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 18-11-20, 04:40 PM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - November 21st, ’20

Since 2002


































November 21st, 2020




GitHub Agrees RIAA Claim is Bunk, Restores Popular YouTube Download Tool

The EFF pointed out all the ways the RIAA was wrong, and GitHub agreed.
Kate Cox

GitHub has reversed its decision to boot YouTube-dl, a popular tool for archiving YouTube videos, from its platform. The company restored repositories this week after "additional information" convinced it that an archiving tool is not in and of itself a copyright violation—no matter what the music industry says.

The repositories in question got shut down in late October before coming back yesterday. "We share developers' frustration with this takedown—especially since this project has many legitimate purposes," GitHub explained in a corporate blog post. "Our actions were driven by processes required to comply with laws like the DMCA that put platforms like GitHub and developers in a difficult spot. And our reinstatement, based on new information that showed the project was not circumventing a technical protection measure (TPM), was inline with our values of putting developers first."

The initial takedown occurred after the Recording Industry Association of America filed a claim with Microsoft-owned GitHub arguing that the code in those repositories was inherently illegal under US copyright law. At a high level, the law in question basically makes it illegal to crack or bypass DRM in any way, except for a handful of enumerated exemptions.

The RIAA's takedown filing argued not that YouTube-dl was itself infringing content. Instead, the filing alleges that the code violated that section of copyright law because, in the RIAA's eyes, "the clear purpose of this source code is to... circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and [to] reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use."

Not exactly

The "additional information" GitHub received about the RIAA's claim came from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a response to GitHub on behalf of the developers maintaining YouTube-dl.

First of all, the EFF pointed out, the RIAA's claim that YouTube-dl only exists for piracy is flat-out wrong—the utility has a host of legal, fair-use applications:

[YouTube-dl] has a vast, diverse, worldwide community of users. It is used by journalists and human rights organizations to save eyewitness videos, by educators to save videos for classroom use, by YouTubers to save backup copies of their own uploaded videos, and by users worldwide to watch videos on hardware that can't run a standard web browser, or to watch videos in their full resolution over slow or unreliable Internet connections.

Secondly, and even more pertinent to the RIAA's claim: YouTube-dl does not in fact circumvent DRM in place on videos. Instead, the utility does roughly the same thing any Web browser would, the EFF explains: "It reads and interprets the JavaScript program sent by YouTube, derives the 'signature' value, and sends that value back to YouTube to initiate the video stream." (The EFF creatively compares this to the Doors of Durin in The Lord of the Rings, which say, "speak, friend, and enter." Providing the signature is, in this case, analogous to knowing the Sindarin word for "friend.")

This mechanism, the EFF argues, is not "circumvention" in legal terms. YouTube-dl merely accesses the "signature" code, rather than bypassing or avoiding it, and "any alleged lack of authorization from YouTube or the RIAA is irrelevant."

GitHub found the EFF's arguments compelling. After reading over the filing, GitHub determined that the RIAA's claims "did not establish a violation of the law."

Doing better next time

As a result of the YouTube-dl fiasco, GitHub has promised changes to its claim-review process going forward. For starters, new claims will be reviewed by both technical and legal experts—the techies to determine if the code actually does what the claimant says it does, and the lawyers to determine if the claim does in fact fall within the boundaries of the law.

When the claim is ambiguous, "We will err on the side of the developer," GitHub says. And even if a claim is found to be accurate, legal, and technically legitimate, the repository owner will get a chance to make changes or respond to the claim before their repository is taken down.

Perhaps most interestingly, GitHub is putting its money where its proverbial mouth is: the company is donating $1 million to establish a "developer defense fund" to help developers fight against unwarranted legal claims.

GitHub CEO Nat Friedman added in a Twitter thread that GitHub "will have more to say about this, and other things we are doing to protect developers and their freedom to tinker, in the coming weeks."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...download-tool/





Music Industry Cracking Down on Copyright Issues Could Change how NFL and Other Leagues Distribute Content

The industry has already warned about copyright issues and even reached a settlement with one NFL team
Jonathan Jones

Several NFL teams have received warnings from the music industry in recent weeks about the use of copyrighted music on social media posts, and at least one team has already settled with a record label for a sum in the six figures according to multiple sources.

The push for teams to create innovative digital content the last few years is now being met by legendarily strong record-label forces that seek to protect their licensed music.

"The NFL and its clubs have worked collaboratively with the music industry and artists for decades," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement to CBS Sports. "As a content provider we respect the work and copyrights of music publishers, and we'll look forward to working forward with them further."

Sources told CBS Sports the Arizona Cardinals wound up striking a six-figure settlement with at least one record label. As of publish time, a Cardinals spokesman had not provided a comment.

Sources noted NBA teams have gotten similar notices from the music industry this year. Twitch, the popular streaming platform for gamers, has been hit particularly hard with copyright issues in recent months.

The issue, as I'm told, is not only teams placing copyrighted music into videos without permission. Instead, this revolves around copyrighted music playing in the background of videos. Players dancing to music during practice or music playing in the stadium as a player talks into the camera is the problem. Those videos have become commonplace on team social channels as they've built and grown their digital departments over the past decade.

And while that music was surely paid for — think about someone streaming Apple Music on their phone while connected to a Bluetooth speaker — that doesn't mean the team's social channels can send out videos with music in the background. NFL team digital departments try to be careful about that, but because of the frequency with which they post, sometimes it just happens. (My own Twitter account was suspended in May for a video I posted from a charity function four years earlier with a song playing in the background.)

These notices are known as DMCA takedown notices. DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 U.S. copyright law act that essentially allows copyright holders a streamlined way to request their material be taken off the internet if not properly licensed. This is the same act that empowered record labels to sue filesharing sites like Napster and spook — and sometimes sue — college kids pirating music in dorm rooms across America in the early 2000s.

This won't bankrupt teams. In fact, most teams should have insurance that covers them in the event they have to reach a financial settlement. But record labels have been fiercely protective of their property for decades, and this is another extension of that behavior that was most prevalent in the first two decades of this century with pirated music.

Unless sports leagues and teams can find a solution that involves a wide-ranging licensing deal, this could forever alter team- and league-controlled content. Consider all the content that involves players mic'd up on the field before games with music playing in the background? Fans may not be able to see a team turn the locker room into a dance club following a win.

These are all questions teams of all leagues face moving forward as the music industry protects its content.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/m...ibute-content/





BREIN Announced Taking Down Several Pirating ‘Open Directories’
Bill Toulas

• BREIN has taken down several open directories that hosted pirated content.
• Not many details about the action are known, but plenty of infringing directories are still out there.
• Open directories is still a highly unregulated and shady space where everything goes.

BREIN announced that it took down several pirating ‘open directories.’ These are directories hosted on servers that don’t need a password to access, and thus they are open to anyone with a web browser and the URL. Apparently, there are many directories of this kind that host copyright-infringing content and which internet users visit to download stuff for free.

BREIN is an active Dutch anti-piracy group that targets pirate sites, torrent users, piracy intermediaries, hosting service providers, content distribution network platforms, and even Plex users.

These are a lot different from pirate websites that are actively promoted via social media platforms, malvertising, or pirate-focused forums, as they don’t have eye-catching and comfortable to use interface, streaming capabilities, or anything like that. They are just directories, so it’s like browsing files on a file manager, but on the web browser.

Open directories don’t have advertisements like pirate sites, and they don’t require a subscription. This makes them free, and as such, not great sources of income for those maintaining them. So why are there pirating open directories in the first place? The answer could be either for solidarity among pirates or for the distribution of malware. Remember, no one guarantees anything in these places, and the files found on these directories could be anything.

So, how do people – or BREIN, for that matter – find these open directories anyway? One can search them on internet search engines like Google, using the search term “index.of\” followed by the filetype. Those who are looking for pirated stuff could use a media filetype like “mkv,” for example, and they would find something like the following.

Of course, digging on Google search results isn’t the only way. There are specialized tools like the “Open Directory Search Tool,” which can help users find what they’re looking for a lot quicker and easier. There are many tools of this kind, and almost all of them make it feel like using a flashlight in the dark, so this is why people are sharing their findings with others. There’s just so much going on in the open directories space, and it’s constantly changing.

BREIN may have taken action against some directories that were more widely used and shared on social media, but it will be hard to keep up with all the new ones that open up every day. It’s yet another example of a cat and mouse game, and maybe the most futile of all.
https://www.technadu.com/brein-takin...tories/225071/





Private Share is Samsung’s New Blockchain-Based Secure File Transfer App
Adnan F.

There are a number of ways through which you can transfer files between mobile devices. You can use Bluetooth, NFC, Nearby Share, Samsung’s Quick Share or just shoot your recipient an email if it’s not a big file. The question remains, how do you go about ensuring the security of what you’ve just shared?

Samsung seems to have been thinking along the same lines. We hear that the company has been developing a new app called Private Share. This app is going to leverage the power of the blockchain to enable secure file transfer.

Samsung leverages blockchain to provide secure file transfer

Private Share is going to allow users to share their files privately. It’s the same concept as ephemeral messaging. The sender will be able to set an expiration date for the files. The shared files would automatically be deleted from the recipient’s device after expiry.

Recipients will also be prevented from resharing the files. The app will not provide them with an option to reshare the file. Screenshots would ostensibly be disabled as well, but there’s nothing stopping anybody from taking a picture of that device’s screen with another device.

The app will work much in the same way as Quick Share, in that both the sender and the recipient will need to have the Private Share app. The sender will send a transfer request which when accepted by the recipient will create a channel and start the transfer.

It’s quite likely that we’ll see Private Share being introduced as one of the new features that Samsung introduces with the Galaxy S21. Like it did with Quick Share and Music Share, the app will then quickly be rolled out to previous flagships and even mid-range devices. It will really only be useful for Samsung users when the app is available on a wide variety of Galaxy devices.

Fortunately, we won’t have to wait long for the Galaxy S21 lineup. SamMobile has already exclusively confirmed the Galaxy S21 announcement for early January 2021. The handset is expected to hit shelves towards the end of the month.
https://www.sammobile.com/news/priva...-transfer-app/





Twitter Hires Veteran Hacker Mudge as Head of Security
Alex Hern

Twitter has appointed one of the world’s most respected hackers as its new head of security in the wake of a humiliating mass attack in July.

The company has placed Peiter Zatko in charge of protecting its platform from threats of all varieties, poaching him from the payments startup Stripe. Zatko is better known as Mudge, his handle for more than 20 years of operation on both sides of the information security arena.

“Looks like the cat is out of the bag,” Mudge tweeted after the news of his hiring broke. “I’m very excited to be joining the executive team at Twitter! I truly believe in the mission of (equitably) serving the public conversation. I will do my best!”

Mudge made his name in the 1990s as a member of the notorious hacker collectives Cult of the Dead Cow and L0pht Heavy Industries.

The groups were notorious for making and distributing hacking tools such as Back Orifice, which could allow a hacker to take over an infected machine, and L0phtCrack, a tool for pirating Windows. But they were also drivers of the unique culture of the hacker community, distributing music and zines, running conventions, and engaging in pranks and activism online.

In the later part of the 90s, Mudge’s central role in the hacker community, combined with the growing commercial importance of the internet, led to growing dialogue with political leaders. In 1998, he and the other members of L0pht testified before the US Congress about the shoddy standards of information security at the time. Styling themselves as a “hacker thinktank”, the group told representatives that they could, within 30 minutes of work, shut down the internet for a couple of days if they put their minds to it.

Two years later, Mudge joined a group of experts advising the then-president Bill Clinton on internet security, after a series of hacking attacks that hit CNN, eBay, Yahoo and Amazon. An awed CNN reported that one participant at the meeting “set up his laptop on the conference table, an agenda on the screen”.

As Twitter’s new head of security, Mudge will have a large to-do list. The company’s information security failings were highlighted by July’s attack, which saw a series of prominent accounts including Kim Kardashian West, Barack Obama and Elon Musk, being taken over by attackers to propagate a bitcoin scam. The hack’s postmortem was embarrassing for Twitter, revealing that crucial passwords had been left in plain view in a Slack channel that anyone could join, and that the power to completely take over accounts was in effect unmonitored internally.

The former hacker’s job will also cover security in other realms: physical security of the company’s offices, as well as the task of fighting misinformation on the website, he told Reuters.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ty/ar-BB1b5O1Q





FCC Takes Spectrum from Auto Industry in Plan to “Supersize” Wi-Fi

45MHz freed up in 5GHz band because automakers failed to widely deploy safety tech.
Jon Brodkin

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to add 45MHz of spectrum to Wi-Fi in a slightly controversial decision that takes the spectrum away from a little-used automobile-safety technology.

The spectrum from 5.850GHz to 5.925GHz has, for about 20 years, been set aside for Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), a vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications service that's supposed to warn drivers of dangers on the road. But as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai today said, "99.9943 percent of the 274 million registered vehicles on the road in the United States still don't have DSRC on-board units." Only 15,506 vehicles have been equipped with the technology, he said.

In today's decision, the FCC split the spectrum band and reallocated part of it to Wi-Fi and part of it to a newer vehicle technology. The lower 45MHz from 5.850GHz to 5.895GHz will be allocated to Wi-Fi and other unlicensed services.

"This spectrum's impact will be further amplified by the fact that it is adjacent to an existing Wi-Fi band which, when combined with the 45MHz made available today, will support cutting-edge broadband applications," the FCC said. "These high-throughput channels—up to 160 megahertz wide—will enable gigabit Wi-Fi connectivity for schools, hospitals, small businesses, and other consumers."

"Full-power indoor unlicensed operations" are authorized immediately, while "outdoor unlicensed use" will be allowed "on a coordinated basis under certain circumstances," the FCC said. The FCC ordered DSRC services to vacate the lower 45MHz within one year.

The other 30MHz currently allocated to DSRC is being set aside for a newer vehicle-safety technology called Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X). "Today's action therefore begins the transition away from DSRC services—which are incompatible with C-V2X—to hasten the actual deployment of ITS [Intelligent Transportation Systems] services that will improve automotive safety," the FCC said.

The FCC still has to finalize technical rules for outdoor unlicensed operations on the lower 45MHz and for how to transition the upper 30MHz from DSRC to C-V2X.

Controversy related to Trump/Biden transition

The spectrum action had bipartisan support but was somewhat controversial because of its timing. Congressional Democrats last week urged Pai to "immediately stop work on all partisan, controversial items" in recognition of Joe Biden's election victory over President Donald Trump. That would follow past practice in which the FCC works only on consensus and administrative matters in the period between an election and inauguration when control of the White House switches from Republicans to Democrats or vice versa.

Pai has not publicly committed to stopping work on controversial items. But the spectrum decision is less controversial than many other FCC actions. The spectrum change is supported by all five FCC commissioners, both Republicans and Democrats. But the two Democratic commissioners voted to "concur" instead of approving outright, saying the FCC should have waited longer in order to settle disputes with other federal agencies.

US Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) yesterday urged Pai to hold off, saying the proposal "does not adequately address the myriad issues raised by stakeholders, especially those raised by other federal agencies like the Department of Transportation (DOT)."

"Further, with the upcoming change in Administration and FCC leadership, your agency should not move forward on complex and controversial items in which the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest," Cantwell wrote, arguing that the FCC should "work with the Department of Transportation and affected stakeholders to resolve their concerns before finalizing a rule that could have a significant and harmful impact on transportation safety."

“Regrettable”

FCC Democrats Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks both said at today's meeting that the FCC should have abided by Cantwell's request. Rosenworcel called it "regrettable" that the decision has "less than unanimous support from our federal partners." Starks said it "is exasperating that once again, different agencies in the same administration can't get on the same page."

"We should have taken more time to clear this up, just as we have been asked to do by the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and for this reason, I will concur," Rosenworcel said.

The DOT wrote to Pai on November 6, arguing that 30MHz isn't enough for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications, and that the FCC is prematurely declaring that C-V2X will replace DSRC:

FCC is compounding the harm to V2X by choosing to cast aside Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), a proven technology that has already been deployed in vehicles and infrastructure across the country, and to adopt cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) as the sole permissible technology to support V2X applications.

Other opponents of the plan include the 5G Automotive Association (5GAA), the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Car 2 Car Communication Consortium (Car 2 Car), and Toyota. These entities "generally contend that all 75 megahertz is needed for ITS," the FCC said. But Pai said that only 20MHz of the 5.9GHz band is currently dedicated to safety applications.

Spectrum will “supersize Wi-Fi”

Despite objections, the spectrum reallocation has a lot of support among parties that often disagree on controversial telecom-regulation matters. Consumer-advocacy group Public Knowledge applauded the vote, saying it "will allow existing equipment to support gigabit Wi-Fi necessary for telemedicine, multiple education streams, and other valuable services" and "allow wireless Internet service providers in rural areas to dramatically increase the stability and bandwidth of connections to the home."

Cable-lobby group NCTA also supported the FCC decision, saying that the "sensible compromise will bring faster Wi-Fi to American homes and businesses when they need it most."

US Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) agreed, saying that "the pandemic has made clear that Americans depend on Wi-Fi for telehealth, remote learning, and working from home" and that "unlicensed spectrum is the underappreciated workhorse of spectrum policy" that helps deliver better home-Internet experiences to Americans.

"Given the balanced approach we are taking today, I am pleased with the support we have garnered across the political spectrum from the Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge to Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, and National Taxpayers Union," Pai said. He also pointed to support from broadband and Wi-Fi industry groups, support from Congressional Democrats, and "recognition from forward-looking automotive interests that our decision today provides a path for C-V2X deployment."

“Performative” requests

Requests for delay are merely "performative," Pai said. "The sad fact is that DSRC has done virtually nothing to improve automobile safety," he said. "A few corporate interests cannot squat on this spectrum for a generation and expect to maintain a stranglehold on it just by giving it the empty slogan of the 'safety spectrum.' Nearly two decades of failure is more than enough."

The new 45MHz can be combined with the adjacent 5.725-5.850GHz band to create a larger block "that could accommodate a variety of options—including two 80-megahertz Wi-Fi channels, four 40-megahertz Wi-Fi channels, or a single contiguous 160-megahertz Wi-Fi channel," the FCC said.

Though Democrats called on Pai to wait until the presidential transition, they had positive words for the proposal. Freeing up 45MHz "will supersize Wi-Fi, a technology so many of us are relying on like never before," Rosenworcel said. Starks called the spectrum reassignment an important step toward reducing congestion "and ensuring that we realize the full potential of our broadband connections." In addition to improving home Wi-Fi, the extra 45MHz will benefit public Wi-Fi networks that are relied upon by many people without good Internet access at home, he said.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-on-5ghz-band/





Apple, After Outcry, Makes ‘Peanuts’ Holiday Specials Available on PBS

The tech giant, which recently gained exclusive rights to the widely beloved “Peanuts” specials, said they would air on public airwaves again this year.
Daniel Victor

It was all too fitting that an anti-commercialism Christmas classic, broadcast over the public airwaves every year since 1965, would be sidelined in 2020 to a paid streaming service operated by a tech giant.

Such was the widespread reaction in October when Apple TV Plus obtained the exclusive rights to the “Peanuts” catalog, including the widely beloved “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” not to mention “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” and “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.” It meant families could no longer watch the holiday specials on ABC — they would have to be streamed on the service Apple has been pushing since its debut last November.

To many, including the more than 260,000 people who signed a petition, it was a theft of holiday traditions befitting of grinches and blockheads, even though Apple would make the specials available for free for a few days under its agreement with the companies that own “Peanuts.”

On Wednesday, Apple eased its grip on the shows, announcing a deal that would allow PBS to show ad-free versions of the Thanksgiving special on Sunday and the Christmas special on Dec. 13. The announcement did not say whether the specials would return to public television after 2020.

But for this year, at least, it was the kind of tale that may have fit in the 1965 Christmas special, long praised as being ahead of its time in its anti-consumerism message. In the 25-minute production — spoilers ahead, if you haven’t gotten around to watching it in the past 55 years — Charlie Brown, dealing with a bit of seasonal depression, confesses he just can’t catch the Christmas fever like everyone else.

“Charlie Brown, you’re the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem,” his friend Linus tells him.

Charlie dismays at his sister, Sally, saying all she wants “is my fair share,” and at Linus’s sister, Lucy, complaining about her gifts while what she really wants is real estate.

“Look, Charlie, let’s face it,” Lucy tells him. “We all know that Christmas is a big commercial racket.”

Without going into a full plot synopsis, they break out some fierce dance moves, a Bible verse is recited, a slight tree is decorated nicely, and Christmas is saved.

The Apple-PBS deal was struck too late to save this year’s showing of the “Great Pumpkin” for Halloween, prompting murmurs of discontent among those saddened at the loss of what had long been a nationwide communal experience. It was the first time since 1966 the special didn’t air on network TV.

The Thanksgiving special, sandwiched between its slightly more popular neighbors, first aired in 1973.

Gaining the “Peanuts” collection, the legacy of the popular cartoonist Charles Schulz, was seen as a coup for Apple TV Plus, the $5-a-month streaming service on which Apple has bet big and positioned as a competitor to streaming services like Netflix, Amazon and Disney Plus. It still has less content than its competitors, but has banked on creating can’t-miss exclusive shows.

As part of its deal with “Peanuts,” Apple will be producing a new season of “Snoopy in Space” and new holiday specials celebrating Mother’s Day, Earth Day and New Year’s Eve.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/a...apple-pbs.html





Star Wars Legend Alan Dean Foster Says Disney Is Withholding Book Royalties
bethelderkin
Beth Elderkin

The man who helped start Star Wars’ literary universe as we know it is now saying Disney is failing to pay up.

Alan Dean Foster is the man behind several Star Wars and Alien movie novelizations, including Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America organization is standing with him over claims that Disney is not paying royalties for some of his earlier, classic works. The SFWA released a statement and interview on Wednesday in support of Foster, which includes a letter from the sci-fi author to Disney’s representatives (which you can read here).

In his letter, Foster claims that in the years following Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm, the company has stopped royalty payments for Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, his ghostwritten novelization of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (credited to George Lucas). He said the same for the follow-up novel Splinter of the Mind’s Eye. It was designed to serve as a possible sequel film if A New Hope didn’t do great at the box office, but is now considered the first installment in the now non-canonical Star Wars Expanded Universe.

Foster’s complaints go beyond the galaxy far, far away, however. The author’s letter also states that Disney failed to pay royalties entirely for his Alien novelizations, which the company acquired after the purchase of 20th Century Fox in 2019. He noted that he and his agent have tried to negotiate with Disney to resolve it all—mainly because he and his wife have ongoing medical issues and the royalties would help with bills—only for Disney to ask Foster to sign an NDA before talks could even commence. Here’s part of his letter sent to the company:

“When you purchased Lucasfilm you acquired the rights to some books I wrote. Star Wars, the novelization of the very first film. Splinter of the Mind’s Eye, the first sequel novel. You owe me royalties on these books. You stopped paying them.

When you purchased 20th Century Fox, you eventually acquired the rights to other books I had written. The novelizations of Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3. You’ve never paid royalties on any of these, or even issued royalty statements for them.

All these books are all still very much in print. They still earn money. For you. When one company buys another, they acquire its liabilities as well as its assets. You’re certainly reaping the benefits of the assets. I’d very much like my miniscule (though it’s not small to me) share.”

SFWA president Mary Robinette Kowal also shared her own letter in the press release, saying that the organization chose to go public with the accusations because the situation is unprecedented—not just because it’s impacting a prolific sci-fi writer with decades of experience in the industry who helped form Star Wars’ literary voice, but because SFWA is worried this problem could happen to other writers in the future. Authors who don’t have the same reputation Foster does and, therefore, may not have the resources to fight back.

“The larger problem has the potential to affect every writer. Disney’s argument is that they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract. In other words, they believe they have the right to publish work, but are not obligated to pay the writer no matter what the contract says. If we let this stand, it could set precedent to fundamentally alter the way copyright and contracts operate in the United States. All a publisher would have to do to break a contract would be to sell it to a sibling company,” Kowal wrote.

SFWA is asking Disney to either pay Foster for back and future royalties or cease publication—either permanently or until new contracts can be signed. The group is also asking any other writers who may have had the same experience with Disney to come forward.

Countless authors—including those who’ve written for Disney and Star Wars specifically—have already taken to social media in support of Foster as well using the hashtags #DearMickey #DisneyMustPay. We’ve reached out to Disney for comment, and we’ll let you know should we hear back.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-wars-le...hho-1845713991

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

November 14th, November 7th, October 31st, October 24th

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 offline   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 - November 24th, '12 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 21-11-12 09:20 AM
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 - 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 10:14 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)