them in.
Rebecca MacKinnon

In 2005, Peter Mahnke, a resident of the English town of St. Margaret's, Middlesex, set up a community website. For the past seven years, he and a handful of local volunteers have been publishing regular updates about local events, parks, new businesses, weather, and train schedules. All G-rated and uncontroversial.

Yet in early March, for reasons that remain unclear, the St. Margaret's website was blocked throughout Britain on mobile Internet services offered by Orange (a subsidiary of France Telecom) and T-mobile (owned by Deutsche Telecom). The site had fallen victim to a nationwide child-protection system run by the mobile companies themselves. Somehow the system, which activists say is rife with errors, had classified the site as "adult" content, causing it to be blocked on all phones by default.

The accidental censorship of the St. Margaret's community website highlights a larger reality of the Internet age: The digital networks and platforms we depend upon for all aspects of our lives -- including the civic and political -- are for the most part designed, owned, operated, and governed by the private sector. Internet and mobile services empower us to organize and communicate in exciting new ways, and indeed have been politically transformative in democracies and dictatorships alike. But the connectivity they provide has also created tough new problems for parents, law enforcement, and anybody wanting to protect their intellectual property. Democratically elected governments face political pressure from a range of vocal and powerful constituencies to take urgent action to protect children, property, and reputations. Increasingly, however, the job of policing the Internet is falling to private intermediaries -- companies that are under little or no legal obligation to uphold citizens' rights. In effect, they end up acting simultaneously as digital police, judge, jury, and executioner.

European governments may not have intended to create a "privatized police state," but that is what digital rights activists in Europe warn is happening, due to growing government pressure on companies to police themselves. As Joe McNamee, director of the Brussels-based nonprofit European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI), puts it, "We are sleepwalking further and further along a road on which we've decided that our right to communication and privacy shall be put in the hands of arbitrary decisions of private companies."

The St. Margaret's website was one example of many included in a new report by the UK-based advocacy organization Open Rights Group and the London School of Economics' Media Policy Project about child protection-related censorship carried out by companies running Britain's major mobile Internet services. Websites censored in the name of protecting British children from "adult" content included "Biased BBC," dedicated to critiquing the national broadcaster, "Shelf Appeal," a website dedicated to products that can be packed on shelves, and "La Quadrature du Net," a French digital rights advocacy group. Carriers lifted the blocks on these websites once activists brought the censorship to their attention, but it remains unclear how these sites made their way onto company blacklists in the first place. Even more troubling, the censorship affected not just users under 18 but also all subscribers. "Phone companies 'censor' the mobile Internet by default because they don't know whether their phones are being given to or used by children and young adults," the report's authors explain. "A system ostensibly designed to help parents manage their children's access to the Internet is effectively implementing much broader restrictions on access to information that affect a much wider group of people than intended."

This type of problem is serious enough, in enough countries, to have made its way to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Last year, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, delivered an official report to the council that not only condemned the censorship and surveillance practices of authoritarian countries, but also warned of dangerous trends in the democratic world that threaten citizen rights to free expression in the Internet age. One of his major concerns is "over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law." He singled out two examples of how governments are, ironically, using law to delegate enforcement responsibilities and functions to the private sector: Britain's Digital Economy Act, which could potentially disconnect Internet users suspected of illegal downloading, and France's similar "three strikes" law.

La Rue also expressed concern about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by the United States and several dozen trading partners, which seeks to tackle the global problem of counterfeiting, both online and off. One of the many reasons digital rights and free expression advocates oppose ACTA is because of its broad definitions of criminal liability, which could hold private companies legally responsible for what users do or share through their services. This could in turn push private companies to police the Internet in order to avoid prosecution. The same push for private policing of citizens' digital communications was also a feature of the U.S. House of Representatives' Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was killed by a similar grassroots political movement in January.

The first months of 2012 have seen political victories for citizens' digital rights in Europe as well. A pan-European grassroots movement has successfully pressured several EU member governments to scrap or delay plans to ratify ACTA, causing European Commissioner Neelie Kroes to declare "We are now likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA." In Germany, the Pirate Party, whose platform includes an anti-censorship, anti-surveillance agenda, has been making steady inroads at the level of state parliaments, and is optimistic about gaining national parliamentary seats. Last week, the Netherlands became the first European country and the second country in the world to pass a net neutrality law, which also protects Internet users from disconnection and wiretapping by Internet service providers. As EDRI's McNamee puts it, a growing number of Europeans are waking up to the notion that "the essence of the Internet is at stake," and with it, citizens' freedoms both online and off.

The Internet is a politically contested space. If citizens' rights are to be robustly defended within it, EDRI's McNamee argues, "the role of intermediaries" -- companies like Orange and T-Mobile and all other providers of broadband and mobile Internet service -- "in policing and control and regulation of the online world must be understood," not just by technologists and Internet policy specialists, but by politicians, the press, and the public. Citizens' rights cannot be protected if their digital activities are governed and policed by opaque and publicly unaccountable corporate mechanisms. Clear limits should be set on how power is exercised in cyberspace by companies as well as governments through the democratic political process and enforced through law.

La Rue, the U.N. special rapporteur, has proposed three core principles upon which those limits should be based: 1) restrictions of citizens' access to information online should be limited to exceptional circumstances; 2) enforcement mechanisms should be governed by law and a clear legal process; 3) restrictions to the flow of information should take place only under exceptional and limited circumstances prescribed by international human rights law. Many European digital rights groups now use these standards as core elements of their fight. The next step will be for politicians wanting to capitalize on the growing public concern for digital liberties to incorporate La Rue's principles into their political platforms, then push for laws that will strengthen citizens' rights in cyberspace -- rather than erode them.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...nternet_police





New Report Lists Top 10 Legitimate Sites Blocked by UK Adult Content Filters
Mark Jackson

The Open Rights Group (ORG) and the LSE Media Policy Project have today published a new report that examines the impact of internet censorship on mobile networks and list some of the legitimate websites that often get unfairly blocked by adult content filters (aka – over-blocking). The study is important because similar measures could soon be forced upon fixed line broadband ISP subscribers.

One of the arguments against a recent demand for ISPs to offer automatic blocks on pornographic sites (i.e. adult content), which emerged earlier this month as part of MP Claire Perry’s Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection, is that they often block legitimate content too.

The new report, which highlights 10 examples of incorrectly blocked sites between 1st January and 31st March 2012, suggests that “mobile networks in the UK are more likely to suffer from mistaken blocking than deliberate abuse“.

ORG Internet Censorship Report

What is clear is that the blocking extends well beyond adult sexual content. And it is important to recognise that what is ‘appropriate’ is not at all easily defined, leaving many of the reports in a grey area.

There are two separate types of over-blocking. First, there are clearly many misclassifications, where sites are mistakenly placed behind a filter. For example, we found that a site advertising holiday villas in Portugal (‘www.algarve-beach-life.com’) was blocked on Vodafone. This is presumably an error. Likewise, we hope, the block on access to La Quadrature du Net was in error.

Second, there may be disputed classifications, where deciding what material should be considered ‘blockable’ requires a subjective judgement. For example, some networks consider that forums should always be blocked, because of concerns that young people will interact with people they don’t know. However, such a policy could cut off informative education forums, or may restrict young people’s access to sites where they find support from their peers. The subjectiveness of such a decision is especially problematic given that the needs of 16-year-olds are very different from those of 11-year-olds, and that different parents will have different ideas about what is or is not appropriate at different ages.


To highlight this problem the Open Rights Group (ORG) created a simple reporting tool (Blocked.org.uk) that allows people to submit reports of blocks they consider to be inappropriate. It revealed the following results.

10 Examples of Inappropriate Blocks

1. Tor (www.torproject.org). We established that the primary website of this privacy tool (meaning the HTTP version of the Tor Project website, rather than connections to the Tor network) was blocked on at least Vodafone, O2 and Three in January.

2. La Quadrature du Net (www.laquadrature.net/en). The website of this French ‘digital rights’ advocacy group was reported blocked on Orange’s ‘Safeguard’ system on 2nd February. La Quadrature du Net has become one of the focal points for European civil society’s political engagement with an important international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.12 The block was removed shortly after we publicised the blocking.

3. Shelfappeal.com was reported blocked on 15th February 2012 on Orange. This is a blog that features items that can be placed on a shelf.

4. Septicisle.info was reported on 7th February, and was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile. This is a personal blog featuring political opinion pieces. It does not contain any adult content.

5. The Vault Bar (www.thevaultbar.co.uk) in London. We established that the home page of this bar was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile on 6th February.

6. St Margarets Community Website (www.stmgrts.org.uk), is a community information site ‘created by a group of local residents of St Margarets, Middlesex.’ Their ‘mission is simple – help foster a stronger community identity.’ We established it was blocked on Orange and T-Mobile on 8th March.

7. eHow.com is an advice and educational site. It provides tutorials on a wide range of everyday issues, from ‘navigating after-school care’ to ‘small space garden tips’. We established it was blocked on Orange on 9th March.

8. Biased-BBC (www.biased-bbc.blogspot.co.uk) is a site that challenges the BBC’s impartiality. We established it was blocked on O2 and T-Mobile on 5th March. It is classified as a ‘hate site’ by O2’s URL checker

9. Yomaraugusto.com is the home page of a graphic designer, offering a portfolio of his art and design work. This was found to be blocked on Three and Orange on 6th February.

10. Equisitetweets.com allows users to create one-page threads to save or share from conversations on Twitter. This site was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile on 15th February.

Concern over the issue is often compounded by how the vast majority of UK network operators fail to provide a clear path for appealing unfair blocks. This is an especially critical point to consider if the site(s) happen to be of a commercial nature, such as two leading clothes and underwear retailers (Bravissimo and Figleaves) that were blocked by Vodafone last year (here). It’s apparently ok to have underwear pictures inside clothing stores, where we take our kids, but not online. The National Lottery site has had similar issues, yet TV and print advertising seems fine.

Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group and author of the report is now calling for the government to “reject ‘default on’ network filtering” in its new consultation and instead suggests that they should “work to give parents simpler choices and better, device-based tools“. Not that blocking itself works, all such systems are incredibly easy to circumvent, but many people don’t know that.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...t-filters.html





Mobile Internet Censorship: What's Happening and What to Do
Peter Bradwell

A new report from Open Rights Group and LSE Media Policy Project reveals widespread over-blocking on mobile networks, helping to demonstrate why we shouldn't accept default-on adult Internet filtering

Today we're launching a new report called "Mobile internet censorship: what's happening and what we can do about it", which is a joint publication with LSE Media Policy Project. You can download a pdf of the report and LSE Media Policy Project will be posting responses on their blog, which we'll also be cross-posting these on ORGZine today.

The report is about how mobile operators' child protection filters work. It shows how systems designed to help parents manage their childrens' access to the Internet can actually affect many more users than intended and block many more sites than they should. It reveals widespread overblocking, problems with transparency and difficulties correcting mistakes.

We argue that mobile operators need to offer an 'active choice', be far more transparent and open, and provide easier ways to address errors.

More broadly, the report helps emphasise that the 'neo Mary Whitehouse' campaign for default blocks, led by Claire Perry MP is calling for the wrong solution in looking to 'default on' filtering. The lessons from mobile filtering suggest fixed-line Internet filtering should concentrate on users and devices rather than networks, be properly described as 'parental controls' (because the content blocked is far broader than adult sexual material) and above all involve an 'active choice', not be set by default.
Without that guarded approach, seemingly simple, laudable goals such as protecting children through technical intervention may have significant harmful and unintended consequences for everybody’s access to information.

Blocked.org.uk

The report is based on reports of inappropriate blocks provided to our website Blocked.org.uk through January to March . These were cases where sites or services were blocked that should not have been. Working with a small group of volunteers, we received over 60 reports, including personal and political blogs, sites for retaraunts, and community sites. Here are some examples:

• Biased-BBC (www.biased-bbc.blogspot.co.uk) is a site that challenges the BBC’s impartiality. We established it was blocked on O2 and T-Mobile on 5th March.
• St Margarets Community Website (www.stmgrts.org.uk), is a community information site ‘created by a group of local residents of St Margarets, Middlesex.’ Their ‘mission is simple - help foster a stronger community identity.’ We established it was blocked on Orange and T-Mobile on 8th March.
• The Vault Bar (www.thevaultbar.co.uk) in London. We established that the home page of this bar was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile on 6th February.
• Shelfappeal.com was reported blocked on 15th February 2012 on Orange. This is a blog that features items that can be placed on a shelf.
• ‘Tor’ (www.torproject.org). We established that the primary website of this privacy tool (meaning the HTTP version of the Tor Project website, rather than connections to the Tor network) was blocked on at least Vodafone, O2 and Three in January.
• La Quadrature du Net (www.laquadrature.net/en). The website of this French ‘digital rights’ advocacy group was reported blocked on Orange’s ‘Safeguard’ system on 2nd February. La Quadrature du Net has become one of the focal points for European civil society’s political engagement with an important international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The block was removed shortly after we publicised the blocking.

Last week - too late to be included in this report - we wrote about how the site of peace advocates Conciliation Resources was blocked on Orange, O2 and Vodafone. O2's URL checker classified the site as pornography (the mistake now seems to have been corrected).

Our mystery shopper exercise also helped show that the mobile operators find it difficult to respond to reports of mistakes, especially when a site is stuck behind a filter for no good reason.

There are serious consequences to badly implemented, default child protection blocking systems. They include restrictions on markets, censorship, a failure to address young people's diverse needs and a false sense of security for parents.

Some simple changes to how mobile operators run their filtering services would help address many of the problems with mobile filtering - including better ways to choose to activate filtering on an account, more transparency about how the filtering works and simpler more effective ways of addressing mistakes.

In the longer term there should be an effort to move away from filtering at the ‘ISP level’ towards device-based filtering.

You can read the full report for more. We hope it helps contribute to a sensible child protection strategy, rather than one based on the overly-simplistic, albeit emotionally appealing, proposition that children need to be protected from seeing things parents don't want them to see. We need tools for parents that help them manage, through responsible and engaged parenting, their childrens' access to the Internet - that does not have to mean unresponsive and broad network-level filtering.
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/...net-censorship





Comcast’s Non-Denial Denial On Traffic Prioritization And Net Neutrality
Ryan Lawler

Ever since Comcast unveiled its VOD service on the Xbox, it’s come under criticism from those who believe the service violates the spirit of net neutrality, not to mention also violating some of the FCC’s conditions on its big NBC Universal deal from last year. After weeks of staying out of the discussion, the top cable provider in the U.S. explained in a blog post how the content was being delivered within a subscriber’s home.

Comcast had always maintained that the VOD streams were being delivered through its own internal CDN architecture and not over the broader Internet, but the latest blog post gives a little more detail about how those streams get delivered over the last mile. From the post:

“Specifically, we provision a separate, additional bandwidth flow into the home for the use of this service — above and beyond, and distinct from, the bandwidth a customer has for his or her regular Internet access service.”

In short, Comcast is provisioning whatever traffic it’s using to deliver Xbox video separately from whatever traffic is being used by a customer’s Internet connection. So if you pay for a 25 Mb/s broadband connection, for instance, Comcast isn’t sending its Xbox VOD streams through that pipe. Instead, it’s provisioning a whole different connection that handles only the Xbox VOD service.

That’s why VOD streams that go directly to the Xbox don’t count against Comcast’s 250 GB broadband cap, while streams from its iPad app, XfinityTV.com website, or those of NBC.com or other NBC Universal properties do count toward the cap. It’s also why, when someone like Brian Berg floods his Internet connection with synthetic traffic, the Xbox Xfinity VOD stream continues unabated — because it’s not riding on the same pipe as usual Internet traffic.

Of course, that doesn’t really answer the question about whether it’s prioritizing its traffic, or if its streams are being delivered in a non-neutral fashion.

In the sense that Xbox VOD streams are being sent over a whole separate pipe from regular Internet traffic, of course it’s prioritized and of course it’s not neutral — not only does it not count toward bandwidth caps, but it also isn’t subject to all the vagaries of best-effort Internet streaming, including all the hiccups, jitter, buffering and the like.

But that’s the entire point, according to Comcast: This isn’t an Internet video service at all, but a cable TV service that just happens to be delivered via IP. In that sense, it’s no different from similar services being delivered by Verizon and AT&T, both of which provision streams for its IPTV services that are separate from the general broadband traffic that they carry.

That’ll provide little solace to online video publishers and distributors who are streamed over the broader Internet and do actually count against Comcast’s caps. But for policy wonks at the FCC and in Congress, this is probably as good of an answer as any as to why Comcast isn’t discriminating against the traffic of others.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/15/com...et-neutrality/





Comcast Ditches 250GB Data Cap, Tests Tiered Pricing

Comcast is suspending its 250GB data cap for broadband customers while it tests a new tiered data cap option in certain parts of the U.S.
Marguerite Reardon

Comcast, the largest cable TV and Internet broadband provider in the U.S., is changing its data cap policy on its broadband service to encourage its customers to use its service without worrying about how much data they are consuming.

Today, the company announced in a blog post that it will soon begin testing a new pricing model for customers who use an excessive amount of data each month. In these markets, the company will increase the cap, which is now 250GB per month, to 300GB per month. And when customers exceed this cap, the company will charge an extra $10 for every 50GB of data that a user consumes each month.

Meanwhile, the company said it will suspend the 250GB cap in all other parts of the country while the test is under way.

David L. Cohen, executive vice president for Comcast, said on a call with reporters that the new policy is meant to reign in a small percentage of customers who use an excessive amount of data per month and to encourage other customers who are not even close to reaching this cap to use the service more.

"We didn't like the message that we were giving our customers with the static 250GB cap," he said. "Now, we are sending a signal to our customers that we want them to use our broadband service and to feel free to use it for all lawful purposes. We want them to subscribe to Netflix and stream Youtube and use Skype to their life's content without worrying about hitting some artificial data cap that results in them losing their service."

Cohen explained that the company will test two different approaches during the test trial. In one approach, the company will allocate a different threshold of data for each tier of service the company currently offers. The lowest tier of service will get a cap of 300 GB. Higher tiers of service would get a higher allotment of data, after which customers would be charged extra for their usage. The second approach the company plans to test would be to offer the 300GB cap across every tier of service in place today.

Cohen said the company may introduce other models that it will test. He said the company has not yet made public in which cities it plans to test these new models.

For the large majority of Comcast broadband customers, the new policy will likely not affect their service. Cohen wouldn't say how many customers are already bumping up against the current 250 GB cap, but he said the percentage was small.

Comcast instituted the cap back in 2008. Then the company said that the median usage for most residential customers was somewhere between 2GB and 3GB. But the company noted that when customers streamed HD video and used other online back-up services, these benchmarks were typically broken within a matter of hour and sometimes minutes.

In 2008, Comcast offered this advice to customers to help them understand how much data they could consume under the 250 GB cap.

Send 50 million e-mails (at 0.05KB/e-mail)
Download 62,500 songs (at 4MB/song)
Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2GB/movie)
Upload 25,000 high-resolution digital photos (at 10MB/photo)

But Cohen admitted that the world has changed since 2008. Customers are using their broadband connections to do more. Streaming video has increased dramatically. But Comcast's Cohen was careful to make the point that Comcast's network is up to the task of delivering this streaming content over its newly upgraded broadband network. And he said the company wanted to encourage subscribers to use more data.

The move to change the policy comes as Comcast faces scrutiny over a new service that it's offering to Comcast subscribers with Xbox gaming consoles. The new service allows users to stream video from its Xfinity app. When Comcast introduced the product earlier this year, it said that the use of this app on Xfinity would not count towards the 250 GB cap.

The announcement raised concern among consumer advocates and companies, such as Netflix, which also offer streaming video service. Netflix's CEO Reed Hastings complained that the Comcast's app was favoring its own video service over other services by exempting that usage from the data cap.

Comcast has argued that since the video transported via the app does not traverse the public Internet it is not violating Net Neutrality rules it agreed to as part of the conditions for its merger with NBC Universal.

Still, executives at the company said they wanted to lay to rest these complaints and dispel any fears that the company's subscribers may have about the company trying to limit usage of services such as Netflix. In a blog post published earlier today, Cathy Avgiris, an executive vice president and general manager, at Comcast explained the company's position:

Over the last several years, we have periodically reviewed this policy, and for the last six months we have been analyzing the market and our process and think that now is the time to begin to move to a new plan. This conclusion was only reinforced when, in recent weeks, some of the conversation around our new product introductions focused on our data usage threshold, rather than on the exciting opportunities we are offering our customers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...iered-pricing/





Verizon to Kill Unlimited Data Plans for Existing Subscribers

At an investor conference, an exec says the carrier is killing the plan for "grandfathered" customers and will force existing and new customers to sign up for a tiered "data share" plan on its 4G LTE network.
Marguerite Reardon

Verizon Wireless subscribers who have held onto their $30-a-month unlimited data plans will soon be forced to upgrade to a new tiered offering the company plans to launch this summer, according to the Web site Fierce Wireless.

Speaking at the J.P. Morgan Technology Media and Telecom conference today, Verizon Communications CFO Fran Shammo told investors that the company's 3G unlimited data plans that customers were allowed to hang onto last year when Verizon switched to a tiered offering will soon go away entirely. Instead, the company will migrate its existing and new 4G LTE customers to a new "data share plan."

The company has yet to announce the details of this new plan, but it has said previously that the data share plan will be introduced in midsummer. The plan will allow people on the same family plan to share buckets of data each month, much like they share voice minutes and text messaging. It will also allow individuals to share data across different 4G LTE devices.

Verizon eliminated its unlimited data plan for smartphone users last July, about a year after AT&T had done the same thing. Like AT&T had done previously, Verizon told its existing unlimited data plan customers that they could keep their unlimited data plans even after their contracts expired. And Verizon has allowed its 3G wireless subscribers to upgrade to 4G LTE devices, while keeping their unlimited data plans.

But the company was always careful to say that it could change this policy in the future. And now it looks like that day has finally come. The way it will likely work is that as 3G unlimited contracts expire, Verizon will push subscribers to upgrade their devices to smartphones on company's 4G LTE network. These customers will then have to sign up for the data share plans.

"Everyone will be on data share," Shammo said, according to Fierce Wireless. "When they migrate off 3G they will have to go to data share. That is beneficial to us."

Verizon hasn't yet announced pricing details of the new share plans. Shammo said that he believes this new plan will make it easier for families and small businesses to connect multiple devices, Fierce reported. This new plan is meant to encourage people to buy multiple connected devices and to use them on the 4G LTE network, without signing up for an additional data plan.

As this change happens and people connect additional devices to their accounts, Shammo said that the industry will have to change how they account for the revenue. Instead of looking at average revenue per user, he said that the industry should look at average revenue per account.

News of the end of the unlimited data plan is sure to upset some consumers who have held onto their existing accounts specifically for the unlimited benefit.

AT&T also offers this benefit to longtime smartphone customers. But the company has struggled to keep up with the demands of some of these users. In an effort to ensure that "grandfathered" unlimited users don't hog the network, the company began slowing down a proportion of these heavy users. The move outraged many customers. One man sued AT&T in small-claims court and won. AT&T has since changed its policy and now only slows down or throttles users if they exceed 3GB of data per month.

Meanwhile, T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel still offer unlimited data plans. T-Mobile also slows down users if they consume too much data each month. But Sprint claims that it is the only major wireless carrier in the U.S. to still offer unfettered unlimited data. Some people question how long the carrier will be able to offer such a plan given the steep rise in data usage.

A Verizon spokeswoman declined to comment on the news.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-574...g-subscribers/





Head of Time Warner Cable Is Unfamiliar With Apple’s AirPlay
Brian X. Chen

AirPlay, a software tool included with Apple’s iPads and iPhones, is widely viewed as being potentially disruptive to the cable industry, because it makes it easy for people to view a broad variety of Internet content on a television. Time Warner Cable’s leader, however, hasn’t heard of it.

Glenn A. Britt, the company’s chief executive, said in a group interview on Friday that the challenge for digital video was that there was no simple way to get Internet-based video onto the television screen. He wasn’t familiar with AirPlay.

“I’m not sure I know what AirPlay is,” he said, though he noted that he was an enthusiastic Apple customer. “Today we want to be on every screen. Today it’s a little bit clunky to get programming from the Internet onto the TV — not so hard to get it on your iPad. What’s hard is the plumbing, what wires do you connect, what device do you use. So the current Apple TV, the little thing, the hockey puck, really doesn’t do anything to help enable you to get Internet material on your TV.”

Apple pitches AirPlay as a way to make it easy to get Internet video from an iPad or iPhone onto a television, among other uses. A user can press a button while watching video to stream it wirelessly to an Apple TV box connected to a TV set.

AirPlay also makes it easy to push pirated video available on the Web onto the television, which could lead some people to drop their cable subscriptions. And it opens the door for content providers to circumvent cable and offer their own channels as apps. That gives them a direct relationship with the customer, as well as the opportunity to try new ways to increase revenue or ad sales. The Discovery Channel, ABC and PBS offer AirPlay-compatible apps. AirPlay will be coming to Apple’s computers too, in the next version of the Mac operating system, due out this summer.

Of course, while many people own iPhones and iPads, Apple TV has not been as popular; Apple sold 2.8 million of the boxes in the year that ended in September. Requiring two pieces of hardware isn’t as straightforward as getting all the content right there from the TV. Mr. Britt noted that he felt smart TVs — Internet-connected televisions that include computer chips and software — would be better than requiring an extra box to view Web content. “I hate set-top boxes,” he said.

But with many reports speculating about a coming release of an Apple-made television, AirPlay seems like something worth following.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...le-tv-airplay/





A TV Schedule in the Hands of Whoever Holds the Remote
David Carr

This week, when they ring the bell on the television upfronts, the annual orgy of advertising buying, I hope the industry isn’t counting on my house to lift ratings.

So far in the month of May, our household has watched exactly two minutes and one second of live television. NBC’s broadcast of “the most exciting two minutes in sports,” as the Kentucky Derby is described, was epic, unfurling on the big flat panel we finally bought. But I doubt our spasm of live viewing is enough to keep the television business in business.

And it wasn’t an anomaly. In April, our sum total of live viewing — the building block of the upfront — came during CBS’s broadcast of the Masters. Even then, I was more riveted by the iPad app in my lap, selecting players and holes to follow.

It’s an apt metaphor. When it comes to the traditional screen that families gather around, live television is competing against a growing array of self-selected content. Given the amount of high-quality shows idling in my DVR and on-demand queue, channel surfing for live television seems very last century. And our television is Web-enabled, so a vast treasure of other goodies awaits from Netflix, Hulu Plus and Apple TV.

(Our house is part of a rapidly growing trend: online viewing is up more than 46 percent in just the last year, according to the media buying firm Horizon Media. And as my colleague Bill Carter noted, live ratings for network programs have declined for 14 consecutive quarters, with audiences bolting in record numbers this spring.)

Outside of the professional football season or some breaking national news event, the television at our house has become uncoupled from the commercial-driven environment that drives the broadcast and cable business. We haven’t cut the cord so much as kinked it in a way that commercials rarely sneak through.

I continue to be a fan of (some) network television products; I just don’t consume them as they’re broadcast.

I’m part of the cult of “Community,” but I motor through several episodes on Hulu Plus when I am feeling the need to spend some quality time with Abed. I’m a frantic fan of “Modern Family,” but this season, fresh episodes were broadcast so sporadically that I just set the DVR to harvest the new ones. And sure, I like to get tucked in by Stephen Colbert, but I don’t go to bed until 1 a.m., so I make sure he is waiting for me in the virtual video library controlled by the remote on my night stand.

There used to be some intellectual cachet in sniffing that you didn’t watch television, but that time is past. Both premium and basic cable churn out so many remarkable goodies that can be recorded or consumed on demand — “Archer,” “Girls,” “Game of Thrones,” “The Killing” and “Louie,” to name just a few — that it feels like a sucker’s game just to settle for sponsor-infested spoon-feeding. Then again, if the business model producing some of that yummy programming dries up, the shows might go away as well.
For half a century, signals came over the public airwaves, and we gathered around the glowing appliance in groups at preordained times. Cable created a second wave of choice and split the model into paid and unpaid streams.

Now, DVR penetration will approach 50 percent of American homes next year, while half of American homes already have video on demand. With the Web offering alternatives as well, the programming controls have been reversed: we watch what we want, when we want to watch, and by the way, we aren’t going to watch much in the way of commercials.

My house is hardly the bleeding edge: Nielsen estimates that there will be 350 million Web-enabled television devices sold worldwide in 2015.

And it isn’t just the early adopters that legacy television has to be concerned about: there is a whole cohort of consumers on the way who are nonadopters of television as we have historically conceived it. My 15-year-old has a television in her room, but it’s not even on the cable-broadcast grid; it is wired instead to a Web-enabled Wii. Like the laptop and smartphone that she never seems to be without, the television is just one more Web-enabled portal for content she controls.

Other significant trends are under way. As the workplace has followed people home through a variety of devices that keep them virtually tethered to their desks, appointment viewing has given way to setting up the next day’s appointments. And social media, Web news and e-mail seem far more urgent than an amusing show in the 9 p.m. slot.

Even so-called event programming like “American Idol” is losing steam — that show’s ratings are down 30 percent — in part because of overexposure and in part because people are less patient with the formula of a cliffhanger interrupted by a thicket of commercials. Save the drumroll; I’ll watch a clip of the winner in the morning.

But the upfronts nevertheless continue to rumble along. According to estimates reported by Reuters, in the coming week the big four broadcast networks and the CW will book some $9 billion in advertising revenue, with the big four up 2 to 4 percent from last year. And cable networks, which surpassed broadcasters for the first time last year in total advertising booked during the upfronts, are expecting a payday of more than $9.6 billion, an increase of 4 to 6 percent.

Part of what keeps legacy television in the game is that it is the last refuge of mass and reach. For retailers who want to flag a sale or an entertainment company with a weekend movie opening, a commercial on a broadcast network or a highly rated cable station can still hammer a message into a lot of noggins. In this targeted age, it’s breathtakingly inefficient — you pay to reach everyone, even the millions not in the desired age group — but making a big television buy is a kind of comfort food, easy and familiar.

Yet by losing audience, networks and cable stations have been able to force advertisers to buy more commercials to reach the number of viewers that they want.

“They have an interesting business model predicated on losing viewers,” observed Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media. “It can’t last forever.”

At some point, the laws of both gravity and economics will begin to pull down the upfronts, and with them, the fundamentals of the television business. Jeff Gaspin, who used to head entertainment at NBC, told Bill Carter that he and his son recently decided to catch up on a particular series and so assembled episodes from a variety of sources — iTunes, Netflix and the DVR. They saw all the past episodes in time to watch the final one live on AMC but found that commercials interrupted their experience.

So what show demonstrated to the former television executive that the old way of watching television was losing relevance?

“The Walking Dead.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/b...elevision.html





Fox and NBC: Dish's Commercial-Skipping DVR 'a Strange Thing to Do' at Best, 'an Insult' at Worst
Adi Robertson

Customers may be impressed by Dish Network's commercial-skipping Auto Hop feature on the Hopper DVR, but at least two networks aren't so happy. In a press call, Fox entertainment chairman Peter Rice said that adding the option to cut out commercials for broadcast television was "a strange thing to do." Rice didn't go so far as to openly condemn the Hopper, though; instead, he said that Fox was "still evaluating it." NBC's Ted Harbert was more direct. In a similar conference, he claimed that the new tool was "an attack on our ecosystem" and "an insult to our joint investment in programming."

The Auto Hop feature, which was added a few days ago, edits out commercial breaks with a single button for some broadcast programming from ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. It's meant to be easier to use than similar fast-forwarding or editing tools on other media platforms, although it only works after a day-long waiting period. So far, ABC and CBS have remained silent on the tool.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/14/30...rcial-skipping





A DVR Ad-Eraser Causes Tremors at TV Upfronts
Brian Stelter

Broadcast television executives came to New York this week, as they do every year, to talk up their new TV shows in front of advertisers.

This year, they are having to talk about yet another technology trying to tear them down.

The disruptive technology at hand is an ad eraser, embedded in new digital video recorders sold by Charles W. Ergen’s Dish Network, one of the nation’s top distributors of TV programming. Turn it on, and all the ads recorded on most prime-time network shows are automatically skipped, no channel-flipping or fast-forwarding necessary.

Some reviewers have already called the feature, named Auto Hop, a dream come true for consumers. But for broadcasters and advertisers, it is an attack on an entrenched television business model, and it must be strangled, lest it spread.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ ” without commercials? asked Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of the CBS Corporation, in response to questions from reporters on Wednesday morning before his annual upfront presentation.

Ted Harbert, the chairman of NBC Broadcasting, struck a similar note at his network’s presentation on Monday, calling the Dish feature an insult to the television industry. “Just because technology gives you the ability to do something, does that mean you should? Not always,” he said.

Unlike the music and news businesses, television has been mostly successful at fending off technological challenges. Several network owners worked together to start Hulu, an online streaming Web site intended to curb piracy. This year, when a start-up called Aereo introduced a service to stream New York TV stations via the Internet, the stations banded together in filing two lawsuits to stall it. The lawsuits are pending.

The Auto Hop is noteworthy because it originated not from a start-up but from a satellite distributor with longstanding ties to the rest of the TV industry. Dish Network regularly negotiates with the networks for the rights to rebroadcast programming. Without that programming, subscribers would switch distributors. Yet Dish has still decided to promote its ad eraser, which comes with the Hopper, a new DVR that can record all the prime-time programming on ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC simultaneously.

As network executives tell it, Dish Network is a friend turned foe, once preserving the advertising model but now threatening to turn on a doomsday device. (It didn’t help Dish’s cause that it gave the networks less than a day’s notice before announcing the feature last Thursday.)

So they are closing ranks to try to stop it. At least one of the network owners, News Corporation, is no longer accepting Dish’s new DVR ads on any of its television properties. It and several other owners are examining whether they can sue Dish, the same way they sued a maker of DVRs a decade ago, according to several people with knowledge of the deliberations, who insisted on anonymity to speak freely about the internal discussions.

James L. McQuivey, a vice president and analyst for Forrester Research, said that “with Dish’s aggressive move to please the end customer rather than advertisers, it’s clear that in the fight for TV revenue the gloves have finally come off.” He continued: “The fact that Dish would be willing to anger some of its most important content partners just goes to show how desperate these times we live in really are.”

The desperation stems from the persistent fear that subscribers will forgo paying for television service and turn to Internet alternatives instead. A feature like Auto Hop is a drastic step “to keep consumers interested,” Mr. McQuivey asserted.

The technology to automatically skip TV ads isn’t new. TiVo, one of the original DVR makers, flirted with such a feature about a decade ago. Another maker, ReplayTV, actually put such a feature in place, spurring lawsuits from the major TV networks.

In 2003, after the owner of ReplayTV filed for bankruptcy, the new owners dropped the feature. A company executive was quoted as saying at the time that “we will take features out because we want to be a positive force in the industry.”

TiVo has taken the same approach, promoting ways to deliver ads to viewers even as they’re fast-forwarding through them. “We’ve gone from being a black hat to being more of a white hat,” said Tom Rogers, the chief executive of TiVo.

He was an executive at NBC a decade ago when the network was considering making an investment in TiVo. One of the conditions of the investment, he said, was that “they not have an automatic commercial skip.”

TiVo’s Web site specifies that its devices “do not offer a commercial skip feature,” though there is a way to turn on a 30-second skip-ahead button. Mr. Rogers said Dish’s all-ads-skipped button takes the notion “to an extreme.”

But Dish asserts that the technology actually promotes broadcasting and encourages people to sample new shows.

“Over time, we can actually get viewers more engaged with content, not less,” said Vivek Khemka, a vice president at Dish, in an interview this week. “We are sensitive to the networks’ needs.”

That’s why the feature does not start working until two hours after the end of prime time each day, he said, and why the ads are preserved on the recording. (They’re hidden, however, because the Dish software knows when to skip over them.)

As Mr. Khemka pointed out, consumers have had the ability for years to manually fast-forward through ads. DVRs are now in nearly half of all American households and are widely accepted by the industry. DVR owners still see many TV ads, though, according to Nielsen data, suggesting that the recorders give owners the illusion of choice.

Network executives privately dismiss Dish’s claim that it will promote more viewing. They declined to comment on the record about legal maneuvering, but representatives for ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC said this week that they were reviewing the matter.

“Ads are the key to our business,” said Paul Lee, the president of ABC Entertainment Group, on Tuesday. “So we’re not supportive of anything that doesn’t support our advertisers.”

Mr. McQuivey said, “In the end, the real power of the networks comes in their distribution deals. If Dish doesn’t play nice, Dish will find it impossible to renew those deals when they’re up.”

Dish knows that, of course, but has decided to rock the boat anyway. Mr. Khemka declined to speculate on the possibility of litigation from television networks.

Mitch Stoltz, a staff lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which argued against the network suit a decade ago, said, “Giving customers the ability to skip commercials automatically may be a business problem for the TV networks but it’s not a clear copyright violation.

“Unfortunately, the damages that copyright law allows are so high that threatening litigation can create a lot of leverage in negotiations, so that copyright can act as a veto on innovation.”

Amy Chozick contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/b...-upfronts.html





'Avengers' Add $103.2M in Sprint to $1 Billion
AP

"The Avengers" is taking a page out of Superman's comic book — flying faster than a speeding bullet to the billion-dollar mark at the box office.

The superhero blockbuster took in $103.2 million to lead for a second-straight weekend, raising its domestic total to $373.2 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

With $95.4 million more overseas, "The Avengers" lifted its international receipts to $628.9 million and a worldwide haul of just over $1 billion, only 19 days after it began rolling out in some markets.

"You never think that it can happen this quickly," said Dave Hollis, head of distribution for Disney, whose Marvel Studios unit produced the ensemble film after a long buildup in its solo superhero outings. "You hope you can get to this day, and the fact that it is happening this early is a testament to a lot of work that went in on the Marvel side over the last six years to get us to a place where people wanted to see the Avengers assemble."

"The Avengers" easily fended off Johnny Depp and Tim Burton's vampire romp "Dark Shadows," which had a so-so domestic start of $28.8 million to finish a distant No. 2.

That's far below such past Depp-Burton collaborations as "Alice in Wonderland," which opened with $116.1 million, and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," which debuted with $56.2 million.

"Dark Shadows" added $36.7 million in 42 overseas markets for a worldwide total of $65.5 million.

"The Avengers" was the first movie ever to pull in more than $100 million domestically in its second weekend, passing the previous best of $75.6 million for "Avatar." The film also topped $300 million domestically Saturday after just nine days in release, beating the previous record set by "The Dark Knight," which hit that mark in 10 days.

Already the year's biggest hit worldwide, "The Avengers" is on the verge of passing "The Hunger Games" at $386.9 million to become the top-grossing film domestically for 2012.

Revenue for "The Avengers" was off just 50 percent from the film's domestic debut of $207.4 million the previous weekend, a remarkable hold given how big it started.

A round-up of such Marvel idols as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth), "The Avengers" has shot past the revenues that its solo superhero predecessors took in for their entire runs. The best of those domestically was "Iron Man" with $318.4 million.

"There has been a surprise around every corner with this picture in terms of how high is high and how big is big," Disney's Hollis said.

Inspired by the supernatural soap opera that debuted on TV in the mid-1960s, "Dark Shadows" stars Depp as an 18th century vampire who is freed after two centuries of burial and returns to his ancestral homestead in the 1970s, aiming to rebuild the family fortunes.

The TV show has only a cult following, so the Warner Bros. update relied on the lure of a reunion between frequent collaborators Depp and Burton taking on another otherworldly tale. But "Dark Shadows" left both critics and audiences cold, failing to make much of a dent in the intense appeal of "The Avengers."

"Certainly, more is better, but it was a busy weekend, especially with 'Avengers' doing $100 million in its second weekend," said Dan Fellman, head of distribution at Warner Bros. "The box office can only expand so much, and that was a hard one to anticipate. Those numbers are staggering."

Fox Searchlight's crowd-pleaser "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" broke into the top-10 in its second weekend as it expanded from a handful of cinemas to 178 theaters. The film took in $2.7 million to finish at No. 8.

"The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" features Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith and Tom Wilkinson in a tale of older Brits looking to retire to a cozy life in India.

Also in narrower release of 322 theaters, Eva Mendes' comic drama "Girl in Progress" opened at No. 10 with $1.4 million. The Lionsgate release stars Mendes as a nomadic single mom with a precocious teenage daughter.

"The Avengers" again provided the bulk of Hollywood's business. Overall domestic revenues totaled $172 million, up 23 percent from the same weekend last year, when "Thor" led with $34.7 million, according to box-office tracker Hollywood.com.

Domestic receipts for the year are at $3.83 billion, 17.6 percent ahead of last year's with a huge summer lineup yet to come.

Hollywood.com analyst Paul Dergarabedian said he expects Hollywood to break the summer revenue record of $4.4 billion it set last year and top its all-time annual high of $10.6 billion from 2009.

"I think we will surpass that given the strength of just the first two weeks of the summer and the strength of the films on the way," Dergarabedian said. "Records are just made to be broken this summer and this year."

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Hollywood.com. Where available, latest international numbers are also included. Final domestic figures will be released Monday.

1. "The Avengers," $103.2 million ($95.4 million international).

2. "Dark Shadows," $28.8 million ($36.7 million international).

3. "Think Like a Man," $6.3 million.

4. "The Hunger Games," $4.4 million ($2.4 million international).

5. "The Lucky One," $4.1 million ($2.5 million international).

6. "The Pirates! Band of Misfits," $3.2 million ($2.2 million international).

7. "The Five-Year Engagement," $3.1 million ($1.7 million international).

8. "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," $2.7 million ($1.9 million international).

9. "Chimpanzee," $1.6 million.

10. "Girl in Progress," $1.4 million.

___

Estimated weekend ticket sales at international theaters (excluding the U.S. and Canada) for films distributed overseas by Hollywood studios, according to Rentrak:

1. "The Avengers," $95.4 million.

2. "Dark Shadows," $36.7 million.

3. "American Reunion," $15.6 million.

4. "Battleship," $11.2 million.

5. "21 Jump Street," $3.2 million.

6. "Titanic" in 3-D," $3.1 million.

7. "As One," $2.6 million.

8. "The Lucky One," $2.5 million.

9. "The Hunger Games," $2.4 million.

10. "The Pirates! Band of Misfits," $2.2 million.

___

Online:

http://www.hollywood.com

http://www.rentrak.com

___

Universal and Focus are owned by NBC Universal, a unit of Comcast Corp.; Sony, Columbia, Sony Screen Gems and Sony Pictures Classics are units of Sony Corp.; Paramount is owned by Viacom Inc.; Disney, Pixar and Marvel are owned by The Walt Disney Co.; Miramax is owned by Filmyard Holdings LLC; 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight are owned by News Corp.; Warner Bros. and New Line are units of Time Warner Inc.; MGM is owned by a group of former creditors including Highland Capital, Anchorage Advisors and Carl Icahn; Lionsgate is owned by Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.; IFC is owned by AMC Networks Inc.; Rogue is owned by Relativity Media LLC.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articl...on-3555081.php





Columbia Pictures Wins 'Social Network' Lawsuit Over Zuckerberg Classmate

Almost everyone knows the story of the Winklevii. Not everyone has heard about Aaron Greenspan. Is it better to be portrayed as a loser in developing a social network than to be cut out of the story altogether?
Eriq Gardner

As Facebook gets ready for its IPO this week, a judge in Massachusetts has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit from one of Mark Zuckerberg's Harvard classmates, Aaron Greenspan. The plaintiff claimed that he was robbed of glory for playing a role in the founding of Facebook when author Ben Mezrich changed his name in The Accidental Billionaires and Columbia Pictures omitted any reference to him in 2010 best picture Oscar nominee The Social Network.

In the decision, the judge has dismissed the allegations along with other claims that the book and film infringed the copyright on Greenspan's autobiography.

Greenspan's lawsuit was a strange one for sure, but he didn't come to a Massachusetts federal court as a nobody.

He was once profiled in The New York Times and showed the paper his old e-mails to Harvard classmates describing his own pre-Zuckerberg college social networking website as "the Face Book." He wrote an unpublished autobiography entitled Authoritas: One Student's Harvard Admissions, which is listed as a secondary source in Mezrich's book. And after Zuckerberg attempted to trademark "Facebook," Greenspan filed an opposition, leading in 2009 to a confidential settlement between Greenspan and Zuckerberg.

Notwithstanding Greenspan's alleged influence in the founding of the company, which is expected to raise some $11 billion in public investment this week, his lawsuit raised some quirky issues for U.S. magistrate Judge Robert Collings.

For instance, Greenspan alleged a developing tort called "defamation by omission" -- essentially, by leaving his name out of the film, it was suggested that Greenspan was irrelevant in Facebook's origins.

Collings doesn't buy it. In the ruling issued last week, he says that even assuming Greenspan's theories are plausible, it isn't reasonable to infer he'd be held up to scorn, hatred, ridicule or contempt. He writes, "Essentially, Greenspan contends that the harm resulting from the omissions was that he was robbed of his proper recognition for his role in the origins of Facebook; that is not a claim of defamation."

Greenspan also attempted to push the notion that because Mezrich's book was labeled nonfiction, there was a misrepresentation. Again, the judge isn't swayed. "The term nonfiction only means that the literature is based on true stories or events, not that every statement is in fact demonstrably true," writes the judge.

Greenspan comes closer -- but ultimately fails -- in pushing allegations that The Accidental Billionaires and The Social Network were copyright infringements of his autobiography. In particular, Greenspan had claimed that the scene where Harvard president Lawrence Summers meets Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss was too similar to his own book.

This gets Collings into a discussion of the difference between legal and illegal copying in how an author sets up a scene. Here are examples of the judge describing some of the differences:

• The described furniture in Summers’ office is an "unprotected fact," but Greenspan's "choice to include particular details would enjoy copyright protection."
• Describing the ethnicity of Summers’ assistant is not protected, but the "original expression of the idea of an assistant taking notes should enjoy copyright protection."
• Characters uttering the phrase, “What do you want me to do?” and “I don’t see” are not protected, but "Summers’ unwelcoming manner and inability to see the students’ point of view would enjoy copyright protection."
• The idea of being frustrated at anticipated punishment for exposing security flaws is not protected, but an "original expression of his frustrations should enjoy copyright protection."

In other words, basic ideas and a listing of facts isn't worth much legally, but choices in arrangement and author flourishes like how people are responding to the facts can be copyrighted.

Collins sees some statements like “the president will see you" as being a cliché expression and other descriptions of things like "the desk, shelves, and computer" as falling within the doctrine of scenes a faire as inherent characteristics of an office. So, fail. The judge does note some similarities between the works that would meet the criteria above but not "that the copying was so extensive that an ordinary observer could conclude that there was unlawful appropriation."

Thus, Greenspan's claim of copyright infringement is dismissed too. (The full decision is on the next page.)

Greenspan has wasted no time in seeking to friend a higher authority. He's already filed a notice to appeal the judgment up to the First Circuit.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...kerberg-323950





Analysis: Key to Universal-EMI Decision: Has Music Business Lost Control?
Diane Bartz

On the face of it, Universal Music Group's bid to buy a big chunk of EMI stands to make the world's leading music company an even more formidable force, combining Universal's star lineup of Lady Gaga and Rihanna with the British company's deep library of The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Katy Perry.

Certainly the fierce opposition from rival Warner Music Group, consumer groups and independent music companies makes it seem that way. They have all vowed to fight it tooth and nail, telling U.S. and European regulators that the merger would create a behemoth capable of controlling the future of digital media by withholding content from digital music startups.

But industry insiders say regulators also are looking at a counterargument - that the major recording companies already are weakened giants worn down by the forces of big retailers and piracy that put downward pressure on the price of CDs and digital downloads.

U.S.-based Universal, owned by Paris-based Vivendi, made the $1.9 billion deal in November.

Eight antitrust experts interviewed about the issue were divided about the chances for approval, largely because the music landscape has changed so much in recent years that it is not clear that a deal that would concentrate 40 percent of the recorded music industry in one company would harm competition.

"Ten years ago, the labels had power. Today they don't have any power. If they (the U.S. Federal Trade Commission) block it, it's just because they don't understand the market," said Daniel Sokol, who teaches antitrust issues at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

Two antitrust experts who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect business relationships said that Universal faces a tough fight in winning U.S. approval - especially because Warner Music Group, owned by privately held Access Industries, has organized opposition to the deal.

"My sense is that the FTC could take a hard line depending on how good a job Warner does in generating complaints," one expert said. "It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't go through."

Universal is gearing up to begin discussions later this month with the FTC about potential asset sales that could make the transaction more palatable to regulators, said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Universal also is considering making a request to the FTC in the next two weeks for the agency to decide on approval of the deal within a 30-day period, this source added.

Two industry insiders who have met with U.S. regulators say the FTC is asking about the pricing power of retailers like Apple and Amazon, who use cheap music as loss leaders to attract customers for more expensive goods, and about the pressure of illegal music downloads.

The FTC also is asking about allegations made by consumer groups and others that Universal has been reluctant to license its enormous catalog of must-have music to digital startups, or has licensed the music only on onerous terms, those insiders said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Universal spokesman Peter Lofrumento said the company is working closely with the FTC and is confident of approval. The FTC declined to comment on the matter.

As the U.S. regulatory review heats up, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee said last week it will hold a hearing on the matter. The panel has no official say over approval, but is able to help shape the debate over the deal.

'AN ANTICOMPETITIVE MERGER'

While the FTC may accept the argument that major retailers push prices down, Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group, dismissed piracy as a defense.

"It's a passing issue and it will eventually get dealt with. It should not be the justification for allowing an anticompetitive merger to take place," Foer said.

The consumer groups Public Knowledge and Consumer Federation of America have written to two U.S. House of Representatives and Senate antitrust subcommittees to urge close scrutiny of the deal. The groups said Universal's 40 percent market share could make it a bully when innovative startups come up with new ways to sell and stream music online.

"If you control that much of the marquee content, they can determine the fate of new digital business models by withholding content," Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation of America said.

Universal said those worries are unfounded.

"The future of music also depends on providing consumers with as many legal alternatives to piracy as possible," Universal's Lofrumento said. "We have licensed more digital music services than any other music company and will continue to do so to the benefit of our artists, consumers and the overall industry."

Another critic of the deal is IMPALA, a European organization of independent music companies. It points out that last year 90 percent of the Top 1000 for downloads and airplay were from the big four music companies.

"These results are very revealing, especially as they already factor in independent successes such as Adele. They send a serious warning about the dangers of concentration in music for diversity in Europe," said Helen Smith, IMPALA executive chair.

British singer Adele is on the independent label XL Recordings.

European antitrust regulators in Brussels are asking many of the same questions that the FTC is asking, according to sources there, and are also asking whether artists would be able to switch record labels easily after the deal.

The European regulators, who are more public about their investigations than their U.S. counterparts, are due to decide by September 6 whether to clear the deal.

Officials in Brussels are concerned since the combination of Universal and EMI's recorded music unit would create a player almost twice the size of the nearest European rival.

They also appear to be focusing on the companies' market share in classical music and jazz, compilations and the extent to which Universal dominates hit charts.

In addition to Lady Gaga and Rihanna, Universal's roster of artists includes Nicki Minaj, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and LL Cool J. In addition to Katy Perry, EMI's list includes Norah Jones, Coldplay, Joss Stone and Lady Antebellum.

PLUMMETING REVENUES

Across U.S. music labels, revenues have plummeted 50 percent from 2000 to $7 billion in 2011, according to the Recording Industry Association of America trade group, which blames piracy for much of the losses.

Employment by record companies in the United States has fallen to less than 10,000 now from about 25,000 people in 1999, the association said.

The situation has not been much better in Europe. British company EMI, which was the first home to the Beatles when they were unknowns in 1962, was heavily indebted in 2007 when British private equity firm Terra Firma bought it with financing from Citigroup.

In February 2011, EMI, unable to pay the loans, was acquired by Citigroup. The bank cleared out the debt, broke the company in two and sold the parts last November.

Sony snapped up EMI Music Publishing, the portion of the company that handles copyrights to 1.3 million songs, for $2.2 billion, and received European approval in April.

The FTC has not weighed in on the Sony deal, but it is not expected to run into antitrust trouble in the United States.

Universal won the rights to EMI's recorded music unit after Warner Music dropped out of bidding. Warner, the No. 3 U.S. music company, has now pursued its public campaign against Universal's deal.

Edgar Bronfman Jr., the former chairman of Warner, said at the Dive Into Media Conference in January in reference to the deal: "It's dangerous, problematic and has to be stopped."

Bronfman argued that Universal, with a 40 percent share, would determine not only the future of the recorded music industry but any kind of digital music industry.

Warner Music declined to comment for this story.

Typically that sort of market share would prompt regulators to challenge a deal - and they might despite Universal's cries that they are powerless to raise prices when faced with retail giants and illegal downloads.

Evan Stewart, an antitrust expert with the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder, argued that the FTC could well approve the deal if Universal's lawyers have compelling data to support arguments about Apple and Amazon's pricing power, and the effect of piracy. "If they're skillful at making that presentation, I think it will be approved," Stewart said.

(Editing by Karey Wutkowski and Will Dunham)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84F06120120516





A Band Battles Ticketmaster on Sales Fees
Ben Sisario

One Friday afternoon recently, about 50 fans and friends of the band String Cheese Incident took $20,000 in cash to the Greek Theater in Los Angeles to take a small stand against the system — in this case, Ticketmaster.

With money advanced by the band, each person had enough to buy eight tickets at $49.95 apiece for the group’s show in July. Once all tickets were in hand, almost 400 of them, they were carried back to String Cheese headquarters in Colorado and put on sale again through the group’s Web site — for $49.95.

“We’re scalping our own tickets at no service charge,” Mike Luba, one of the group’s managers, explained in an interview last week. “It’s ridiculous.”

String Cheese Incident, a jam band with a solid if under-the-radar following, wants to offer tickets to its whole summer tour without the service fees, now ubiquitous, charged by Ticketmaster and other vendors. To do that it is going through much more rigmarole than almost any group would bother with, but feels strongly that the effort is worthwhile.

“It costs us money to sell the tickets,” Keith Moseley, the band’s bassist, said. “But we are going to eat that cost this summer in order to make a better deal for our fans and let them know how much we appreciate them.”

With the summer touring season starting, the band’s challenge to the entrenched ticket-sales system is a reminder of how ticketing may be the concert industry’s most charged issue, affecting artists, fans and all sides of the business.

For String Cheese Incident, the Greek Theater mission was a chance to save fans some money and also to stage a symbolic protest as part of a decade-long conflict with Ticketmaster. To Ticketmaster and others in the concert industry, the band wants to ignore valid contracts and deprive theaters and promoters of standard revenue sources.

String Cheese Incident has long sold tickets to its own shows, handling as much as half the sales. In 2003 the band sued Ticketmaster, accusing the company of abusing its market power by denying the group more than the 8 percent of tickets it customarily makes available to acts. A settlement let the band continue to handle tickets for five years, but the agreement expired in 2009, just as the band was starting to return from a hiatus.

“I would argue that on some level they are our tickets,” Mr. Luba said. “If people in a free market find that Ticketmaster’s service is easier and more effective, by all means go for it. But we have found a group of people who are used to buying tickets directly from the band’s Web site.”

Ticketmaster declined to comment, citing a confidentiality agreement with the band. (Mr. Luba also acknowledged the agreement, after granting two interviews.) In its countersuit in 2003, the company argued that it had contracts with theaters that gave it the exclusive right to sell tickets.

Consumers seeking tickets to all sorts of events have become increasingly frustrated — and sometimes enraged — by ticket fees, which can add 30 or 40 percent to the cost of an order, as well as by the lack of other options for buying tickets. But while the brunt of that anger is usually directed at Ticketmaster, other players in the business, like theaters and promoters, collect, and depend on, their share of fees.

John Scher, a veteran promoter in New York and New Jersey, called String Cheese Incident’s efforts “a righteous cause,” but added that in most cases the cost of booking quality acts was so high that promoters cannot afford to forgo their share of ticketing fees, known in the industry as rebates.

“The acts have gotten so greedy across the board, and have made the risk-reward so impossible, that the rebates are very much the lifeblood of promoters,” Mr. Scher said. (The band’s tour is not coming to the Northeast.)

Mr. Luba said that the band was able to make private deals with individual box offices for large ticket allotments to its shows, but was unable to make such a deal with the Greek. (An executive at the theater did not return two calls for comment.) For those tickets, the band took advantage of a loophole: the Greek waived surcharges on walk-up sales of its tickets.

One fan recruited by the band to wait in line at the Greek was Anh Pham, a 41-year-old graphic designer, who said he took part because he believed Ticketmaster’s fees were too high.

“Ticketmaster has been around for so long, and they’ve made so much money from me and so many of us, that the opportunity to help out the String Cheese community was to me a fantastic idea,” Mr. Pham said.

Mr. Luba said that to keep String Cheese Incident’s ticket price from rising above face value, the band was paying the credit card processing fees for orders on its Web site, at a dollar or two per order.

“If the tickets are 49 bucks, we want them to be 49 bucks when the kid buys them at the end,” Mr. Luba said.

But buying a ticket on the band’s Web site has its own added cost: $12 to mail tickets by United Parcel Service, with no other delivery option offered. That expense, however, is still cheaper than buying through Ticketmaster.

There was simply no way around that fee, Mr. Luba said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/a...ketmaster.html





.Pirate Domains Now Available Through OpenNic
Ben Jones

The internet is built of services. One of the core services, and a major choke-point for control, is domain name resolution. There have been some alternates come and go, but one of the strongest has been OpenNIC, and they’ve just launched a new top level domain – .pirate

Despite the best efforts of Dutch lobby groups, and American entertainment cartels, the internet is a place where barriers don’t stay barriers for long.

Throw a roadblock out and a new route is recalculated. So it is with DNS. Add blocks in the ICANN systems, and people work their way around them.

The most common way until now has been a browser plugin, like MAFIAAFire, but alternate DNS systems are starting to become more popular. One of those, OpenNIC, is looking to capitalise on that with its new .pirate TLD (top level domain).

Registration takes just minutes, and then your new .pirate domain will be accessible by anyone using one of OpenNIC’s many DNS servers. That’s the big drawback at present.

However, the OpenNIC project is not just limited to .pirate (or dotPirate, as they’ve called it). They also have .geek, .oss (as in open source software) and .parody, among others.

The man behind the dotPirate project is Travis McCrea, Deputy Leader of the Canadian Pirate Party.

“While the world gets smaller and more connected through advancements of the Internet and web technology, every day our ability to have a free flow of information becomes more and more threatened by countries who wish to censor and control the communication platform which brings us all together,” McCrea told TorrentFreak.

“This is something that we cannot let happen, and why the dotPirate Foundation, … is proud to announce the launch of the new Top Level Domain (TLD) .pirate on the OpenNIC root system.”

To prevent abuse, some of the more popular domains have already been reserved (including torrentfreak.pirate and thepiratebay.pirate). As an extra bonus, people using blockaid.me for their DNS will already be able to access .pirate domains – they added support for OpenNIC over the weekend.

For those using OpenDNS, the provider announced a new service for Windows users last week. DNSCrypt, previously only available for Mac OSX and Linux, is a technology that encrypts all DNS traffic between an Internet user and the OpenDNS service. It can be downloaded here.

.Pirate domains can be registered for free at dotpirate.me.
https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-doma...pennic-120515/





Pirate Party Momentum Continues, Merkel's Party Routed in Big German State
Stephen Brown

Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday in an election in Germany's most populous state, a result which could embolden the left opposition to step up its criticism of her European austerity policies.

The election in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), a western German state with a bigger population than the Netherlands and an economy the size of Turkey, was held 18 months before a national election in which Merkel is expected to fight for a third term.

She remains popular in Germany for her steady handling of the euro zone debt crisis, but the sheer scale of her party's defeat leaves her vulnerable at a time when a backlash against her insistence on fiscal discipline is building across Europe.

According to first projections, the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) won 38.8 percent of the vote and will have enough to form a stable majority with the Greens, who scored 12.2 percent.

The two left-leaning parties had run a fragile minority government for the past two years under popular SPD leader Hannelore Kraft, whose decisive victory on Sunday could propel her to national prominence.

Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) saw their support plunge to just 25.8 percent, down from nearly 35 percent in 2010, and the worst result in the state since World War Two.

"This is not a good evening for Merkel," said Gero Neugebauer, a political scientist at Berlin's Free University.

"The SPD is strengthened by this election, which will stir things up in Berlin."

The blow comes only two days before France's new president, Socialist Francois Hollande, is due to visit Berlin and press Merkel for a shift away from austerity and more emphasis on growth-oriented measures in Europe.

Other big countries like Italy also want Merkel to take a more balanced approach to the debt crisis and an election in Greece last week showed massive public resistance to tough austerity.

SPD MOMENTUM

Hollande's victory, coupled with the NRW result, is bound to give the SPD, which still trails Merkel in national opinion polls, new momentum before the federal vote in the autumn of 2013.

The chancellor needs the support of her rivals to pass a new "fiscal compact" that is meant to anchor budget discipline across the EU. The SPD is already pressing her to delay a parliamentary vote on the pact, keen for her to commit to new growth measures beforehand.

Many in her party will blame the result on regional leader Norbert Roettgen, Merkel's environment minister in Berlin, who bungled his campaign early on by refusing to commit to staying in the state in the event of a loss.

Roettgen ran on a platform of budget consolidation in a state that, with 180 billion euros in debt, is Germany's most indebted. Kraft, on the other hand, advocated a go-slowly approach to debt reduction, emphasizing the need to invest in cities, education and childcare.

In that sense, the result will be seen by some as a double defeat for Merkel. Voters in NRW not only rejected her party but also the austerity measures that she has forced on struggling southern states like Greece, Spain and Portugal.

The Free Democrats (FDP), a pro-business party that rules in coalition with Merkel's conservatives at the federal level, scored 8.6 percent to make it back into the state assembly. The party hailed the result as proof of a comeback after a collapse in support over the last three years.

The upstart Pirates, a new party that campaigns for internet freedom, continued their strong run at regional level, making it into their fourth straight state parliament, winning 7.6 percent of the vote.

NRW, a diverse state with struggling cities in the rust-belt Ruhr region and home to one third of Germany's blue-chip companies, has a history of influencing national politics.

Seven years ago, a humiliating loss for then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's SPD in the state prompted him to call early elections, which he subsequently lost to Merkel. ($1 = 0.7726 euros)

(Reporting by Stephen Brown and Tom Kaeckenhoff in Duesseldorf; Writing by Noah Barkin, Madeline Chambers, Sarah Marsh in Berlin)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84C09G20120513





ENDitorial: ACTA is Not Dead

Next week, the European Parliament's Development Committee (DEVE), the first of the five Committees responsible for providing opinions on the proposed ACTA agreement will vote on its draft recommendation.

As of today, it appears more likely than not that the Development Committee will vote in favour of ACTA. The Parliamentarian leading on the dossier is Czech Eurosceptic Jan Zahradil. While there is an obvious attraction for a Eurosceptic to support (ironically following the European Commission's line very diligently) an EU proposal which is deeply unpopular and flawed, a “yes” vote would come as a big shock to many observers and risks creating political momentum that could potentially breathe new life into the allegedly “dead” proposal. Of course, a “yes” vote can only happen if the Parliamentarians, whose job is to support policies that defend development, ignore the opinions of organisations like Médecins sans Frontières, ignore the analysis of the dangers for development described by the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and, last but not least, ignore the political direction agreed in several of the political groups. To contact Parliamentarians on the DEVE Committee to ask them not to vote in favour of Mr Zahradil's position, please see the links below.

The dangers of splits in the political groups that have already declared their opposition to ACTA are best illustrated by the amendments tabled to the draft Opinion in the Industry Committee (ITRE). There, in line with the majority of interventions in the Committee discussions, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Amelia Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA) proposed rejection. However, the Danish Liberal Jens Rohde (who sat alongside his group leader at the press conference where the Liberal group's against ACTA was announced) has co-signed an amendment with the conservative EPP group, in order to delete the recommendation to reject ACTA. In response to a blog article criticising him for this, Mr Rhode said that, when preparing an Opinion for another Committee on a proposal, it was not the role of the Committee to make a recommendation. He did not explain what the purpose of an Opinion is, if it is not to express an opinion.

The third Committee working on this dossier is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), where Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) is responsible. Unsurprisingly, as Ms Gallo is a staunch defender of repressive measures to support IPR enforcement, her draft report is in favour of ACTA. Her solution to ACTA's problems is to require the European Commission to produce annual reports on ACTA's implementation and, where breaches of fundamental rights are identified, to “immediately” persuade the European Court of Justice to bring them to an end. And this would be a good strategy if the European Commission did not have a long history of failing to respect its reporting obligations (its data retention report was seven months late), if the Commission had not proposed “voluntary” breaches of European law itself, if the mechanism for the European Court to immediately end infringements identified by the Commission actually existed, if ACTA was a purely internal instrument and if one of the biggest risks to fundamental rights was not from foreign companies regulating EU freedom of communication.

The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) published the draft Opinion from the MEP responsible Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece, S&D). The Opinion raises a whole range of dangers for fundamental rights created by ACTA, strongly implying that ACTA is illegal under EU law. However, Mr Droutsas appears to prefer to include that conclusion only after the dossier has been fully debated in the Committee. The Committee will have a public hearing next Wednesday morning (16 May) with invited experts from civil society (including EDRi and La Quadrature), the European Commission, the EDPS and others.

The fifth Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA), will be responsible for the final Committee vote, before the dossier is sent to the Plenary sitting of the European Parliament in July. While the draft final report by the MEP in charge, David Martin has been published, this Committee's work on the dossier is at an earlier stage than the others, as they are supposed to take the other Committee's opinions into account before finalising their position. Mr Martin's draft recommendation states that the costs of ACTA outweigh the potential benefits and it should, therefore, be rejected.
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number1...TA-is-not-dead





SOPA Supporters Meet in Secret to Strangle Internet Freedom & Online Speech
Ms. Smith

Behind closed doors, big SOPA supporting corporations are negotiating a massive trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and sneaking in an intellectual property chapter that will strangle online speech and choke off Internet freedom. There is zero transparency as 'they' don't want us, or Congress, to know what's in the TPP IP section so we don't go all ninja netizens again like we did to stomp out SOPA/PIPA.

I was so proud of "us," the Net, for what we accomplished in stomping out SOPA/PIPA, even though a former DHS cybersecurity dude who wishes to remain anonymous warned me that the fight was nowhere close to over and to expect it to be pushed through under another name and this time much more secretly. Sure enough, a trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has an intellectual property (IP) chapter that is being worked out behind closed doors to keep us in the dark so we don't go all ninja netizens again. There is zero, zippy, negative, none as in transparency and that includes public input since only large companies are in-the-know. "Like ACTA, the TPP is being negotiated in secret, and on a fast timetable." The EFF is urging us to demand a Congressional hearing so lawmakers, "not just deep-pocketed industry representatives," can learn what's in the TPP.

If you don't know about the TPP or don't know why you should care, stop for 1.5 minutes and watch this video explaining how bad ideas are snuck into the intellectual property (IP) chapter.

While Eurasia Review suggested that SOPA on steroids is what is really being created in the secret US meetings, Techdirt calls a report referenced in the TPP "a load of hogwash," and the letter signed by the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, and the US Chamber of Commerce "a complete joke" as SOPA supporters try to sneak in "draconian" provisions that could strangle Internet freedom.

The EFF International Team sent an email explaining the May 8 to May 18 closed-door meetings in Dallas are:

secretly negotiating new regulations for the Internet - including intellectual property provisions that could choke off online speech. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement may be even worse than ACTA; it could tie the hands of democratically-elected legislators and create new, international standards for intellectual property enforcement. Worst of all, Internet users and free expression advocates like EFF aren't allowed in the room and are forbidden from seeing the negotiated text.

...

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk claims they have made "extraordinary efforts" to include public stakeholders in negotiations, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Like ACTA, negotiations have actively excluded civil society and the public, while welcoming private industry representatives with open arms.


"Don't trade away our digital future," urged The National Business Review. Public Citizen said TPP is a "corporate power tool of the 1%" and also created a School House rockish video to show you how TPP is all about secrecy.

Public Knowledge breaks it down as a "guide to copyright in the TPP," using the leaked text to explain that the idea behind the TPP copyright provisions "is not to achieve a level playing field: it's to entrench and protect incumbent business models, regardless of the consequences for consumers and new businesses. If the US's goal is to encourage innovation and leave breathing room for innovative new businesses to experiment and thrive, it must stop demanding copyright provisions whose only practical effect is to protect existing business models and discourage anyone else from trying something new."

One bright spot about the stealthy TPP negotiations in Dallas came from a Yes Lab report. The party ended badly after a "fake awards ceremony" and activists replaced hundreds of rolls of toilet paper at the conference with TPP TP. Yes Lab's Sean Dagohoy said, "We're really happy to know that even in their most private moments, US trade reps are reminded that a vast majority of the public stands opposed to corporate-friendly, closed-door trade deals like the TPP."

The nine countries in the TPP are the "United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam." However China Daily reported a "milestone" free-trade agreement investment between China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea was signed in Beijing yesterday; experts said that Washington, which is pushing forward its TPP, "should not feel concerned about the potential three-way FTA as any future agreement will also be in the interests of the US." Oh yeah and for Americans, you support buying American goods right? Well the TPP will outlaw Buy American.

The signed letter referenced by TechDirt is acronym heaven (or hell) and includes ABM, A2IM, AdvaMed, ACC, AAFA, AAP, BIO, FDRA, Business Roundtable, GMA, BSA, Independent Film and Television Alliance, CSI, IACC, Copyright Alliance, IIPA, CropLife America, IPO, ECAT, INTA, ESA, MPAA, NAM, SOCMA, NEMA, SIIA, NMPA, SPI, PhRMA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, RIAA, APEC and WCIT.
https://www.networkworld.com/communi...-online-speech





India's Proposal for Government Control of Internet to be Discussed in Geneva

Move to form body with 50 governments to oversee internet governance
Shalini Singh

The raging controversy over possible excessive state regulation of the internet based on the IT Rules 2011 is now likely to be dwarfed by discussions in Geneva later this week over India's proposal to the United Nations General Assembly, for government control of the Internet.

Led by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Geneva meet is a multi-stakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance structures.

In its proposal submitted to the General Assembly in New York on October 26, 2011, India has argued for a radical shift from the present model of multi-stakeholder led decision-making, to a purely government-run multilateral body that would relegate civil society, private sector, international organisations as well as technical and academic groups to the fringes in an advisory role. The proposal has been floated sans any public consultation, despite the move impacting the country's 800 million mobile and 100 million Internet users.

India is pushing for the creation of a forum called ‘Committee for Internet Related Policies' (CIRP) to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up. The catch is that India's formal proposal is for CIRP to be funded by the U.N., run by staff from the U.N.'s Conference on Trade and Development arm and report directly to the U.N. General Assembly, which means it will be entirely controlled by the U.N.'s member states.

At present, the Internet is governed by a voluntary, multi-stakeholder group called ICANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which keeps the Internet free and, for the most part, decentralized. ICANN already has a Government Advisory Council (GAC), which invites participation from governments across the world, including India. ICANN is headquartered in California, essentially because the Internet was born in the US. Control by the US government over its governance was eventually handed over to non-profits during President Clinton's tenure.

India's proposal could prove controversial for multi-stakeholder communities within the country and across the world, since it entails moving away from the prevailing democratic ‘equal say' process for internet governance to one in which governments would be front and centre, receiving advice from stakeholders and deciding the way forward.

Ironically, India's move to establish government control over the internet came within months of Anna Hazare's success in gathering large crowds at the Ram Lila grounds in August 2011 – a part of which was fuelled by the internet and social media. By early October, Mr. Hazare powered up his campaign further by blogging, tweeting and launching a Facebook profile to connect with his supporters.

The government of India's statement is amusingly defensive, going into some detail to clarify that its proposals ‘should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to take over and regulate and circumscribe the Internet'. It also naively declares that the move addresses the need for ‘quick footed and timely global solutions and policies'. How a 50-member inter-governmental process lodged within the UN bureaucracy, which will meet once every year for two working weeks in Geneva, can respond to decisions that need to be made quickly is unclear.

In response to a detailed questionnaire sent by The Hindu, the Ministry of External Affairs, directing the queries to the Department of Information Technology (DIT) said, “The Indian position on global Internet governance is determined and guided by the DIT. The Department's instructions for India's position at the upcoming meeting in Geneva are still awaited”. This lack of clarity is despite the fact that the global discussion is scheduled for May 18, just three days away. The DIT did not respond to The Hindu's queries despite repeated reminders.

India's move could be guided by apprehensions over Western governments' proximity to ICANN. While experts say this must be addressed, it certainly must not be at the cost of making the Internet a hostage to 50-odd governments.

Russia and China, along with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have already declared extreme positions for government control over the Internet. Last year, Vladimir Putin, who was Russian Prime Minister at the time, stated his goal, to impose ‘international control over the Internet' through the International Telecom Union, a treaty-based organisation under the auspices of the U.N.. Echoing this view, Houlin Zhao, Director of the ITU's Telecommunications Standardization Bureau and a former Chinese government official said, “The whole world is looking to a better solution to internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation.” Before this, China, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan had introduced a UN General Assembly resolution proposing a ‘code of conduct' for the global information society.

Though less extreme, India's proposal appears to be a definite shift towards state control rather than a participative model.

India's proposal may also garner support in Geneva from South Africa and Brazil as part of ‘enhanced cooperation'. With governments around the world spooked by the power of social media and the Internet, which led to the Arab Spring, a wave of demonstrations and protests in the Arab world that toppled decades of dictatorship in countries like Egypt and Libya, it is even possible that India may find passive backing of many governments under the garb of ‘fighting cyber crime and unrest'.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nationa...cle3423018.ece





Insider Tells Why Anonymous ‘Might Well Be the Most Powerful Organization on Earth’
Catherine Solyom

Christopher Doyon, a.k.a. Commander X, sits atop a hillside in an undisclosed location in Canada, watching a reporter and photographer make their way along a narrow path to join him, away from the prying eyes of law enforcement.

It’s been a few weeks of encrypted emails back and forth, working out the security protocol to follow for interviewing Doyon, one of the brains behind Anonymous, now a fugitive from the FBI.

Doyon, who readily admits taking part in some of the highest-profile hacktivist attacks on websites last year — from Tunisia to Orlando, Sony to PayPal — was arrested in September for a comparatively minor assault on the county website of Santa Cruz, Calif., where he was living, in retaliation for the town forcibly removing a homeless encampment on the courthouse steps.

The “virtual sit-in” lasted half an hour. For that, Doyon is facing 15 years in jail.

Or at least he was facing 15 years in jail, until he crossed the border into Canada in February to avoid prosecution, using what he calls the new “underground railroad” and a network of safe houses across the country.

Thanks to his indictment, Doyon is one of the few Anonymous members whose real name is now publicly known.

But as the leader of the People’s Liberation Front — a hacker group allied with Anonymous — and the second-most wanted information activist after WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, he prefers not to show his face, and instead dons the ubiquitous Guy Fawkes mask, to wear with his Sunday best: a sweatshirt with the Anonymous calling card, “We do not forgive … We do not forget.”

Terrorists to some, heroes to others, the jury is still out on Anonymous’s true nature. Known for its robust defence of Internet freedom – and the right to remain anonymous — Anonymous came in first place in Time Magazine’s 2012 online poll on the most influential person in the world.

Fox News, on the other hand, has branded the hackers “domestic terrorists,” a role Anonymous has been cast to play in the latest Call of Duty Black Ops II, in which Anonymous appears as the enemy who takes control of unmanned drones in the not-too-distant future. (That creative decision may have put Activision, the creator of the video-game series, at the top of the Anonymous hit list.) For its part, much of what Anonymous does and says about itself, in the far reaches of the Internet, cannot be verified. Nor do all Anons agree on who they are as a group, and where they are going.

— — — — —

Q: As strictly an online army of hackers, how powerful is Anonymous?
A: Anonymous is kind of like the big buff kid in school who had really bad self-esteem then all of a sudden one day he punched someone in the face and went, “Holy s— I’m really strong!” Scientology (one of Anonymous’s first targets) was the punch in the face where Anonymous began to realize how incredibly powerful they are. There’s a really good argument at this point that we might well be the most powerful organization on Earth. The entire world right now is run by information. Our entire world is being controlled and operated by tiny invisible 1s and 0s that are flashing through the air and flashing through the wires around us. So if that’s what controls our world, ask yourself who controls the 1s and the 0s? It’s the geeks and computer hackers of the world.

Q: What does it mean to be a leader of a leaderless organization?
A: We don’t sit around and elect a president but that doesn’t mean there aren’t leaders within Anonymous. Naturally Commander X or Barrett Brown or Peter Fein, whether they have names or are still anonymous, they take a leadership role and are looked up to. The average Anon is not like me, working 12 hours a day dedicating their life to this. He’s an IT guy or a cable installer with a few hours to spare and he wants to be told what to do. It takes organizers to get things done. Anyone in Anon can be a spokesperson but my ability to speak is based on how much what I say squares with the consensus of the collective.

Recent attacks by Anonymous

May 9 – Anonymous brought down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s website and the Kremlin’s website to support the country’s protests against alleged vote tampering during the March elections.

May 9 – Anonymous attacked the UN’s official website, accusing it of ignoring the plight of Palestinian hunger strikers protesting their detention without trial in Israel.

April 24 – Anonymous attacked the Greek finance ministry website to protest its plans to fight tax evasion by tracking citizens’ bank, telephone and credit card data.

April 20 – Anonymous takes down the Formula One website, for holding the event in Bahrain, and to support local protesters fighting against the continued government repression of activists and opposition politicians.

April 5 – Anonymous hacks into hundreds of Chinese government websites, taking down the “Great Firewall of China” and offering tips on how to bypass government censorship.

- Catherine Solyom


Q: It seems like there’s a war going on between hacktivists or information activists and law enforcement. (At least 40 alleged members of Anonymous have been arrested around the world in the last year.) Who do you think is winning right now?
A: I think it’s a stalemate at the moment. I think eventually we’ll win. I’ve always believed that right will always prevail. But at the moment the arrests have had a chilling effect on the movement. For a 30-minute online protest I’m facing 15 years in a penitentiary. For the moment that’s the only indictment against me but I expect there will be more. And it’s not just about the potential penalty but it’s the trial itself for which they delivered a terabyte of discovery. That’s about 150,000 pages for a 30-minute protest. That means my trial will be two years long and during that time I’m under strict surveillance by the FBI. I can’t access Twitter, Facebook or IRCs (Internet Relay Chats)– I can’t contact any known member of Anonymous – who are about 50,000 people around the world.

So basically it shuts me down as an activist. Even if I prevail in court, I’m still shut down for two years. Well, I’m unwilling to do that – and that’s why I’m Canada. In Syria and Tunisia, Libya, Egypt in Nigeria in the Ivory Coast, we have saved so many lives I can’t even count – activists and journalists and bloggers and people who come to us to keep themselves safe in these extremely hostile environments – and I’m unwilling to lay that kind of work down.

Q: Now that you’re in Canada for the foreseeable future, do you feel relatively safe?
A: Yes. We have a lot of contacts in the Canadian government. We were well prepared when I came here, we have an underground railway, and safe houses in Canada. We might be wrong, but our understanding is that the Canadian government is about equally concerned with Anonymous and the United States. Their approach will be: “Step lively, don’t stay long, and you’ll be fine.” So we’re in negotiation with several countries in Europe to try to get a permanent political asylum situation set up for myself as well as for any other Anons and information activists who might need it. … It’s too bad Canada will not find the political courage to protect information activists from America like they did in the ‘60s with the draft dodgers. That’s the reality of it, but they will probably not actively seek to track me down.

Q: Do you think the general public is not concerned enough with online surveillance or real-life surveillance?
A: I think the general public is beginning to learn the value of information. To give an example, for a very long time nobody in the U.S. or the world was allowed to know the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan or Iraq. There were wild guesses and they were all over the ballpark figures, until a young army private named Bradley Manning had the courage to steal that information from the U.S. government and release it. Now we know that despite their smart munitions and all their high-technology they have somehow managed to accidentally kill 150,000 civilians in two countries. … As these kinds of startling facts come out, the public will begin to realize the value of the information and they will realize that the activists are risking everything for that information to be public.

Q: What do you say to people who believe Anons are just cyber-terrorists?
A: Basically I decline the semantic argument. If you want to call me a terrorist, I have no problem with that. But I would ask you, “Who is it that’s terrified?” If it’s the bad guys who are terrified, I’m really super OK with that. If it’s the average person, the people out in the world we are trying to help who are scared of us, I’d ask them to educate themselves, to do some research on what it is we do and lose that fear. We’re fighting for the people, we are fighting, as Occupy likes to say, for the 99%. It’s the 1% people who are wrecking our planet who should be quite terrified. If to them we are terrorists, then they probably got that right.
‘I think eventually we’ll win. I’ve always believed that right will always prevail’

“Information terrorist” – what a funny concept. That you could terrorize someone with information. But who’s terrorized? Is it the common people reading the newspaper and learning what their government is doing in their name? They’re not terrorized – they’re perfectly satisfied with that situation. It’s the people trying to hide these secrets, who are trying to hide these crimes. The funny thing is every email database that I’ve ever been a part of stealing, from Pres. Assad to Stratfor security, every email database, every single one has had crimes in it. Not one time that I’ve broken into a corporation or a government, and found their emails and thought, “Oh my God, these people are perfectly innocent people, I made a mistake.”

Q: What do you think of the student protests in Quebec?
A: Wherever I go, especially in the last two years, I have found protests. I had no idea this was going on in Canada and the day I arrived in Montreal I was in a coffee house downtown on the corner of Ste. Catherine and St. Hubert. And there was a protest right there at that park across the street. The entire intersection became inflamed, I watched police absolutely brutalize these kids, spraying can after can of tear gas, launching off pop-bang grenades, tear gas grenades, and the worse thing I saw these kids do, one of them threw a snowball, and one of them threw an orange rubber cone at these cops. I mean these cops are in full body armour for God’s sake, that’s not violence. But what was done to these kids was so violent that the coffee shop manager locked us all into the coffee shop. Locked the doors while all around us, literally in these glass windows all around us, we watched the kids get beaten down. Wherever I go whether Oakland, San Francisco, Montreal, everywhere I go I see the same stuff. I see people rising up demanding justice and these brutal, paramilitary police departments being used to crush them and sure, I get involved.

Q: Anonymous started out as online pranksters but has gotten a whole lot more serious in the last two years. What happened?
A: I believe Egypt was really a turning point for us emotionally in Anonymous. Obviously there was always that sort of prankster edge to us. But people often ask me, “Why are you so mean nowadays?” It started in Egypt – when you work for days to set up live video feeds and the first thing you watch through those feeds is people killing your friends with machine guns – that becomes personal. And then it’s not just Egypt, it’s Libya, Tunisia, over and over again these Freedom Ops are really what gave us a sort of take-no prisoners attitude. We get to know these people. It may not be the same as you and I sitting here, but when you Skype with people and spend hours and hours talking with them on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and they share their hopes and their dreams with you for their country, their future, when they tell you how they’re risking their lives so their children can have a better future in some far-off land, you bond with those people and they become your friends and family.

Q. What’s next for Anonymous?
A: Right now we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government. It’s a matter of when we leak the contents of those databases, not if. You know how we got access? We didn’t hack them. The access was given to us by the people who run the systems. The five-star general (and) the Secretary of Defence who sit in the cushy plush offices at the top of the Pentagon don’t run anything anymore. It’s the pimply-faced kid in the basement who controls the whole game, and Bradley Manning proved that. The fact he had the 250,000 cables that were released effectively cut the power of the U.S. State Department in half. The Afghan war diaries and the Iran war diaries effectively cut the political clout of the U.S. Department of Defence in half. All because of one guy who had enough balls to slip a CD in an envelope and mail it to somebody.

Now people are leaking to Anonymous and they’re not coming to us with this document or that document or a CD, they’re coming to us with keys to the kingdom, they’re giving us the passwords and usernames to whole secure databases that we now have free reign over. … The world needs to be concerned.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...tion-on-earth/





LulzSec Member Pleads Not Guilty to Charges He Hacked Stratfor Website

Hammond answers charges that he took data belonging to 860,000 Stratfor clients.
Dan Goodin

A former LulzSec member has pleaded not guilty to federal charges that he hacked into the servers of global intelligence company Stratfor and stole credit card data and personal details of 860,000 of its clients.

Jeremy Hammond entered the plea on Monday during a brief hearing in US District Court in Manhattan, the Associated Press reported. He's been held in federal custody since an initial court appearance in Chicago in early March, when federal prosecutors named him as a lieutenant of LulzSec ringleader Hector Xavier "Sabu" Monsegur. There was no request for Hammond to be released on bail during Monday's hearing, according to the AP report.

In an indictment filed in May, federal authorities said Hammond stole data for about 60,000 credit cards from Stratfor servers, as well as e-mail and other information for about 860,000 of the service's clients. Hammond, who allegedly used online handles including "sup-g" and "Anarchaos," was also accused of penetrating servers belonging to the Arizona Department of Public Safety and stealing law enforcement documents. He faces charges of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and related offenses associated with the attacks.

Although LulzSec members took great pains to distance themselves from their real-world identities, Hammond was in part identified by statements he made in online chats. In one, he revealed that a friend had been arrested during protests last August in St. Louis. In another, he said he had been arrested in New York City during the Republican National Convention in 2004. He also mentioned serving time in federal prison. FBI investigators used the details to narrow this list of suspects.

Hammond's next court appearance is scheduled for July 23, the AP said.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...atfor-website/





AusCERT2012: Modems at Risk in DNSChanger Cut-Off

ISPs urged to bolster user support.
James Hutchinson

Up to 100,000 customer modems are at risk of losing their internet connection from July 9 when the FBI disables rogue DNS servers seized late last year.

The affected customer modems make up about a third of the 350,000 to 400,000 internet users believed to still have the DNSChanger malware on either their modems or Windows computers.

The FBI believes that up to four million users were infected at the height of the Estonian advertising scam, which redirected legitimate searches by computer users to malicious sites via rogue DNS servers located in Chicago and New York.
Complete coverage of AusCERT 2012

Six Estonian nationals have been arrested and are currently subject to extradition procedures to face charges in the United States.

US authorities have interim control of the rogue DNS servers but expect to shut them down on July 9, after a four-month court ordered extension of the program expires.

Any computer still infected with DNSChanger - believed to be more than 300,000 users in July - will not be able to connect to the internet.

The modem problem

While remediation support for infected users had largely focused on solving the Windows infection, Paul Vixie of the Internet Systems Consortium told AusCERT 2012 attendees this week that internet service providers would have to "truck-roll" new modems to those believed to be affected by the malware outside their PC.

"The CPE [customer premises equipment] - the DSL or cable modem - tends to be one of a small number of things that all come out of Taiwan or that part of the world and even if they're made by different companies they will have a similar web interfaces when viewed from the inside," he said.

The scammers, he said, "scripted [the web] interface and changed the DNS settings in the CPE".

He noted it was "very difficult to get these re-programmed".

Vixie and the ISC have a direct contract with the FBI to coordinate the investigation, which ultimately lead to police seizing the rogue DNS servers and operating them while they attempt to remove remaining infections worldwide.

Up to 10,000 internet users remain infected by the malware in Australia, with potential victims urged to check a specially setup website to check for infection before July 9.

Internode chief technology officer John Lindsay told SC Magazine the iCode framework, developed by the Internet Industry Association in 2010 and implemented by major service providers, proved effective in dealing with those affected at both the PC and modem level.

Those modems found to have changed DNS settings on Internode's network specifically are flashed with factory settings or new firmware. In some cases, Lindsay said the ISP preffered to replace the infected modem with newer equipment to avoid further problems.

"We have probes in our network that look for these sorts of problems and contact customers who appear affected and provide assistance to fix the problem and help them prevent future incidents," he said.

The action taken by Internode differs from the "walled garden" approach suggested in the framework.

While take-down of the DNS servers was "carefully choreographed" between the FBI and Estonian police, Vixie conceded that fixing the continued problem of infected computers and modems had not been great.

The 300,000 users believed to retain the infection on July 9 would leave internet service providers with a growing support problem, he said.

The underlying botnet malware used in the scam, Alureon, also remains at large with the potential to infect more computers in future.

"We didn't put any time into how remediation was going to work or how we were going to do the charts and diagrams and population estimates," he said.

"We had none of that in place on day one. after we had the name servers running and we were collecting the data someone finally said 'shouldn't we be analysing this?'"

Like the similarly malicious Conficker botnet, which still boasts six million victims, Vixie said the issue remained in user trust.

"They don't trust us, they don't know us... they don't trust their ISP," he said.

"Their plan, if you can dignify it with the name plan, is to just keep using their computer until it doesn't work anymore, and then they'll buy a new one."

The saving grace for Vixie, he said, was that the scammers behind DNSChanger could have been "much more evil than they were".
http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/30...r-cut-off.aspx





How the Toews-Sponsored Internet Surveillance Bill Quietly Died
John Ibbitson

The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead.

If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to start from scratch.

That new bill, if there is one, will probably be shepherded by a different minister. That’s how much damage this botched legislation inflicted on the government and on Mr. Toews.

Bill C-30, also known as the lawful access legislation, would allow police to compel Internet service providers to cough up identifying information about anyone using the Internet.

The authorities would not be able to track a person’s activity on the web without a warrant. But they could find out whose name is attached to an IP address without that warrant, and without the person’s knowledge or consent, which is why both the federal and provincial privacy commissioners strongly objected to the bill as an unjustified violation of privacy rights.

Many Tory MPs are also said to be unhappy with the bill. They wonder why the government would abolish both the mandatory long-form census and the long-gun firearms registry in the name of privacy rights, and then violate those same rights with a bill that lets the government snoop on people who go online.

Mr. Toews responded to the criticism by declaring critics “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” This was fatal. As the Public Safety Minister reeled from online attacks – including from a Liberal staffer who tweeted the details of his divorce – the government hastily retreated, declaring the bill needed further study.

What has happened since? Nothing. And that nothing is everything.

Normally, after a bill receives first reading, debate begins on second reading, which is approval in principle. Once the bill passes second reading, it goes to a committee, where only minor amendments are permitted before the bill returns for third and final reading.

Instead of this usual route, House Leader Peter Van Loan decided to send C-30 to the public safety committee first, where it is supposed to be extensively revised, before returning to the House for second and third reading.

But before any of that can happen, the rules state that the House must debate the motion to send the bill to committee. That debate must last at least five hours – in effect, one sitting day.

But that debate hasn’t happened. And sources report that it won’t happen before the House rises for summer recess. That makes C-30 dead in the water.

Of course, the Conservatives could decide to send C-30 it to the public safety committee in the autumn. But it would take months to rewrite the bill, and then weeks to get it through second and third reading, before the bill went to the Senate for further study.

Long before then, Stephen Harper is expected to prorogue Parliament in preparation for a new Throne Speech. With that prorogation, Bill C-30 will quietly expire.

Before proroguing the House, Mr. Harper is expected to shuffle his cabinet. Public Safety is near the top of the list of portfolios in need of a fresh face. A new minister will have the job of putting together a new lawful-access bill, one that doesn’t unite opposition parties, privacy commissioners and the Tory caucus.

To assuage these concerns, the new bill will have to restrict the right of police to acquire any information about someone’s online identity without first obtaining a judicial warrant.

“If they truly removed the warrantless access provisions of the bill, across the board, then we would be delighted to sit with the government and work with them on additional amendments that we would still be seeking, but that would be doable,” said Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, in an interview.

But C-30 in its present form will never become law. The Conservatives’ law-and-order agenda has finally had a comeuppance. It was delivered by everyone who wants to be left alone online.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle2432916/





Internet Surveillance Bill Not Dead, Toews Says

Despite controversy and criticism, Toews says government proceeding with C-30
CBC News

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is denying reports that the Harper government intends to quietly shelve its controversial online surveillance bill, C-30.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday morning, Toews insisted the legislation was moving ahead.

"Our government has been very clear, that matter will be referred to a parliamentary committee. In fact we made it clear that legislation would proceed to committee prior to second reading," Toews said.

Toews can move to send the legislation to committee for review before any House debate on the bill, but he has not done that yet in the Commons.

C-30 is similar to earlier legislation that had died on the order paper, but goes further in its enforcement measures.

But the Conservatives faced criticism not only from the opposition benches but also inside their own caucus about privacy concerns with the bill.

In February, shortly after the bill was introduced, Toews told CBC News that he was surprised to hear criticism that a section of C-30 provides for "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can request customer information from a telecommunications service provider. Toews said in his opinion, it shouldn't extend police powers in that way.

The committee's review is expected to provide the government with an opportunity to amend the legislation.

When the bill was introduced in February, Toews said the legislation was necessary to protect Canadians from child pornography and organized crime. But although it mentions protecting children from predators in its title, there's no mention of child pornography in its actual text.

In the heat of the early debate on the bill, Toews told Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia he could "either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

Two social media protests online – one using the Twitter hashtag #tellviceverything, and the other using the Twitter account @vikileaks30 to circulate personal details from the minister's divorce files – raised awareness and mobilized concern about the bill.

Review delayed until fall

On Wednesday, Toews told reporters that it's the "house leader's responsibility" to decide when the legislation proceeds to committee, but the government is "intent on proceeding."

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan's office says the Commons is expected to rise on June 22 for summer recess, and until then the government is focusing on economic legislation.

The Commons committee's review of C-30 isn't expected to start until the fall.

The government could prorogue Parliament at some point over the next year, allowing some bills to die on the order paper. If that happened, the government could deliver a new Throne Speech and make a fresh start with a new legislative agenda, moving on from recent controversies.

Toews mentioned that the recent Queen's Speech in the British Parliament indicated Britain would be bringing forward legislation similar to the Harper government's online surveillance bill.

"This is legislation that civilized, democratic countries around the world recognize is important in order to deal with some very significant problems," Toews said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-not-dead.html





UK Government Staff Caught Snooping on Citizen Data
Zack Whittaker

Summary: What a surprise: the U.K. government was forced to reveal under Freedom of Information laws more than 1,000 civil servants have ’snooped’ on British citizens’ private data.

Don’t worry about hackers illegally accessing government systems. It turns out government workers and civil servants who are trusted with private citizen data are more likely to access your data illegally.

The U.K. government is haemorrhaging data — private and confidential citizen data — from medical records to social security details, and even criminal records, according to figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests.

Just shy of 1,000 civil servants working at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), were disciplined for accessing personal social security records. The Department for Health (DoH), which operates the U.K.’s National Health Service and more importantly all U.K. medical records, saw more than 150 breaches occur over a 13-month period.

And all this comes to light no more than a fortnight after the Queen formally announced the U.K. government will monitor all Web and email traffic, and log all landline, mobile phone, and Skype calls.

And it’s the privacy campaigners who are in the wrong to say that the data won’t be illegally accessed or abused?

There is one, simple fact: from health records to criminal records, employment details and other personal data, government databases are not only open to abuse, but are actively being exploited by the very people we supposedly trust with our data.

Crunching the numbers: the DWP has a database of around 100 million people. More than 200,000 civil servants have to be vetted to extremely high standards before they can access this database.

Between April 2010 and March 2011, 513 civil servants were found to have made “unauthorised disclosures of official, sensitive, private and/or personal information”. The year continuing, between April 2011 and January 2012, more than 460 staff were disciplined.

The DoH on the other hand said it did not log each and every breach of unlawful access to U.K. medical records. It did say there were 158 recorded breaches in 2011. Only four years earlier, there were only 28 cases, representing a fivefold increase.

The FOI requests were made by Channel 4’s investigative series, Dispatches.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of employees in both departments, the numbers represent only a fraction of the total staff. Having said that, it took only one person — allegedly — to leak more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables to Wikileaks, the largest unauthorised release of classified data in the history of the United States.

Currently, under the Data Protection Act, it is a criminal offence to obtain or disclose personal data without permission or procure disclosure to other persons. The penalties for a criminal offence go up to £5,000 ($7,900) in a lower magistrates court, or an unlimited fine in a higher Crown court.

Some British politicians even called for some extreme data breaches to result in prison sentences — something dismissed by other parliamentary committee members.

Rarely does the fine rise to five-figures, let alone six. Only recently, one Scottish local authority was fined £140,000 ($220,000) for five separate data breaches — the highest fine imposed by the courts to date.

But as is often the case, the financial benefits from selling personal data are rarely outweighed by the fines or penalties imposed.

Under new legislation presented by Europe, if a data breach occurs, whether by an individual deliberately acting outside the law, or accidentally due to unforeseen events, the person for which that data relates to must be informed.

But those laws are at least two or three years away, and until then, companies and public sector organisations will face meagre fines compared to the €1 million flat-rate or 2 percent of their annual global turnover.
https://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/uk...izen-data/4716





Met Police Uses 'Quick' Mobile Data Extraction System Against Suspects

Police will have immediate access to data on handset
Antony Savvas

The Metropolitan Police has rolled out a mobile device data extraction system to allow officers to extract data "within minutes" from suspects' phones while they are in custody.

The capability would be particularly useful if the police force were to face a similar situation to the riots last August, which were reportedly coordinated mainly via BlackBerry Messenger (BBM). At the time, there appeared to be confusion around whether or not police could access the data from rioters’ phones, although BlackBerry owner RIM promised to co-operate fully with the police.

The new system being used by the Met is Radio Tactics' ACESO data extraction system across 16 boroughs in the capital.

Ostensibly, the system has been deployed to target phones that are suspected of having actually been used in criminal activity, although data privacy campaigners may focus on potentially wider use.

The deployment is expected to substantially reduce the costs associated with traditional, outsourced methods of processing evidence, which can lead to months of delays, particularly for "low level criminal cases", said the Met.

The ACESO kiosk data extraction system comprises of an intuitive, fully-guided touchscreen desktop data acquisition tool, and will be used by dedicated officers responsible for tackling street crime and burglary.

"Mobile phones and other devices are increasingly being used in all levels of criminal activity," said Stephen Kavanagh, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

"When a suspect is arrested and found with a mobile phone that we suspect may have been used in crime, traditionally we submit it to our digital forensic laboratory for analysis."

Kavanagh said the new system located within the boroughs themselves will enable "trained officers to examine devices and gives immediate access to the data in that handset".

He said: "Our ability to act on forensically-sound, time-critical information, from SMS to images contained on a device quickly gives us an advantage in combating crime, notably in terms of identifying people of interest quickly and progressing cases more efficiently."

Around 300 Met officers will be trained to use the system. It is not clear at this stage as to what will happen to the extracted data off a suspect's mobile if he or she is not charged with an offence after being arrested.

Last month a member of Metropolitan Police staff pleaded guilty to the theft of stolen property, including mobile phones, Apple iPods and satellite navigation systems.

Some of the stolen electrical goods contained personal data, the Met said. It insisted however that the force has "rigorous" procedures in place to protect the security of information.

"All staff and officers are given clear instructions and training on the requirement to adhere to the Metropolitan Police security, DPA (Data Protection Act) and FOIA (Freedom of Information) policy at all times, and to ensure any breaches of security are reported," a Met spokesperson said.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...inst-suspects/





Arrests Over Anti-Semitic Remarks on Facebook
BBC

Five men and a 15-year-old youth have been arrested in East Renfrewshire and Glasgow after anti-Semitic remarks were posted on social network site Facebook.

Almost 50 police officers raided seven addresses after complaints from members of the Jewish community in Giffnock.

It followed a number of offensive posts on a page entitled: "Welcome to Israel, only kidding you're in Giffnock."

The six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations.

Hate crimes

One other man was detained and later released without charge pending further inquiry.

Ch Insp Alan Murray, of Strathclyde Police, said: "This was a very complex and protracted inquiry that required assistance from many departments of Strathclyde Police and the support of the procurator fiscal at Paisley.

"I hope it clearly demonstrates that Strathclyde Police will not tolerate hate crimes of any kind.

"It should cause anyone who believes they can get away with this sort of behaviour to think again."

The Community Security Trust (CST), which helps protect the Jewish community in the UK, said: "CST welcomes the arrests of suspects regarding alleged anti-Semitic statements.

"Glaswegian Jews should be reassured that local police take anti-Semitism seriously, and that they are working with CST and the rest of the Jewish community in tackling it when it does arise.

"The spread of all types of hatred on social networking sites and similar media is a growing problem, so, it is hoped that this innovative investigation will provide a helpful precedent for all of society."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18087379





Fearmongering About Cyberwar And Cybersecurity Is Working: American Public Very, Very Afraid
Mike Masnick

Well, it looks like all the fearmongering about hackers shutting down electrical grids and making planes fall from the sky is working. No matter that there's no evidence of any actual risk, or that the only real issue is if anyone is stupid enough to actually connect such critical infrastructure to the internet (the proper response to which is: take it off the internet), fear is spreading. Of course, this is mostly due to the work of a neat combination of ex-politicians/now lobbyists working for defense contractors who stand to make a ton of money from the panic -- enabled by politicians who seem to have no shame in telling scary bedtime stories that have no basis in reality.

But it's all working. And, by working, I mean scaring the public unnecessarily. As reported by Wired, a new survey from Unisys finds that Americans are more worried about cybersecurity threats than terrorism, and they seem pretty worried about those threats. When asked about which security issues were the highest priority, survey respondents noted:

1. Protecting government computer systems against hackers and criminals (74 percent)

2. Protecting our electric power grid, water utilities and transportation systems against computer or terrorist attacks (73 percent)

3. Homeland security issues such as terrorism (68 percent)

Of course, it's likely that the vast majority of the American public has absolutely no idea what the actual risk is of any of these things happening. But they are familiar with computers, and there's been a lot of talk about cybersecurity lately, so "ooooooh, scary!" Now, here's where the mainstream press could come in and point out the lack of evidence for any real or significant cybersecurity threat and help people realize that they might be best off focusing their attention elsewhere. But talking about planes falling from the sky is much more fun.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...y-afraid.shtml





NY Twitter Decision Fails to Recognize Content and Location Data Require a Warrant
Hanni Fakhoury

A New York judge's broad opinion, ordering Twitter to comply with a subpoena and turn over account information about one of its users arrested for disorderly conduct in connection with an Occupy Wall Street protest, is worse the deeper you dig into it.

The judge ruled that the user, Malcolm Harris, lost ownership of his tweets once he posted them online, and therefore had no legal standing to challenge the subpoena. This decision prompted several worried responses, including our own, because our Fourth Amendment privacy rights should not be surrendered simply because we use online service providers that store information remotely. Even Twitter stepped in to defend Harris, filing a motion to quash the subpoena.

But two other troubling legal rulings in the opinion have received less scrutiny, even though they also put basic privacy rights in jeopardy. The court threw away one of the most important procedural protections enshrined in our constitution -- the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement -- by lowering the standard for government access to both the contents of communication, and information about a person's location.

First, the court allowed the government to get the contents of communication -- in this case, Harris' tweets -- with a mere subpoena. But consistent with the Fourth Amendment, Congress made clear that the contents of communication can only be accessed by law enforcement with a search warrant. The Stored Communications Act (SCA) details how the government can obtain certain types of information from electronic storage providers. And while there has been debate about the legal standard that applies for obtaining non-content records like cell phone location information -- we think a search warrant is required, and the government does not -- the SCA is absolutely clear that a search warrant is required for content that is less than 180 days old. For that reason, when we first wrote about this case we predicted that the government's request for tweets was unlikely to succeed because consistent with the SCA, Twitter's law enforcement guidelines required a search warrant in order to access this information.

Unfortunately, the Court was led astray by the government, who argued that the SCA didn't even apply because the tweets were public, although the text of the SCA doesn't distinguish between public and non-public content. (The government's argument makes us wonder, if the tweets were public, then why did the government need a subpoena anyway?) As a result, the court allowed the government to access content -- the tweets -- without a search warrant, even though some of the content was less than 180 days old. And although the SCA suggests content older than 180 days old can be obtained without a search warrant, we helped convince the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement applied to email regardless of how long its been in electronic storage. The same rule should apply with respect to tweets too.

But its not just about privacy. Allowing government access to the content of communication without the judicial oversight that comes with a search warrant also presents real First Amendment problems too. Just like we said when we previously challenged the government's attempts to get information from Twitter, allowing access to all of a person's tweets, whether related to Occupy Wall Street or not, chills free speech. That's abundantly clear here where the government is pursuing a criminal charge about as serious as a speeding ticket (disorderly conduct has a maximum punishment of 15 days in jail, or a $250 fine) during an internationally reported political protest and rally.

Unfortunately, there are other problems with the Court's order. The judge also allowed the government to get access to location information without a search warrant. Twitter keeps a record of a user's IP address when he logs in to post a tweet. Since the majority of Twitter users access the site through mobile phones, these IP addresses are keys that help unlock a person's location. As the order states, the government wants the information

to refute the defendant’s anticipated defense, that the police either led or escorted the defendant into stepping onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge. The People claim the defendant’s anticipated defense is contradicted by his public statements, which identifies the @destructuremal account as likely belonging to the defendant and indicates that while on the Brooklyn Bridge the defendant may have posted Tweets that were inconsistent with his anticipated trial defense.

When we first wrote about this case, we believed it was all about location, location, location. The real reason NYC prosecutors wanted this information was to get location data that would give the government information about the workings of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its members. That explains why Harris was singled out: he had over 1,500 followers, 7,200 tweets and was outspoken about his involvement in the Occupy movement.

But as we've explained many times before, the government needs a search warrant to get location information. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking opinion in United States v. Jones that found attaching a GPS device to a car to track a person's movements for 28 days was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, and thus could only be done with a search warrant. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor questioned "whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on."

That's precisely what's happening here. While the NYC prosecutors may be interested in Harris' movement on the day of his arrest, the subpoena requested three months of information from Twitter, far more than the 28 days at issue the Supreme Court found violated the Fourth Amendment. And by figuring out where Harris was for three months, the government can learn much about him and the Occupy movement. A search warrant ensures that location information can be an effective law enforcement tool in cases where there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found, but strikes a balance with a person's right to privacy, and ensures that this information won't be misused for politically motivated witch hunts based on trivial criminal charges.

The court's acceptance of the government's arguments for disclosure has resulted in a broad opinion that has far reaching consequences to free speech and privacy. The judge now has an opportunity to correct this error and grant Twitter's motion to quash the subpoena. If he doesn't, we hope that the New York appeals court will follow the direction of the Sixth Circuit with respect to contents of communications, and the Supreme Court with respect to location information, and insist on the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...t-and-location





Blumenthal & Co. Introduce Password Protection Act
Ryan Cane

Sen. Blumenthal introduced last week (and posted on his blog about today) the new Password Protection Act legislation that would make it illegal for employers to force workers or applicants to reveal social media passwords.

In his blog, Blumenthal wrote:

Like many of you, I was appalled when I heard accounts of employers forcing prospective employees to provide passwords to personal websites like Facebook as part of the hiring process. As Americans, we value our privacy, and the thought that our privacy could be invaded as part of the job hunt is anathema to us.

You can read all about the legislation (and support it, if desired) here.
http://courantblogs.com/technology/p...rotection-act/





Ex-Murdoch Editor Charged Over UK Phone-Hacking Scandal
Michael Holden and Kate Holton

Rebekah Brooks, a close confidante of Rupert Murdoch, was charged on Tuesday with interfering with a police investigation into a phone hacking scandal that has rocked the tycoon's media empire and sent shockwaves through the British political establishment.

Brooks, 43, was charged with concealing material from detectives, conspiring to remove boxes of archive records from Murdoch's London headquarters, and hiding documents, computers and other electronic equipment from the police. If found guilty she could face a prison sentence.

The charges are the first since police re-launched an investigation into alleged illegal practices at Murdoch's British newspapers following accusations the extent of wrongdoing had been covered up.

The news is a personal blow for the world's most powerful media boss and also embarrassing for British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was close friends with Brooks and sent her text messages of support when the alleged offences took place.

The action against Brooks comes as Murdoch is increasingly under fire in Britain. He has been forced to close one newspaper, withdraw a major takeover bid for a TV station and been described by a parliamentary committee report as someone who is not fit to run a major international company.

Murdoch's closeness to Brooks, instantly recognizable for her mane of flame-red hair, was highlighted last year, when the mogul flew into London to tackle the hacking scandal, put his arm around her and declared that she was his top priority.

"I have concluded ... there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction," said Alison Levitt, Principal Legal Advisor to Britain's Director of Public Prosecutions in a rare televised statement.

"All these matters relate to the ongoing police investigation into allegations of phone hacking and corruption of public officials in relation to the News of the World and The Sun newspapers," Levitt said.

Also charged were Brooks's racehorse trainer husband Charlie Brooks, her secretary and other staff including her driver and security officials from News International, the British newspaper arm of Murdoch's News Corp media empire.

The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is theoretically a life prison term although such a lengthy sentence would be unlikely.

"We deplore this weak and unjust decision," Rebekah and Charlie Brooks, who was at school with Cameron at the exclusive Eton College, said in a statement.

Rebekah Brooks was on Tuesday being questioned at a London police station. There was no comment from Cameron's office.

SYMBOLIC

"This is a symbolic moment for British media and politics," Ivor Gaber, professor of political journalism at London's City University, told Reuters.

"This yet again raises questions about the prime minister's judgment, that he chose to associate both professionally and socially with somebody who is facing charges which could result in imprisonment."

The phone-hacking scandal first broke six years ago when the royal correspondent from the News of the World, a Sunday tabloid, and a private detective were arrested and later jailed for hacking the phones of aides to the royal family.

News International maintained the practice was limited to one rogue reporter until that defense crumbled last year as detectives reopened their investigation amid claims their initial probe had been insufficient.

About 160 officers are examining claims that journalists at the News of the World routinely hacked into the phones of hundreds of celebrities, politicians and victims of crime to generate front-page stories.

They are also investigating whether staff hacked into computers and made illegal payments to public officials, including the police, to get ahead in their reporting.

Almost 50 people have been arrested, with a tax official and a woman the latest to be held by detectives on Tuesday morning.

SAGA

The explosive saga has shone a light on close ties between the media, British politicians and the police, with Brooks one of the central characters.

Ministers who previously overtly courted Murdoch and the backing of his papers turned on the mogul last year, forcing the 81-year-old to withdraw a $12 billion bid for lucrative British pay TV group BSkyB.

Cameron admitted he had ridden a horse given to Brooks by the police in the company of her husband, which critics seized on as evidence as an overly cozy relationship. He also attended a Christmas party at the couple's house in 2010, at a time when the government was considering whether to approve the BSkyB deal.

Dubbed by some Murdoch's "fifth daughter", Brooks edited the News of the World from 2000 to 2003 and went on to become the first female editor of the Sun daily tabloid, Britain's most widely read newspaper, for six years. Murdoch closed the 168-year-old News of the World last year as a result of the scandal.

With her close links to the upper echelons of the British establishment including a string of prime ministers and senior police officers, Brooks was promoted to run Murdoch's British newspaper arm from 2009 to 2011.

Brooks had close ties with Cameron's predecessor as prime minister, Gordon Brown, whose wife Sarah hosted a 'pyjama party' in 2008 that was attended by Brooks and Murdoch's wife Wendi and daughter Elisabeth.

But Brooks was forced to stand down last July under a tide of revelations about phone hacking, and was arrested two days later over allegations of interception of communications, and corruption.

She was detained again in March this year, along with her husband, over the allegations relating to perverting the course of justice. Detectives have not concluded their investigations into the other potential offences.

During day-long questioning at a public inquiry into media ethics last week, Brooks said that she and Cameron had frequently exchanged text messages and would occasionally sign them off "LOL", by which he meant "lots of love".

Cameron is already facing questions over why he hired Andy Coulson, Brooks's successor as News of the World editor, as his media chief. Coulson, who quit that role in January 2011, is amongst those to have been arrested.

"My wish is that the police had done a proper investigation right back in the beginning, because then all of this could have been done and dusted ages ago," said Chris Bryant, an opposition lawmaker and one of the hacking victims.

"I fear the prime minister will have some questions to answer about the kind of company he has been keeping," he told Reuters.

The others charged on Tuesday were Cheryl Carter, Brooks's personal assistant, Mark Hanna, the Head of Security at News International, Paul Edwards, her chauffeur, and Daryl Jorsling, who provided security for Brooks.

(Additional reporting by Tim Castle and Clare Kane; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Giles Elgood)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84E0DF20120515





A Ray of Light for the New York Times

It’s easy to write dour predictions about the state of the newspaper industry. So here’s a relatively sunny one: One day, not that far away, the New York Times’ growing subscriber base will make up for its shrinking ad business.

That will happen in the middle of 2014, says Barclays analyst Kannan Venkateshwar, when circulation growth at the paper will start offsetting the decline in the Times’ ad sales. Here’s what that looks like in chart form:

True, one reason that circ growth will lap ad losses is that the losses will be slowing after much steeper declines. Still, the best-case scenario for most old-line media businesses is that digital sales increase faster than physical sales drop, and that’s essentially what Venkateshwar says is happening here. A year after the Times introduced its pay wall, it now has 450,000 digital subscribers — a number that impresses lots of industry skeptics.

Earlier this spring, when the Times said it was making it harder to read the paper online without paying for it, by dropping its free article limit from 20 per month to 10 per month, I wondered if the Times had made the move out of necessity — because it needed to boost its digital sales — or optimism — because it was confident it could boost its sales with a taller pay wall.

But after some thought, and bouncing the idea off a few industry folks, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s both. The Times would sure like to accelerate Venkateshwar’s timeline, and that’s probably not going to happen by fixing its ad problem. Meanwhile, the paper seems relatively confident that raising the pay wall equals marketing the pay wall. And the nice thing about the system the paper has built is that if it doesn’t work, it can fiddle with the controls some more.
https://allthingsd.com/20120514/a-ra...ew-york-times/





ePub Standards Body Proposes New 'Lightweight' DRM for eBook Platform Interoperability
Bryan Bishop

Tor and several other related imprints may be going DRM-free in July, but that doesn't mean the rest of the publishing industry is ready to jump on board. Instead, the International Digital Publishing Forum — the association that established and maintains the ePub standard — is proposing a new lightweight DRM scheme that will provide protection while still allowing interoperability between ebook platforms. In a post on the IDPF's website, Bill Rosenblatt writes that while ePub provides the basic tools for encryption, the lack of a fully-realized DRM system has led to distributors and device makers rolling their own, resulting in fragmentation and platform lock-in. (As it currently stands, vendors like Apple and Barnes & Noble use ePub with their own DRM solutions built on top; Amazon uses its own proprietary format.) The new ePub DRM would offer a standardized approach, providing enough protection to deter casual file sharing without causing so much hassle as to be inconvenient to users.

The proposal calls for a password-based solution that would work on a device even if no internet connection was present — or if the ebook distributor themselves no longer existed. Varying degrees of restriction are also proposed, based upon the needs of a given situation, such as library lending. Even if approved, however, it's unclear if such a solution would be widely adopted. Rosenblatt writes that there are no plans to remove the hooks that allow individual companies to apply their own DRM, and with Amazon out of the ePub camp in the first place, there's something quixotic about the proposal. Then again, teaming up against the ebook marketshare leader may provide enough incentive on its own for other players to rally behind the standard — though we can't help but think simply going DRM-free would be the best response of all. The IDPF will be soliciting comments to the initial proposal until June 8th.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/19/30...ght-drm-ebooks





Does Using the Net Make You Depressed? Heavy Use of Games, File Sharing and Chat Services Can be Warning Signs
Rob Waugh

Heavy use of games, video and chat services often sign of depression
No proof use of net CAUSES depression
Depressed people use web differently
'Pattern' could identify people who need help

People who find themselves using file-sharing services and flicking aimlessly between different apps might be depressed - and

Researchers at the University of Missouri found that depressed students tended to use file-sharing services, send email and chat online more than the other students.

It's one of the first surveys of computer use and depression that relies on data from the university's own network - watching students' actual computer use - rather than surveys.

Students showing signs of depression tend to use file-sharing services more than their counterparts, and also use the Internet in a more random manner, frequently switching among several applications.

‘The study is believed to be the first that uses actual Internet data, collected unobtrusively and anonymously, to associate Internet usage with signs of depression’, Chellappan says. 'Surveys are a far less accurate way of assessing the way people use the internet.'

‘This is because when students themselves reported their volume and type of Internet activity, the amount of Internet usage data is limited because people's memories fade with time,’ Chellappan says.

‘There may be errors and social desirability bias when students report their own Internet usage.’

Chellappan and his fellow researchers collected a month's worth of Internet data for 216 Missouri undergraduate students.

Before the researchers collected the usage data from the campus network, the students were tested to determine whether they showed signs of depression.

They found that students who showed signs of depression used the Internet much differently than the other study participants.

Depressed students also tended to use higher ‘packets per flow’ applications, those high-bandwidth applications often associated with online videos and games, than their counterparts.

Warcraft

Online game World of Warcraft: Depressed students also tended to use higher ¿packets per flow¿ applications, those high-bandwidth applications often associated with online videos and games, than their counterparts

Students who showed signs of depression also tended to use the Internet in a more ‘random’ manner - frequently switching among applications, perhaps from chat rooms to games to email.

Chellappan thinks that randomness may indicate trouble concentrating, a characteristic associated with depression.

About 30 percent of the students in the study met the minimum criteria for depression. Nationally, previous studies show that between 10 percent and 40 percent of all American students suffer from depression.

Chellappan is now interested in using these findings to develop software that could be installed on home computers to help individuals determine whether their Internet usage patterns may indicate depression.

The software would unobtrusively monitor Internet usage and alert individuals if their usage patterns indicate symptoms of depression.

‘The software would be a cost-effective and an in-home tool that could proactively prompt users to seek medical help if their Internet usage patterns indicate possible depression,’ Chellappan says. ‘The software could also be installed on campus networks to notify counselors of students whose Internet usage patterns are indicative of depressive behavior.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-signs.html





No, Snapchat Isn’t About Sexting, Says Co-Founder Evan Spiegel
Billy Gallagher

“The minute you tell someone that images on your server disappear, everyone jumps to sexting.”

Evan Spiegel laughed and leaned back into his chair during his first sitdown interview since his iPhone app Snapchat blew up over the last month. Snapchat is #12 on the free iOS photo app charts in the U.S. and just scored some mainstream media attention in The New York Times.

Why? Snapchat is a photo-sharing app that changes privacy norms in a very novel way. The free app allows users to send others photos and control how long receivers can see them. These photos last for up to 10 seconds, before they disappear forever. If you try to take a screenshot, the app will notify the sender.

“It seems odd that at the beginning of the Internet everyone decided everything should stick around forever,” Spiegel said. “I think our application makes communication a lot more human and natural.”

By taking away the part about a photo lasting forever, it actually encourages users to share more.

The New York Times happened to cover the more risqué side of the app—its potential use for sexting. But the Stanford senior isn’t sold on the idea that Snapchat will become the must-have app for sexters.

“I’m not convinced that the whole sexting thing is as big as the media makes it out to be,” he said. “I just don’t know people who do that. It doesn’t seem that fun when you can have real sex.”

Spiegel said most user feedback from direct emails and Twitter posts is about sending funny faces and messages, not racy images.

But he added that the app was partially inspired by the Anthony Weiner scandal last spring and a desire to create an app with expiring data.

Snapchat user Marilyn Feldman uses the app to keep in touch with her daughter, who attends college across the country.

“It’s subtly different even from taking a picture on my iPhone and sending that,” Feldman said. “It’s more immediate and even more casual. Almost like, ‘thinking of you.’ Picture of a red rose in the neighborhood. I didn’t even send her a message, just a picture of the red rose, and she knew what that meant.”

Spiegel co-founded Snapchat last spring with Bobby Murphy, who graduated from Stanford in 2010 after studying mathematical and computational science. The pair met in the Kappa Sigma fraternity house at Stanford three years ago. Spiegel would often walk down the hall to Bobby’s room at four in the morning for computer science help.

While living together, they founded Future Freshman, a college guidance site that ultimately failed to attract users and lost out to a rival with more aggressive sales and marketing. They finally gave up on Future Freshman last March, but it wouldn’t be long before the duo moved on to working on Snapchat.

After kicking the idea around for a bit, Spiegel took it to his mechanical engineering class, ‘Design and Business Factors.’

“All the VCs and people who came through were like ‘This is the dumbest thing ever,’” Spiegel laughed. “So, obviously, I went back to Bobby and I was like, ‘Oh, they really liked it!’”

After spending the summer together in Los Angeles building a prototype, they were struggling again to attract users. Then something strange happened. The app started going viral in high schools in the Los Angeles area, including at Spiegel’s cousin’s school. Students were using it to pass notes and communicate during the school day.

In March, Barry Eggers, a managing director at the venture capital firm Lightspeed Venture Partners heard from his high-school daughter that the top three apps her friends were using in school were Angry Birds, Instagram, and Snapchat.

“That’s interesting company. Of those, the one we’d never heard of was Snapchat,” said Jeremy Liew, Eggers’ partner, who pursued Spiegel for a meeting.

“We were ignoring them until we couldn’t afford it,” Spiegel said, adding that many VCs had reached out to them about funding.

Just 25 minutes into the meeting, Liew was ready to invest, to the tune of $485,000. The team has wasted no time putting the money to use. They have hired a community manager, as well as two new engineers.

“Honestly I think we’re building a team here but also a family,” Spiegel said. “We’ve identified some absolutely exceptional people who we really want to work with and I think that’s something that’s really important.”

Snapchat still has a small userbase from what we can tell. Spiegel wouldn’t say how large it is, but it seems that the users he does have are insanely engaged. Snapchat currently processes around 25 images every second and the team is focusing on stabilizing their iOS application. (For comparison, Instagram was processing around 25 photos a second seven months ago when it had 10 million users.)

Spiegel is also developing an Android app. And of course, they’re looking for a way to make some money off the app. While he said they don’t currently have a revenue model, Spiegel said they are “having ongoing discussions” about it.

“We didn’t think we were ever going to raise venture capital so we were planning very early on to generate a revenue plan,” he said.

The success of that plan will likely rely on whether Snapchat can convince people that it is a new and useful way to communicate – with or without pants.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/12/snapchat-not-sexting/





Interview: Imgur’s Path to a Billion Image Views Per Day
Liz Gannes

Starting an image-hosting site in 2009 seemed like a silly idea. It was a commoditized business, with lots of competitors. A basic utility service was unlikely to inspire loyalty or give rise to a community that would make people stick around.

And hosting images could get expensive if any of them became popular. Also, it would be hard to make a lot of money.

That all was true then — and it still is now — but the three-year-old image-hosting site Imgur has succeeded to become a profitable business with a growing community, one of the top 100 most-visited sites in the world, with a growth curve that’s making venture capitalists drool.

Imgur gets one billion image views per day, up 1,200 percent from a year ago. A typical visitor looks at 11 pages per session.

Imgur (pronounced “imager”) was started by Alan Schaaf when he was an Ohio University undergrad. It’s not a photography site. The images it hosts are a mix of photos that have been manipulated in Photoshop, drawings, screenshots and memes.

The only time Imgur has ever been in the red, Schaaf said, was the $7 he paid for its domain. Since then the site has cost all sorts of money, but it has stayed ahead through advertising, donations and pro accounts, and keeps itself running with the help of EdgeCast’s content delivery network.

That advertising is notably restrained: a maximum of one ad per page. And most page views show no ads. Imgur allows users to link to images directly, so when viewers show up on the hosting page they only see the picture itself, with no metadata or ads surrounding it. Because that feature is so popular, the site has the ability to monetize less than 10 percent of its page views, Schaaf estimates.

“We’re not complaining about that at all. We love that,” Schaaf said in an interview on Monday. “We like allowing things like that that make users happy.”

Schaaf said he thinks the key to Imgur’s success has been this sort of irrational attention to what people want at the expense of what’s good for him and the company. That, and Imgur’s symbiosis with the Reddit community.

Back in 2009, Schaaf was a computer science student and a Reddit user frustrated with the user experience around image hosting. Redditors who uploaded their images to sites like TinyPic, ImageShack and Photobucket would get cut off when they drove too much traffic. (And driving a lot of traffic on the vote-driven service was sort of the point.)

Schaaf announced his new tool with a post on Reddit: “My Gift to Reddit: I created an image hosting service that doesn’t suck. What do you think?”

It took off almost instantly, jumping from a thousand hits per day to a million total page views in the first five months.

Reddit continues to be Imgur’s top source of traffic, and Imgur has become Redditors’ preferred image host. The sites share similar demographics; their audiences are primarily in the United States.

One wrinkle of the Reddit community is that it’s unusually attentive to linking to source images and crediting original content. This can hurt Imgur, which like many user-generated content sites has copyright issues. For instance, Imgur is banned in the section of Reddit devoted to Web comics out of respect for artists who would prefer that Reddit link back to their own sites.

Of course, Schaaf thinks that’s great, too. He’s all for proper attribution and sourcing.

I asked him if there has ever been any sort of setback on this happy growth curve. Has Imgur ever gone through a user backlash? Schaaf said he can’t think of one — maybe when one of the site’s ad networks accidentally included units that automatically played sound. But those were quickly removed.

Imgur’s bare basics business model is plenty to support a staff of five, now based in San Francisco. The site has never been anything but bootstrapped. “We would take funding if we needed it, but we’re not strapped for cash,” Schaaf said.

The Imgur staff is doing more than just keeping the site up. They’re working to develop social tools like direct messaging and replies for the Imgur community, who call themselves “Imgurians.” (Though Schaaf is careful to say he doesn’t want to compete with Reddit — he wants Imgur to be a YouTube for images, continuing its informal alignment with Reddit.)

The company is also adding native mobile apps (20 percent of traffic is now mobile), some direct ad sales, commercial versions (Stack Exchange is a customer) and content creation tools.
https://allthingsd.com/20120515/inte...views-per-day/

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

May12th, May 5th, April 28th, April 21st

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
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)