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 15-07-22, 06:14 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 - July 16th, 22

Since 2002































July 16th, 2022




EE to Block Mobile Music Piracy Sites and Apps

“EE believe in supporting content creators by combatting piracy across both our mobile and fixed networks”
Ali Shutler

It’s been announced that EE will become the first mobile provider in the UK to block mobile music piracy sites and apps.

Back in 2012, the BPI (British Phonographic Institute) successfully petitioned the courts to block file-sharing site The Pirate Bay, with home broadband providers ordered to ban an additional 70 sites that allowed people to download music illegally.

And today (July 12) EE has decided to extend that ban from fixed line broadband networks to include its mobile networks as well.

Speaking to the BBC, an EE spokesperson said: “Historically the majority of piracy took place on fixed line networks, but as network speeds increase and content file sizes for music decreases, mobile networks are seeing a rise in piracy. EE believe in supporting content creators by combatting piracy across both our mobile and fixed networks.”

Last year, it was revealed that UK customers have taken out over 85 million mobile phone subscriptions. “There are now more mobile subscriptions than people in the UK,” said BPI General Counsel Kiaron Whitehead. “And we want those fans to enjoy genuine music sites and be protected from illegal sites as much as they already are on their broadband and wi-fi.”

BPI estimates that online piracy currently costs the record industry £200 million a year, with that figure set to rise as mobile data usage increases. According to the BPI, a quarter of people now connect to the internet over 3G, 4G and 5G rather than broadband and wi-fi.

“Mobile data connections are faster and more reliable than ever,” said Whitehead. “That growth brings with it the risk of increased music piracy. The operators of these pirate sites make millions of pounds a year, without a penny going to the creators of the music they exploit. We are therefore pleased that EE – which was the first mobile network to launch 5G to the UK population – has now become the first mobile network to block pirate sites which are subject to our High Court blocking Orders under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”

Earlier this month, it was announced that Travis Barker and Aitch would be among a host of artists set to launch new NFTs with LimeWire, as the file sharing site relaunches as a crypto marketplace.

The popular peer-to-peer file sharing service was ordered to be shut down in 2010 following a court injunction that was issued by US federal court judge Kimba Wood.

LimeWire is now set to return in its new guise as “a one-stop marketplace for artists and fans alike to create, buy and trade digital collectibles without the technical crypto requirements of the current NFT landscape”.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/ee-to...d-apps-3267496





A Copyright Lawsuit Threatens to Kill Free Access to Internet Archive’s Library of Books

Four corporate publishers claim that the non-profit online library violates copyright. Internet Archive says what it's doing is fair use.
Charlotte Hu

Internet Archive, a non-profit digital library and a massive repository of online artifacts, has been collecting mementos of the ever-expanding World Wide Web for over two decades, allowing users to revisit sites that have since been changed or deleted. But like the web, it too has evolved since its genesis, and in the aughts, it also began to offer a selection of ebooks that any internet user can check out with the creation of a free account.

That latter feature has gotten the organization in some trouble. Internet Archive was sued by a suite of four corporate publishers in 2020 over copyright controversies—with one side saying that what Internet Archive does is preservation, and the other saying that it’s piracy, since it freely distributes books as image files without compensating the author.

Last week, the ongoing case entered a new chapter as the nonprofit organization filed a motion for summary judgment, asking a federal judge to put a stop to the lawsuit, arguing that their Controlled Digital Lending program “is a lawful fair use that preserves traditional library lending in the digital world” since “each book loaned via CDL has already been bought and paid for.” On Friday, Creative Commons issued a statement supporting Internet Archive’s motion.

The public libraries in your local neighborhood usually partner with platforms like Overdrive, Libby, Hoopla, and Cloud Library to provide digital copies of books that they can loan out. But these library ebooks are part of a surprisingly complex and lucrative financial structure (Daniel A. Gross’ piece in The New Yorker deep dives into the business behind library ebooks). Additionally, users must login to these services with an existing library card number.

Internet Archive works a little differently. Anyone can create a free account and start browsing materials like books, movies, software, music, websites and more.

The site’s beginning dates back to 1996, when Internet Archive was first established as a way to maintain “a historical record of the World Wide Web.” Its mission is to “provide Universal Access to All Knowledge,” including to researchers, historians, scholars, people with print disabilities like low vision and dyslexia, and the general public. One of its popular tools, The Wayback Machine, has offered nostalgic glimpses of what the publicly available web used to look like before sites went offline or were reconstructed. And it’s no easy task, as content on the internet today balloons at an exponential rate.

In 2006, Internet Archive started a program for digitizing books both under copyright and in the public domain. It works with a range of global partners, including other libraries, to scan materials onto its site (Cornell University made a handy guide on what works fall under copyright vs. the public domain). For copyrighted books, Internet Archive owns the physical books that they created the digital copies from and limits their circulation by allowing only one person to borrow a title at a time.

Book publishers, namely Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, John Wiley Sons, and Penguin Random House, were not keen on this practice, and they have been seeking financial damages for the 127 books shared under copyright. Vox estimated that if the publishers win, Internet Archive would have to pay $19 million, which is about “one year of operating revenue.”

In the most recent filings, the publishers accused Internet Archive of amassing “a collection of more than three million unauthorized in-copyright ebooks – including more than 33,000 of the Publishers’ commercially available titles – without obtaining licenses to do so or paying the rightsholders a cent for exploiting their works. Anybody in the world with an internet connection can instantaneously access these stolen works via IA’s interrelated archive.org and openlibrary.org websites.”

In its defense, Internet Archive, which is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that “libraries have been practicing CDL in one form or another for more than a decade,” and that Internet Archive lends its digitized books on an “owned-to-loaned basis, backstopped by strong technical protections to enforce lending limits.”

“CDL makes it easier for patrons who live far from a brick-and-mortar library, or who have print disabilities, to access books. It supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation in myriad ways,” EFF and Internet Archive wrote in a memorandum.
Additionally, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle told Vox in 2020 that “when nonprofit libraries have been sued in the past for helping their patrons access their collections, courts have ruled that they were engaging in fair use, as in the HathiTrust case.” A similar ruling was issued for a lawsuit against Google Books.

Interested in checking out Internet Archive further? Head over to their site to peruse their catalog of content.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/in...chive-lawsuit/





Maine Gets $100M to Broaden Internet Access to Rural Areas
AP

Maine will receive $100 million in federal funding to expand high-speed internet to people living in rural areas of the state, lawmakers said.

Lawmakers and federal officials from the U.S. Treasury announced Thursday that the money will come from the American Rescue Plan that was signed into law last year by President Joe Biden, The Portland Press Herald reported.

Supporters of the initiative like Sen. Angus King said that the expansion is a way for more students to learn at home where some may not have internet. It will also give a quarter of Mainers, who live in rural areas, access to the internet and to more economic opportunities.

Maine should receive the money this fall and will be allocated by the Maine Connectivity Authority, King said.

Mainers will also be allocated another $300 million later this year for expanding high-speed connections through the infrastructure bill signed last year, ensuring most of the state has access to high-speed internet, King said.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-tec...a9d94a761454ec





Kansas Receives $83.5M to Expand High-Speed Internet Service
AP

Kansas has received $83.5 million in federal coronavirus relief funds for projects that are expected to connect more than 21,000 homes and businesses to high-speed internet service, federal officials announced Thursday.

The money for Kansas is part of $10 billion in funds for capital improvement projects for states, territories and Native American tribal governments, the U.S. Treasury Department said. The projects are supposed to allow them to monitor health, work and education.

U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, who represents a Kansas district covering much of the Kansas City area, said 173,000 Kansas residents lack home broadband service and 307,000 don’t have access to reliable internet service.

“This federal funding will help close the digital gap and keep our communities connected,” Davids said in a statement.

The money will be distributed through a competitive grant program overseen by the state Department of Commerce.
https://apnews.com/article/technolog...cefe3dafb7367e





FCC Chair Proposes Raising Broadband Standard to 100Mbps

She also wants to set a 1Gbps standard for the future.
Jon Fingas

The FCC's 25Mbps broadband standard seemed fast in 2015, but that was seven years ago — and the agency's current leadership believes it's time to raise that baseline. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has proposed raising the minimum definition of broadband to 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps for uploads. The previous 25/3 benchmark is both outdated and hides just how many low-income and rural internet users are being "left behind and left offline," Rosenworcel said.

The chair said multiple pieces of evidence supported the hike, including requirements for new network construction stemming from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The FCC had already proposed upgrades to rural speeds through a special program, but this would affect the definition of broadband regardless of where users live in the country.

Rosenworcel also wanted the minimum speed to evolve over time. She proposed setting a much higher standard of 1Gbps down and 500Mbps up for some point in the future. The leader further suggested more criteria for determining the "reasonable and timely" rollout of broadband, including adoption rates, affordability, availability and equitable access.

It's unclear if the standards change will move forward. Ars Technica notes any proposed upgrade would require a vote, and the current commission is deadlocked with two Democrats and two Republics. As the Senate has done little to advance commissioner nominee Gigi Sohn, there's no guarantee Rosenworcel (a Democrat) will get her way. Telecoms might not be thrilled, either. Comcast only last year raised the speed of its $10 Essentials tier to 50Mbps downstream — it and other carriers might have to invest in better networks to reach the 100Mbps minimum in some areas, let alone a possible 1Gbps threshold.
https://www.engadget.com/fcc-chairwo...181617127.html





EU Lawmakers Slam “Radical Proposal“ to let ISPs Demand New fees from Websites

New fees for websites and online applications would be a disaster, MEPs say.
Jon Brodkin

Fifty-four members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are protesting what they call a "radical proposal" to require payments from online service providers to Internet service providers.

Noting that Europe's 2015 "Open Internet Regulation ensures that citizens are free to use whichever apps and websites they wish," the MEPs said they have "deep concern about the European Commission's plans to change our net neutrality legislation in the upcoming Connectivity Infrastructure Act to be proposed in autumn, without having consulted the public, technology experts, academics, civil society, or expert regulatory agencies."

No specific proposal has been released, but "statements to the press indicate that a new provision would require payments from online service providers to broadband providers—ostensibly to fund the rollout of 5G and fiber to the home," the MEPs wrote in the letter yesterday to the European Commission.

The letter cited a May 2 Reuters article that said, "Tech giants such as Google, Meta, and Netflix may have to bear some of the cost of Europe's telecoms network, Europe's digital chief Margrethe Vestager said on Monday, following EU telecoms operators' complaints." The MEPs' list of references also includes two Ars Technica articles from 2012 when a similar proposal was being discussed.

Vestager reportedly said at a news conference that "there are players who generate a lot of traffic that then enables their business but who have not been contributing actually to enable that traffic. They have not been contributing to enabling the investments in the rollout of connectivity... and we are in the process of getting a thorough understanding of how could that be enabled."

European ISPs sought payments from Big Tech

Despite claims by some that Big Tech gets a "free ride," websites and other online service providers pay for their own Internet access and in some cases build extensive network infrastructure to carry Internet traffic part of the way to broadband users. But ISPs that deliver content directly to Internet users over the so-called "last mile" of the network have clamored for extra payments from websites to help cover their costs, in addition to the payments they already get from home and business Internet customers. In November 2021, the CEOs of 13 large European telecom companies called on tech giants to pay for a portion of the Internet service providers' network upgrade costs.

"Large telecom companies have tried for decades to require compensation from content providers for providing access to customers, despite the fact that the telecom companies are already being paid by their own customers to provide access," the 54 members of the 705-seat European Parliament wrote. Letting ISPs collect these payments "would reverse decades of successful Internet economics by requiring the providers of websites and applications to pay fees to ISPs that have never existed before," and "abolish key net neutrality guarantees that Europeans fought hard for," they wrote.

Complaining about an alleged lack of transparency, the letter said, "no one outside the Commission has been able to evaluate the announced proposal of access fees. To us it sounds very similar to ones that have been rejected many times already."

The 2012 European proposal was ditched, and "every strong net neutrality regime has banned these fees, including in the EU, India, the US, and California," they wrote. (US net neutrality rules were repealed, but the California ones remain in effect after judges rejected ISPs' attempts to overturn them.)

MEPs warn against broadband monopoly power

The MEPs' letter further argued that charging websites for access to broadband consumers would help ISPs abuse their monopolies:

Adopting a model that allows for or mandates access fees would be a disastrous return to the economic model for telephony, where telecommunications companies and countries leveraged their termination access monopolies to make communication expensive. Because phone companies had a monopoly over their customers, they could charge exorbitant prices to anyone seeking to call their customers.

Broadband providers have the same monopoly over their customers. Allowing them to charge content providers for access could cause significant harm to the Internet economy.


The MEPs also doubt such fees would improve broadband connectivity, saying that "factors such as permits or construction capacities can act as more severe barriers than lack of funding." They urged the European Commission to take its time and open an official consultation, saying, "There is no emergency that requires action in autumn 2022."

FCC Republican wants Big Tech to pay “fair share”

In the US, Republican Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed making Big Tech pay what he calls a "fair share" into the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF), which gives grants to ISPs to build in unserved or underserved areas. The USF is paid for by US residents through surcharges on phone bills, and the FCC in December 2021 sought comment on how to sustain the program in a proceeding that was required by Congress. In response to the FCC inquiry, telecom industry lobby group USTelecom wrote in February that "providers of broadband-enabled services benefit significantly from [telecom companies'] investment without contributing to the construction and maintenance costs of the networks that make their services possible."

Potential changes to the USF funding mechanism include requiring fees on broadband service in addition to phone service or Carr's suggestion of charging Big Tech companies. USTelecom told the FCC, "Those who argue for expanding to include consumer broadband services alone without including a broader base of revenues from the broadband-enabled Internet economy are settling for an incremental, short-term fix and missing the opportunity for creating a long-term, stable foundation."

Cable lobby group NCTA told the FCC that requiring payments from broadband providers "would almost certainly result in new passed-through fees not previously assessed on these services" and "place downward pressure on broadband demand and potentially depress adoption." Major changes to the USF model could require action by both the FCC and Congress.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...work-upgrades/





UK’s Online Safety Bill on Pause Pending New PM
Natasha Lomas

A major populist but controversial piece of U.K. legislation to regulate internet content through a child safety-focused frame is on pause until the fall when the government expects to elect a new prime minister, following the resignation of Boris Johnson as Conservative Party leader last week.

PoliticsHome reported yesterday that the Online Safety Bill would be dropped from House of Commons business next week with a view to being returned in the autumn.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) denied the legislation was being dropped altogether but the fate of the bill will clearly now rest with the new prime minister — and their appetite for regulating online speech.

Reached for comment, DCMS confirmed that the bill’s final day of report stage will be rescheduled to after the summer recess — suggesting it had lost out to competing demands for remaining parliamentary time (without specifying to what).

“The Online Safety Bill will continue its journey through the House of Commons in the autumn as a result of the parliamentary timetable,” a DCMS spokesperson told us.

The department also made a point of reiterating that the legislation intends to deliver on the government’s manifesto commitment to make the U.K. the safest place in the world to be online while defending freedom of speech.

But critics of the bill continue to warn it vastly overreaches on content regulation while saddling the U.K.’s digital sector with crippling compliance costs.

Digital rights groups have seized on the bill’s ‘pausing’ to urge a rethink, while child safety groups and the opposition Labour Party have decried the latest delay in legislation that’s already been years in the making.

Index on Censorship called the bill “fundamentally broken”, with CEO, Ruth Smeeth, telling the BBC: “The next prime minister needs a total rethink. It would give tech executives like Nick Clegg and Mark Zuckerberg massive amounts of control over what we all can say online, would make the U.K. the first democracy in the world to break encrypted messaging apps, and it would make people who have experienced abuse online less safe by forcing platforms to delete vital evidence.”

The call was echoed by the Open Rights Group’s CEO, Jim Killock, who dubbed the bill “a mess” — arguing in a tweet that it “threatens to implement pervasive monitoring and limit legal speech”.

But in a response given to the BBC, children’s charity, the NSPCC, said passing laws to protect minors online remains “crucial” and “vital” — adding that “this legislation should be a cornerstone of any government’s duty to keep the most vulnerable in our society safe”.

In a statement responding to the delay, the Samaritans also urged the government to “ensure it prioritises making the Online Safety Bill law as soon as possible otherwise we lose an opportunity to save lives with every day that passes”.

Earlier abortive government plans to mandate age checks for accessing pornography websites (dating back to Digital Economy Act 2017) — which were dropped in 2019, after a string of delays — had been revived in the Online Safety Bill, meaning some of the provisions in the bill date back around five years at this point but still haven’t made it into law.

Other provisions date back a few days as the government has been coming with a steady flow of amendments and additions — which critics argue is another sign the bill is an incoherent mess.

A fresh delay to the legislation caused by a change of Tory leader — and potentially a change of government if an election is called sooner than expected — could further stall progress.

Remarks by one leadership hopeful, Kemi Badenoch, critizing the legislation — including in her launch speech earlier this week, when she said the government should “not be legislating for hurt feelings”; and in follow up comments on Twitter yesterday where she appeared to suggest she favored dropping the bill entirely, saying it’s in “no fit state to become law” — quickly stirred up internecine ‘blue-on-blue’ fighting, with Nadine Dorries, the current (but perhaps not for much longer) sectary of state at DCMS, tweeting back at Badenoch to ask her for the receipts to underpin her claim.

Which part of the bill legislates for hurt feelings, Kemi? https://t.co/GQtzi4OuXd

— Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) July 13, 2022

Damian Collins, a fresh-in-post DCMS minister for tech and the digital economy — as a result of Johnson plugging gaps in government posts following the droves of resignations that preceded his own — also tweeted pointedly to rebut Badenoch. His brief at the department includes delivering the Online Safety Bill (though it’s anyone’s guess whether he’ll survive a future leader’s ministerial reshuffling).

“This is completely wrong,” Collins told her in a directed tweet, before pressing her to stand up her claim that the bill requires the removal of legal speech. He went on to argue — to the contrary — that the bill enables the government, for the first time, to “set safety standards online based on our laws” — before adding: “Why would you want to stop that.”

While Badenoch hasn’t (so far) offered any references to back up her critique of the bill, tech industry watchers and IT law and policy experts were quick to offer up some specific examples to fill the vacuum…

Thar's been a murrrdurrrr. pic.twitter.com/6cFWhgKjEi

— Heather Burns (@WebDevLaw) July 14, 2022

And what are your thoughts on the new ‘harmful communications’ offence, and how platforms would be supposed to adjudge it? https://t.co/nLfu0DXVIp

— Graham Smith (@cyberleagle) July 13, 2022

While such public disputes don’t make the government look unified, Badenoch, a relative unknown — who hails from the rightwing of the Tory Party — is considered to have a slim chance at winning the leadership contest.

Former chancellor Rishi Sunak is still considered the front runner but trade minister, Penny Mordaunt, generated the most momentum after yesterday’s ballot of Tory members — with 67 backers vs Sunak’s 88 — and she (currently) looks to have the best shot at grabbing the crucial second place slot.

However there are still a number of further ballots to go to slim the field.

Only the top two candidates will be put forward to the wider Conservative Party membership for a final vote this summer to decide who will be party leader and prime minister.

That person — the next U.K. prime minister — is expected to be in post by early September.

It’s worth noting that neither Sunak nor Mordaunt has focused on attacking the Online Safety Bill — thus far — in their leadership campaigns.

Indeed, Collins, who remains a staunch backer of the bill, has come out for Mordaunt. And in a fresh tweet, sent in the last few minutes, he says he’s had confirmation from the trade minister that if she becomes prime minister she will “continue” with the bill.

.@PennyMordaunt has confirmed to me that as Prime Minister she would continue with our world leading Online Safety Bill – just one of the many reasons that I am supporting her to be the next leader of the Conservative Party #PM4PM #OnlineSafetyBill

— Damian Collins (@DamianCollins) July 14, 2022

Sunak’s position on the Online Safety Bill is less clear but he was in cabinet when the legislation was introduced to parliament so has been, collectively, working to pass it alongside his (then) cabinet colleagues (including Dorries, the bill’s biggest champion). So he does not look like an obvious candidate to make gutting the legislation a priority, were he to win.

His leadership launch speech also included a reference to the problem of the disproportionate amount of abuse directed at women and girls — and amping up protections for women and girls has been a claimed aim for the bill (whether it could deliver is another matter). Hence, for example, the addition of a new law against cyberflashing which the government announced in March.

In any case, if the leadership race ends up as a run off between Sunak and Mordaunt, polls of Conservative Party members suggest she would easily see off the former chancellor.

While Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, who placed third with 50 votes in the last MPs ballot — meaning she may also stand a chance of getting into the last two — has gained Dorries’ (very public) endorsement. Truss was also in cabinet when the bill was introduced. So reports of the death of the Online Safety Bill may prove premature.

Additionally, given how much cross-party support there is for safety legislation any prime minister who moved to scrapped the plan entirely would face no shortage of criticism from within parliament — as well as risking anger from voters if they are perceived to be failing on child safety — which may also give the next leader, whoever they are, pause for thought.

For now, though, the bloated, ‘kitchen sink’ bill is yet another casualty of the post-Brexit chaos that’s just sunk its third Tory PM in six years.

This report was updated with additional comment
https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/14/on...ty-bill-pause/












Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

July 9th, July 2nd, June 25th, June 18th

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 - July 30th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-07-11 06:58 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 - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 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 02:22 PM.


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)